tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post2934633702873163325..comments2017-01-18T09:12:28.035-08:00Comments on DVD Bach's Blog: DefinitionsDVD Bachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-47831846101808191202013-03-20T12:18:42.689-07:002013-03-20T12:18:42.689-07:00Thoughts for Young Men said:
"The Bible has *... Thoughts for Young Men said:<br />"The Bible has *never* been shown to be incorrect by any outside source (archaeology, other ancient writings, etc.).<br /> We can look at the prophecies against Tyre and Egypt for starters. Both events never happened.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-36473165664257727672013-03-14T07:15:17.739-07:002013-03-14T07:15:17.739-07:00You're right; I was interpreting atmosphere as...You're right; I was interpreting atmosphere as something breathable by humans. There would have been gasses surrounding the earth at that time.<br /><br />However, as my "Shame on Me" post details, that doesn't matter anyway.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-4031184213968287822013-03-14T06:46:52.972-07:002013-03-14T06:46:52.972-07:00I'll go check out "Shame On Me" righ...I'll go check out "Shame On Me" right now.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-78497379753356792972013-03-14T06:45:59.034-07:002013-03-14T06:45:59.034-07:00Could you please provide a reference for that? Th...Could you please provide a reference for that? There is nothing in the Wikipedia article that mentions the atmosphere one way or another. The water is said to have come during "The last stage of rocky planet formation".<br /><br />In any case, since the article clearly says there was water above the earth at that time in its formation, how do you know there is not still water above the atmosphere? Are you saying that all the water which was in the asteroid belt during the earth's formation came to earth before the atmosphere formed? I'd love to see the evidence for that.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-49230707609688635692013-03-13T17:11:24.644-07:002013-03-13T17:11:24.644-07:00...but you know what? Let's just say, for the......but you know what? Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you're right. Please see my latest blog entry for my response to that idea.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-4274681177190935802013-03-13T15:27:50.721-07:002013-03-13T15:27:50.721-07:00Except that there was no atmosphere at that point ...Except that there was no atmosphere at that point in the process. Sorry.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-29387610849994813142013-03-13T15:11:28.296-07:002013-03-13T15:11:28.296-07:00"Some of the embryos, which originated in the..."Some of the embryos, which originated in the asteroid belt, are thought to have brought water to Earth."<br /><br />The above statement was in the Wikipedia article you referenced. That sounds like water above the atmosphere to me.<br /><br />I guess that settles it. The Bible is right after all.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-15490360283026900762013-03-13T13:49:13.934-07:002013-03-13T13:49:13.934-07:00"I have no reason to provide a different mode..."I have no reason to provide a different model at this time."<br />Then we agree that the one provided is the best one.<br /><br />"You're just speculating."<br />No, YOU'RE speculating. The experts are basing their opinions on the evidence. When YOU have evidence that they're wrong, I'll have a look. Until then, the Bible's wrong about this. End of discussion until you provide evidence that the prevailing model is inaccurate.<br /><br />"Does the model exclude the possibility of water above the atmosphere? I didn't see that, but maybe I missed it. If it's there, please point it out. "<br />At no point in the process of planetary formation would the laws of physics allow there to be water above the atmosphere. If you disagree, point out where in the process it's possible. Until then, end of discussion.<br /><br />"I never said that the United States is officially in law a "Christian Nation". "<br />Good, then we can put that nonsense to rest.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-91051948837255707732013-03-13T13:17:26.446-07:002013-03-13T13:17:26.446-07:00"If you have a better model, let's see it..."If you have a better model, let's see it. And please explain why I should take your word over the experts'."<br /><br />I have no reason to provide a different model at this time. If you can overcome your problems with the point below, I'll go ahead and propose a different model. But that really won't settle the issue anyway. How would we know which model is correct? That's my point. You're just speculating. You don't have any proof that the Bible is incorrect on this or any other point.<br /><br />"Actually, it does. Nowhere in the process described is there water above the atmosphere. If you believe there was, let's see your evidence."<br /><br />That is an argument from silence. Does the model exclude the possibility of water above the atmosphere? I didn't see that, but maybe I missed it. If it's there, please point it out. Otherwise you're just speculating.<br /><br />About America being a Christian nation, and the Bible being the foundation of our legal system, I never said that the United States is officially in law a "Christian Nation". Actually, I wasn't speaking of the governing documents of the nation (the Constitution, which I have previously said is an anti-Christian document). My point is similar to what Justice Brewer meant by his statement that "this is a Christian nation." Whatever he did mean, he most definitely did not mean, "The United States is in absolutely in no way, shape, or form based on the Bible."Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-8542837319696598832013-03-13T12:38:49.131-07:002013-03-13T12:38:49.131-07:00"First of all, that is just a hypothesis, not..."First of all, that is just a hypothesis, not a known fact (even if it is the most widely accepted model)."<br />If you have a better model, let's see it. And please explain why I should take your word over the experts'.<br /><br />"Secondly, even if it were true, that hypothesis does not rule out the possibility of there ever having been water above the earth's atmosphere."<br />Actually, it does. Nowhere in the process described is there water above the atmosphere. If you believe there was, let's see your evidence.<br /><br />On this "Christian nation" nonsense:<br />Your sources suffer from foundational bias and are thus unreliable.<br /><br />Also, you left out an important detail about the Supreme Court opinion that Justice Brewer wrote:<br />"Justice Brewer published a book in 1905, titled The United States: A Christian Nation, in which he disagreed with the interpretation of the court's decision as a statement or endorsement by the Supreme Court that the United States is officially in law a "Christian Nation""<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Trinity_v._United_States<br /><br />Finally, since the Founding Fathers didn't see fit to integrate that set of state statutes into the governing documents of the nation, I don't really care what Massachusetts did on its own; it doesn't support your claim, which was about the nation as a whole.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-6804240624781908332013-03-13T11:45:41.864-07:002013-03-13T11:45:41.864-07:00I checked the Wikipedia article you referenced. I...I checked the Wikipedia article you referenced. It begins:<br />"In cosmogony, the nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model explaining the formation and evolution of the Solar System."<br /><br />A few observations. First of all, that is just a hypothesis, not a known fact (even if it is the most widely accepted model). No human observed the formation of the earth. Secondly, even if it were true, that hypothesis does not rule out the possibility of there ever having been water above the earth's atmosphere.<br /><br />Regarding the Christian history of the U.S. court system, see:<br />THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT<br />HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S.<br />143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226<br />Feb. 29, 1892<br />In this decision, the court declared, "this is a Christian nation."<br />http://vftonline.org/TestOath/HolyTrinityOp1-2.htm<br /><br />See also http://isamericaachristiannation.org/<br /><br />The "United States" was formed from individual States.<br /><br />Consider the first legal code established in New England, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/masslib.html). It is full of Biblical language and references.<br /><br />Here is part of Section 94 (and yes, the Bible references were in the original text).<br /><br /> 94. Capitall Laws. <br /> 1. <br />(Deut. 13. 6, 10. Deut. 17. 2, 6. Ex. 22.20)<br />If any man after legall conviction shall have or worship any other god, but the lord god, he shall be put to death.<br /><br /> 2. <br />(Ex. 22. 18. Lev. 20. 27. Dut. 18. 10.)<br />If any man or woeman be a witch, (that is hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit,) They shall be put to death.<br /><br /> 3. <br />(Lev. 24. 15,16.)<br />If any person shall Blaspheme the name of god, the father, Sonne or Holie Ghost, with direct, expresse, presumptuous or high handed blasphemie, or shall curse god in the like manner, he shall be put to death.<br /><br /> 4. <br />(Ex. 21. 12. Numb. 35. 13, 14, 30, 31.)<br />If any person committ any wilfull murther, which is manslaughter, committed upon premeditated malice, hatred, or Crueltie, not in a mans necessarie and just defence, nor by meere casualtie against his will, he shall be put to death.<br /><br /> 5. <br />(Numb. 25, 20, 21. Lev. 24. 17)<br />If any person slayeth an other suddaienly in his anger or Crueltie of passion, he shall be put to death.<br /><br /> 6. <br />(Ex. 21. 14.)<br />If any person shall slay an other through guile, either by poysoning or other such divelish practice, he shall be put to death.<br /><br /> 7. <br />(Lev. 20. 15,16.)<br />If any man or woeman shall lye with any beaste or bruite creature by Carnall Copulation, They shall surely be put to death. And the beast shall be slaine, and buried and not eaten.<br /><br /> 8. <br />(Lev. 20. 13.)<br />If any man lyeth with mankinde as he lyeth with a woeman, both of them have committed abhomination, they both shall surely be put to death.<br /><br /> 9. <br />Lev. 20. 19. and 18, 20. Dut. 22. 23, 24.)<br />If any person committeth Adultery with a maried or espoused wife, the Adulterer and Adulteresse shall surely be put to death.<br /><br /> 10. <br />(Ex. 21. 16.)<br />If any man stealeth a man or mankinde, he shall surely be put to death.<br /><br /> 11. <br />(Deut. 19. 16, 18, 19.)<br />If any man rise up by false witnes, wittingly and of purpose to take away any mans life, he shall be put to death.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-1387081929687165932013-03-13T09:47:19.124-07:002013-03-13T09:47:19.124-07:00This is how solar systems and planets form:
http:/...This is how solar systems and planets form:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_formation<br />The burden is now on you to refute that.<br /><br />"Based on what we have checked of the Bible, it is a reliable witness"<br />Nope, still isn't. Refute my claim, and we might have something to talk about.<br /><br />"the U.S. court system was originally based on the Bible"<br />Unsupported assertion. Let's see a source if that's really a line of conversation you want to pursue.<br /><br />"instead of trying to convert the U.S. to your false worldview."<br />We've already covered why you're lying when you say things like this.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-32973566815495518032013-03-13T09:15:54.262-07:002013-03-13T09:15:54.262-07:00You have not proved that there has never been wate...You have not proved that there has never been water above the atmosphere. At best you could say that you do not have evidence (outside of the Bible) to confirm or deny that statement in the Bible.<br /><br />That gets back to my murder example. Based on what we have checked of the Bible, it is a reliable witness. There is no reason to doubt it about things we have not (or cannot) confirm. If you want to keep searching for an error in the Bible, go ahead. But don't say that the Bible contains errors when you have been unable to prove a single one.<br /><br />That's interesting that you don't care about what the Bible has to say about witnesses and the court system, since the U.S. court system was originally based on the Bible. Maybe you should move and create your own country where you can set it up the way you want instead of trying to convert the U.S. to your false worldview.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-44946154039307747852013-03-13T07:13:03.433-07:002013-03-13T07:13:03.433-07:00This is the last time I'm responding to these ...This is the last time I'm responding to these claims; they will be blocked from here on out.<br /><br />You have given an example of the Bible being proven incorrect; there is no water above the atmosphere, nor has there ever been. If you think there has, let's see the evidence.<br /><br />Since that is wrong, the rest of your argument is invalid. Until you can refute that, you can no longer claim the Bible as evidence in and of itself; I will block all such claims.<br /><br />On your hypothetical murder situation, it depends on the circumstances. We have an excellent court system here in the US; I trust it to do its job. I don't really care what the Bible has to say on the subject, since it's irrelevant to the judgment of the court.<br />DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-2827482229301008832013-03-13T06:43:51.492-07:002013-03-13T06:43:51.492-07:00This gets back to the issue of reliable sources/wi...This gets back to the issue of reliable sources/witnesses. Do you know that George Washington existed? How? Do you know that Julius Caesar existed? How? Either through artifacts or eyewitness testimony.<br /><br />The same is true of the Bible. The Bible claims to be eyewitness testimony, and there aren't any opposing witnesses. Furthermore, the Bible has *never* been shown to be incorrect by any outside source (archaeology, other ancient writings, etc.).<br /><br />So yes, there may be some claims in the Bible that have not (or perhaps cannot) be verified by outside sources. But, since the Bible has proved to be a reliable witness in the cases where it has been checked, it should be considered a reliable witness in the cases where it hasn't.<br /><br />Here's a different, but related question. What would you do in a case where there was only one witness to a murder? If the witness was deemed reliable, should the accused murderer be convicted? Or should the accused murderer be set free because there is not a corroborating witness?<br /><br />The Bible answers those questions, but I'll have to get back to them later. What about you? What do you think?Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-40124512638363886852013-03-12T15:30:14.474-07:002013-03-12T15:30:14.474-07:00However, the claims made in the Bible, in many cas...However, the claims made in the Bible, in many cases, cannot be verified through examination. <br /><br />For example, the Bible claims that God exists. Please explain how one would observe and examine this claim.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-56696263730590639072013-03-12T15:02:21.098-07:002013-03-12T15:02:21.098-07:00I have already provided empirical evidence that ca...I have already provided empirical evidence that can be observed by anyone regarding God's existence--the Bible.<br /><br />"Using the Bible as evidence for God requires assuming that God exists to dictate it."<br /><br />False, you do not have to believe God exists to observe and examine the Bible--people do it every day.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-61040236024165868222013-03-12T14:33:50.236-07:002013-03-12T14:33:50.236-07:00It's part of the definition of the term:
&quo...It's part of the definition of the term:<br /><br />"Narrowly understood, any kind of observation, observational report, experiential input, empirical information, or datum that can be used to support or discredit a hypothesis or theory. Broadly understood, whatever information or reason can be adduced in favour of or against the justification of a belief. In philosophy of science, typically, the concept of evidence is understood narrowly. Hence, all evidence is taken to be empirical or observational."<br />Source: Evidence. (2007). In Philosophy of Science A-Z.<br /><br />Since it is empirical or observational, it can be observed by anyone, not just those who believe or don't believe a certain way.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-6859998780129299872013-03-12T14:17:50.144-07:002013-03-12T14:17:50.144-07:00"Evidence can be objectively verified regardl..."Evidence can be objectively verified regardless of what someone believes."<br /><br />Have you objectively verified that? Let's see it!Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-72696457278602215782013-03-12T12:01:13.301-07:002013-03-12T12:01:13.301-07:00Evidence can be objectively verified regardless of...Evidence can be objectively verified regardless of what someone believes. Really, this thing you do where you simply turn what I say back on me is just lazy. You should really read these things before you post them.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-80609261948568608902013-03-12T11:38:47.916-07:002013-03-12T11:38:47.916-07:00There isn't "no evidence God exists"...There isn't "no evidence God exists", there is simply no evidence that God exists for someone who doesn't believe in God. Assumed conclusion fallacy.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-65675646697685165562013-03-12T08:01:06.564-07:002013-03-12T08:01:06.564-07:00...which brings us right back around to: there......which brings us right back around to: there's no evidence God exists in the first place. Using the Bible as evidence for God requires assuming that God exists to dictate it. Assumed conclusion fallacy.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-54923812120609345212013-03-12T07:31:42.768-07:002013-03-12T07:31:42.768-07:00"The difference is that I'm not an all-po..."The difference is that I'm not an all-powerful being writing an infallible moral guide for humans to follow for all eternity. If I were, I certainly wouldn't make my followers dig as hard as you're stating we have to in order to make sure my meaning is understood."<br /><br />I believe you, but that's the point--you're not God. And if he can be second guessed by His creatures, then He wouldn't be God. All you're really saying is that you think differently than God. So what? God has reasons for doing things the way He does, even if you don't understand them and/or agree with them.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-56655778738867287922013-03-12T07:18:15.306-07:002013-03-12T07:18:15.306-07:00The difference is that I'm not an all-powerful...The difference is that I'm not an all-powerful being writing an infallible moral guide for humans to follow for all eternity. If I were, I certainly wouldn't make my followers dig as hard as you're stating we have to in order to make sure my meaning is understood. After all, misunderstanding the slightest bit of it could mean the difference between eternal reward and being punished forever. <br /><br />"That is why there is a need to study history, archaeology, etymology, etc. so that we can understand the words/culture/etc. of the time they were written and get a proper understanding."<br />I would go one step further: we need to make sure what it's saying is true and not simply assume that.<br /><br />"That applies to every piece of writing, including your blog. If you want to be consistent, you would have to say that it is impossible to know what anyone meant by anything."<br />I never claimed that we can't understand what the Bible means by something; I said we should be skeptical of it. And yes, I do believe we should do that with all sources until we can establish that they are reliable.<br /><br />I'm going to ask you to stop plugging your website here; you've gotten all the free advertising I'm willing to give you. I'm going to censor all future comments in which you do so.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-27006107992530082142013-03-12T06:33:50.585-07:002013-03-12T06:33:50.585-07:00You wrote:
"Therefore, it is not a reliable s...You wrote:<br />"Therefore, it is not a reliable source of information for people in the modern day."<br /><br />That is not a logical conclusion. It is true that it may be more difficult to understand some parts of the Bible, because we cannot simply assume that our modern understanding of certain words and culture is the same as in the Bible. That is why there is a need to study history, archaeology, etymology, etc. so that we can understand the words/culture/etc. of the time they were written and get a proper understanding.<br /><br />You wrote:<br />"Since we can't be sure of any of those things - that is, we have to supply our own (human, imperfect) interpretations to how words are defined or intended - then it makes sense to treat the whole thing with skepticism."<br /><br />That applies to every piece of writing, including your blog. If you want to be consistent, you would have to say that it is impossible to know what anyone meant by anything.<br /><br />You really are "The Inconsistent Atheist".Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.com