tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post5967697647133068894..comments2017-01-18T09:12:28.035-08:00Comments on DVD Bach's Blog: Thought For Young Men, You're DoneDVD Bachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-90909245018154467512013-03-07T05:03:18.448-08:002013-03-07T05:03:18.448-08:00Okay then, please cite your sources regarding the ...Okay then, please cite your sources regarding the biblical definitions of the words rabbits and cud. You can't, because you're just making them up.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-78698047263601869672013-03-06T07:17:17.747-08:002013-03-06T07:17:17.747-08:00I looked through the list and didn't see any c...I looked through the list and didn't see any contradictions. Most of the things are pretty obvious, although I will admit there are some things which are difficult to understand and take a bit of thinking.<br /><br />The majority of the supposed "contradictions" fall into two categories:<br />1) Parallel passages that record different information about events. Those are not contradictions. Not every detail has to be recorded exactly the same in every account. Otherwise, what would be the point of multiple accounts? If I say, "I have a red car," and my wife says, "I have a red Toyota," that is not contradictory.<br />2) "Contradictions" regarding definitions. eg. God is "good" but also punishes evildoers. Rabbits "chewing the cud". I have already addressed the God is good issue in detail. Other similar cases can be dealt with similarly. The issue is, "What did the word mean for the person who wrote it down?", not, "What does the word mean in our language today?"<br /><br />Here's one of my favorites, that I was planning on bringing up anyway:<br />Do you answer a fool?<br />PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.<br />PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.<br /><br />These verses provide my methodology for dealing with atheists (and other fools). On the one hand, I don't accept your faulty presuppositions (v.4). On the other hand, I take your faulty presuppositions and show their logical inconsistency (v.5).<br /><br />The Bible is the basis of everything people need to know, even how to respond to unbelievers. Regarding the truth and accuracy of the Bible, here is Peter's testimony.<br /><br />2 Peter 1:16<br />For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-25497463373526820012013-03-05T12:24:35.153-08:002013-03-05T12:24:35.153-08:00http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/...http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html<br /><br />Good luck.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-9527173318256317732013-03-05T11:57:53.391-08:002013-03-05T11:57:53.391-08:00Based on that, you should believe in God, since, &...Based on that, you should believe in God, since, "There were witnesses to the existence and achievements of God, who left documentation and evidence that is all mutually-supporting."<br /><br />Now you're lying. You have not shown any contradictions or falsehoods in the Bible.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-66907080452462979172013-03-05T11:31:49.953-08:002013-03-05T11:31:49.953-08:00There were witnesses to the existence and achievem...There were witnesses to the existence and achievements of George Washington, who left documentation and evidence that is all mutually-supporting.<br /><br />I never said direct observation was the only way of knowing things. But I certainly don't think blindly taking the word of an internally-contradictory set of books that are full of falsehoods is a good way.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-38895913389450032642013-03-05T11:23:24.858-08:002013-03-05T11:23:24.858-08:00DVD,
Here's something else for you to ponder....DVD,<br /><br />Here's something else for you to ponder.<br /><br />As I understand your view, we can only know that things are true by observing and replicating them. However, that severely limits the "knowledge" we can have.<br /><br />For example, the statement "George Washington was the first president of the United States", cannot be verified as being true, because while that was an observable event, it is not replicable.<br /><br />Perhaps you could clarify how your view of knowledge accounts for situations like that. Do you believe that such statements cannot be known to be true, or do you use a different methodology for dealing with "historical claims"? I know that I use a different methodology for such issues, but I haven't seen you explain how you deal with them.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-63915031954934475242013-03-05T10:10:24.685-08:002013-03-05T10:10:24.685-08:00Oh, my apologies for misreading it. I've offe...Oh, my apologies for misreading it. I've offered you a way to validate it yourself, but since we agree, I don't see where that's necessary.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-57273087840133445522013-03-05T09:45:51.112-08:002013-03-05T09:45:51.112-08:00Did you even read my response? I have no need to ...Did you even read my response? I have no need to refute it. I believe it's true.<br /><br />You, however, need to show that it is valid, but so far you've only offered circular logic.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-70910592714623937282013-03-05T09:43:20.052-08:002013-03-05T09:43:20.052-08:00You're lying. You're not refuting it beca...You're lying. You're not refuting it because you can't.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-30675248771986374422013-03-05T09:39:24.234-08:002013-03-05T09:39:24.234-08:00But that's circular logic. You are using repe...But that's circular logic. You are using repeatable observations as your methodology for determining truth and then telling me that your methodology can be verified by repeatable observations.<br /><br />I have no reason to provide any examples to refute that. I believe that repeatable observations can be used to determine truth (but not the only way). I am saying that your position that repeatable observations is the *only* way to determine truth is circular logic.<br /><br />Or perhaps you believe there are other methods of determining truth? I've asked you that before, and you haven't given any other methods by which you believe we can determine truth, so I've been assuming that you think that is the only way. If you believe there are other ways of determining truth, please tell us what they are.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-86658484247589872582013-03-05T09:20:15.257-08:002013-03-05T09:20:15.257-08:00No, for the last time, it relies on repeatable obs...No, for the last time, it relies on repeatable observations that can be verified by anyone. Still waiting for that example that refutes it.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-63713987587428825842013-03-05T09:15:32.037-08:002013-03-05T09:15:32.037-08:00Okay, so you are agreeing that your position relie...Okay, so you are agreeing that your position relies on circular logic?Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-89944609435219044242013-03-05T09:11:14.660-08:002013-03-05T09:11:14.660-08:00Actually, you can test my methodology yourself to ...Actually, you can test my methodology yourself to see if I'm right. Go ahead. Find me an example where repeatable, empirical testing reveals something to be true when it isn't.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-25175255862184908962013-03-05T08:01:41.300-08:002013-03-05T08:01:41.300-08:00DVD,
Maybe you are finally starting to get it. L...DVD,<br /><br />Maybe you are finally starting to get it. Let’s use your response and apply it to your “methodology”.<br /><br />We know things by making observations and drawing rational conclusions based on these observations, which we know is true because we have observed that and rationally concluded it. Circular logic.<br />Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-6880140297518453152013-03-05T07:23:22.287-08:002013-03-05T07:23:22.287-08:00"But those are not conclusions. Those are the..."But those are not conclusions. Those are the starting points of reasoning."<br /><br />Right! You're assuming what you're trying to demonstrate is true without providing any reason why anyone else should do so. That's the definition of an assumed conclusion.<br /><br />We know God exists because it says so in the Bible, which we know is true because it's the word of God (who exists). Circular logic.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-20009855517675713292013-03-04T08:16:21.408-08:002013-03-04T08:16:21.408-08:00Here's an article that gets the basic issue ac...Here's an article that gets the basic issue across.<br /><br />http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-most-offensive-verse-in-bible.html<br /><br />DVD, I would be happy to continue discussing your "methodology". My argument is basically complete, but there is still room for application, since you obviously haven't understood it yet.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-62146081752616074132013-03-04T06:12:43.127-08:002013-03-04T06:12:43.127-08:00DVD,
You don't understand my position (or you...DVD,<br /><br />You don't understand my position (or your own, for that matter). You say my worldview is based on an assumed conclusion. I presume you are referring to the existence of God and the truth of the Bible. But those are not conclusions. Those are the starting points of reasoning. To use your vocabulary, the existence of God and the truth of the Bible are the basis of my "methodology".Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-49780656279395865352013-03-01T15:26:24.566-08:002013-03-01T15:26:24.566-08:00I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't ...I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't take a charge of being illogical too seriously from someone whose entire worldview is based on an assumed conclusion.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-64365650099723032342013-03-01T14:27:13.496-08:002013-03-01T14:27:13.496-08:00I would agree that we have gone as far as we can i...I would agree that we have gone as far as we can in our discussion. You have been confronted with the illogicality of your worldview, and yet you still cling to it.<br /><br />The only thing more I can say is, "Repent and trust in God."<br /><br />May God have mercy on you.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.com