Sven

Indeed. We don't assume our conclusion.

Doug Shaver

Oh, "surely"? You're saying it is not possible, absent divine guidance, for two or more human beings to write their own books on a common subject without contradicting each other?

So, if I read a dozen books on evolution by a dozen scientists, and I find no contradictions between any two of the books, I am justified in believing that the scientists all wrote under divine inspiration?

Sven

Even more: If you find contradictions but are easily (in your mind) able to harmonize them, you are satill justified in your belief!

It's always amazing to me how the inerrantist is not able to see the absurdity of his position.

Steven Avery

If it is a diverse overlapping history, it is extremely unlikely.

Sauron

As with your logic, your "sense" is also wrong.

The bottom line is that you can't prove Carrier wrong, so you expect others to give you a hand. What possible motivation could anyone have for doing that?

You're the one supporting fairy tales here, not me.

Sauron

Nonsense. That is not the nature of the discussion; that is part and parcel of the point you would like to prove. You cannot assume your conclusion.

Moreover, if your conclusion held out, then there wouldn't be any internal contradictions. So instead of assuming a single author and then begging your audience to accept it, the better course would be to remove objections to that assumption by resolving contradictions.

But of course, that gets us back to your attempt to reverse burden of proof, doesn't it?

Sauron

Indeed. Praxeus' binary world view -- black/white, up/down, good/evil, divine/not divine -- finds its way into his arguments almost every time. He cannot conceive of a non-contradicting text that wasn't divinely inspired.

Sauron

BZZT. That's just another assertion, stacked on top of your original one. At some point you're going to actually have to stop creating stacks of claims and prove one of them.

Why couldn't two people write about a diverse, overlapping history and not contradict each other? Especially if they had each other's manuscripts to look at while writing / revising their own?

Steven Avery

This is rather hilarious, a good break before work. You are so sure that Carrier has proved the Bible wrong, as in his absurd claim about Simeon and Anna. Surrreeee....

However Richard Carrier himself is your Mr. Untouchable, Mr. Inerrancy.
There is no way to ever demonstrate an error.

So much so that you turn your head away and shield your eyes from discussing the writings of your angel of light, the accuser of God's word.

Shalom,
Steven

Sauron

No, I'm just sure that you haven't refuted Carrier.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between those two statements reveals bundles about your biases and the kinds of debating mistakes you are likely to make.

Not with overblown hyperbole and a multi-color assault of fonts. Got anything else to offer? No, of course not.