blt to go

Very Funny, Sir!

Of the last three posts I have made, you have failed to address the issues raised in posts 1 and 2 and have freely admitted that you refuse to read post 3.

Now I ask you, why should I bother to state what I am arguing for, as

1) I already have.
2) You will refuse to address it.
3) You will refuse to read it.

Twice I see that you have recounted "conversations" in which I find statements ascribed to me that do not follow AT ALL what I have stated, and are, in fact directly contrary to my position.

I would hope that it is simply for the reason that you do not desire to address the arguments presented rather than deliberate misdirection.

As a complete aside, when in a debate, one presents an analogy, one is better served by stating an analogy that fits the facts, otherwise it appears that one is AFRAID of the facts.

It looks like this. Observe the original analogy:
Hmmmm. Not quite in line with our facts. In fact not close. Let's tighten up this little tale to fit more closely with our contradiction.

The New York Times reports two different articles:
Narrator 1: President Bush became angry at a group of people. So, on Monday, President Bush forces John to go to the Store and ignite a bomb which kills 70,000 people. John pleads guilty. John gets 600 years in prison for this heinous crime.
Narrator 2: Osama bin Laden (reasons unknown) forces John to go to the Store and ignite a bomb which kills 70,000 people. John pleads guilty. John gets 50 days community service for this heinous crime.

blt to go: This would appear to be a contradiction.
My Esteemed Opponent: No, No. See, this is the New York Times which I know NEVER makes mistakes, so this CANNOT be a contradiction. In fact, in knowing this, it becomes APPARENT as to what we must say actually happened.

John must have wanted to ignite that bomb. President Bush needed to have those 70,000 people killed, but knowing that John didn't have the guts to do it, "forces" John to do it. Now, when we say "force" we mean that President Bush, who has complete control over the actions of Osama bin Laden [blt to go: which raises serious issues as to 9/11] allowed Osama bin Laden to act. Osama bin Laden then "forced" John to go to the store. NOW, when we say "forced" we mean, well, forced. As to the punishment, clearly John got 600 years in prison AND 50 days of community service.

See--no contradiction, just honest reporters skipping over a few, very minor and insignificant details. One shouldn't concern oneself with President Bush and Osama bin Laden working together. Or President Bush wanting 70,000 dead. Or President Bush having complete control over Osama bin Laden What is REALLY important is that there is CLEARLY no contradiction here.

Who is kidding whom?

Cross Examiner

blt to go:

1. If you have stated what you are arguing for then I have simply missed it.
2. I will gladly address what you are arguing for when I know what it is that you are arguing for.
3. I will not refuse to read your position provided that you can state what you are arguing for concisely. You should be able to do this in a paragraph at most. Here, as an example, are my positions on this thread as it now stands:

I. He who asserts the verity of the statement 'the Bible is errant', using the language of logical certainty, is unjustified in so doing unless he can also demonstrate the verity of his claim with logical certainty according to our aforementioned criterion, which is itself Aristotelian and so grants logical certainty.

II. How one group of men so happens to interpret, weigh and apply evidence in order to reach their inductive conclusions is uninteresting to me and irrelevant to the issues of epistemological warrant and logical certainty.

On an aside, I disagree with your opinion that your NY Times story is analogous to whether or not the Bible contradicts itself with regards to the reason(s) David numbered his people. Since you offer no justification for construing the two as analogous to one another, neither will I offer justification for my refusal of your opinion on the matter. I thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner

It ocurred to me that my last post would not likely help bridge our differences. Since I don't want any hurt feelings over the weekend, I'll try and and talk about this the way it seems that you want me to talk about this. Now, as stated, if Satan tempted David and God allowed Satan to tempt David then that would explain why two Hebrew authors would highlight different causes of the census. And since the texts themselves do not come close to precluding this explanation you apparently resort to objecting on philosophical (ethical reductio ad absurdum?) rather than exegetical grounds. So you want to know why God would allow Satan to tempt David to evil that God might punish Israel (among other reasons)? Rather than go down the path of confusion again, I just ask you to now clarify the nature of this philosophical objection. What, exactly, do you find objectionable about God allowing Satan to provoke evil as a means to bringing about His ends? Or, if you prefer, what is it about the doctrine of concurrency that bugs you? I'm a man of the people.

Regards,
BGic

RobertLW

Wow. I am not really sure what you are saying here. I do not understand how your references to me forwards your case. I certianly do not understand in which way they are warranted. I have previouly addressed these issues. I previously justified my faith and in doing so demonstrated that my faith is in fact not blind. No one refuted that argument. No where in any of my posts did I allude to the "errantist" as having any obligation whatsoever in pointing out possible contradictions. Furthermore, no where in any of my posts did I allude to the "errantist" carrying any burden of proof beyond that which he/she assumes. Point in fact, in my final rebuttal I clearly stated as one of my reasons for withdrawing that I was not satisfied simply batting down a few posed contradicitons. It is too easy and it is pointless. Prior to even posing a contradition, the "errantist" knows that I will harmonize it. So what is the point in going in circles? I would rather examine the reasons as to why we interpret the text differently. I certainly do not appreciate having my honesty questioned simply because I do not agree with Vinnie's arguments. I certainly have the right to disagree and I do believe that I will go ahead and maintain that right.




I am not seeing where anyone made this argument. Please specify. I believed Vinnie's objections to be theological in nature and not substantially based in the text. As such, I structured the bulk of my rebuttal to address his objections. I did, however, touch on his textual objections.



I am not seeing where anyone made this argument either. Please specify. In my rebuttal, I pointed out that the Tenth Plague is not an internal contradiction. To which, Vinnie responded that he has a moral compass and can make moral judgements. While this is true, it does not demonstrate an external contradiction. He admitted having no alternate moral authority by which to judge rendering his argument as his opinion. Do you really expect me to continue arguing Vinnie's opinion which is arbitrary in nature?




I have previously addressed this issue to which you responded that I am very good and saying both yes and no. I clearly did not "conveniently ignore the problem". Please specify in which way I said both yes and no. I also clearly explained that I do not engage in special pleading of the Bible, an argument you did not address except to say that I apply special pleading to the Bible. While I understand that you believe that I apply special pleading to the Bible, I do not see where you refuted my argument beyond simply saying so.




Would it really make you feel better if I said Vinnie won? Where did I apply any [+G] factor to the outcome of the debate? Where did I state that the debate was in fact a draw? Where did I state that I even possibly won the debate? Where did I state that my withdrawing equals my winning? I simply stated my personal opinion in writing "My own personal view of the debate is that nobody really won or lost and it was turning out to be rather ridiculous, which is why I ended my participation early." The fact that it is my personal opinion was made clear by the statement, "My own personal view". Is stating my personal opinion really that objectionable?

Here, Vinnie won the debate. Feel better now?

I am more than happy to discuss my arguments in a productive manner. As I have stated many times, anyone is invited to send me an e-mail to discuss the topic.

Thanks,

Robert

blt to go

“My position?� I am baffled as to why “my position� has any relevant bearing on the issue. I was unaware that the centuries debate on inerrancy would come down to btg’s position on inerrancy.

(And NO, I will not limit it to one paragraph. I try everything to get around the Laws of the United States of America. Why you think I would abide by your demands is mystifying. Don’t like it, than don’t read it. Won’t be the first.) My position is as follows:

1. That the initial burden is with the errantist, as all documents should be taken, at face value as inerrant. (Sorry, Sven and Vinnie, but that is my position.)
2. That the bible has demonstrated contradictions on their face.
3. That any person of who even remotely touches this subject must recognize such claimed contradictions.
4. That upon recognized such claimed contradictions, the inerrantist assumes the burden of proof (so we might as well ignore points 1, 2, and 3. Happier, Clutch and Vinnie?)
5. That the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence, i.e. more likely than not, or 51% versus 49%
6. That the reality is; it matters not who has the burden of proof, as the inerrantist will never reach 51%
7. That if the same claimed contradictions were placed in any other book, the same would be rejected as contradictions by the Christian and non-christian alike. (special pleading)
8. That if the same claimed contradictions were placed in any other holy book (such as the Qu’ran, Book of Morman, Science and Health, et.) but given different names to protect the innocent, the Christian would reject the same and snicker [quietly and respectively] up their sleeve at any such religion that would hold to the same. (special pleading)
9. That if the same claimed contradictions were placed in any book that Christianity views as opposing their religion (i.e. evolution) that such claimed contradictions would be held up high as demonstrating the idiocy and inanity of said book. (special pleading)
10. That upon requiring the inerrantist to demonstrate their standard for inerrancy, eventually it will be demonstrated that said standard violates special pleading, and in fact, eventually, their theology. (i.e. to maintain inerrancy, the person must abandon theology)
11. That upon debating with the inerrantist, it will be demonstrated that any rational argument for inerrancy will violate special pleading and/or theology.
12. That the inerrantist will hold onto their view regardless of the obvious fallacies therein, i.e. it will become a waste of time. (Vinnie saw this long ago. I am slow.)
13. That eventually, the only possible way to accept inerrancy is to recognize that it is based upon pure blind faith alone (such as the Chicago Statement) and that it cannot be rationally proven.
14. That such rationalization does not account for the same faith-driven basis for acceptance in a variety of religions, which are rejected as idiocy and hypocrisy. (If the bible is inerrant on faith, why not the Qu’ran, etc.?)
15. That I will always assume the burden of proof, and require the inerrantist to establish the standard of proof to demonstrate the eventual abandonment of rationality, theology and that such is special pleading.
16. That if I was to pick any 7 jurors out of the world, and use the bible as a source, (again, if my jurors were Christians, I would simply change the names) it will always, always, always come back as having contradictions. (SGT)
17. That upon reviewing the history of the establishment of the bible, the question arises: Is this the word of God, or the lumping together of a number of short stories of a number of different authors regarding their view of a certain religion?
18. That upon reviewing the history, based upon the rationality of the situation, it is a number of short stories of different authors regarding their view of a certain religion.
19. That I will not believe in a God that plays Hind-and-Seek. (spelling correct as I am apparently butt-fucked if I get his guessing game wrong.)
20. That any God that is powerful, intelligent, and all-knowing enough to “inspire� a book, is the same God that is powerful, intelligent and all-knowing to PRESERVE such a book.
21. That the variety of ancient manuscripts of the bible that disagree demonstrate the reality that I do not hold the original document as those authored by the person who wrote the original books are in my bible today.
22. That such disparagement results in the inability to determine the original statements.
23. That to argue what the original statements said, or meant, is therefore superfluous.
24. That it is scary to me that any rational human being would go to such lengths to “harmonize� (i.e. rationalize) any book, yet decry any other person who does the same in any other manuscript.
25. That, worse, any such “harmonization� appears rational, coherent and intelligent to all others of the same belief, simply because they believe the same, not because it is.

Try it, Sir, I entice you. Tomorrow at church. You have displayed intelligence enough. Use any of the contradictions we have raised. Change the names/circumstances just enough that any average, every-day Christian would not recognize it as coming out of the bible. Say you read it in the Qu’ran, Book of Mormon, etc. Say, “Isn’t it ridiculous that such persons would believe such obvious contradictions in their own scriptures?� WATCH EVERY SINGLE PERSON AGREE THAT SUCH BELIEF IN SUCH CONTRADICTIONS IS RIDICULOUS!!!

No, I see “my position� as no help at all.

blt to go

Whoops. Forgot one.

26. That the bible is held out to be solely unique in being the only Word of God on earth, and therefore it should easily be held to a higher standard, not a lesser standard (of "forgive all errors") and the proponents of inerrancy should gladly assume the burden and easily defeat the simple minds of men. The fact that this debate rages on brings into question the validity of "God's word" being greater than man's.

blt to go

RobertLW, you are correct, you did not utilize your colleague's arguments in the debate or this thread, and any such implication must be ignored.

I was simply applying that argument to the debate. We are all very well aware that your basis, in its simplest form is:

"The authors of the Bible wrote with 100% accuracy. Nothing they wrote was wrong."

Which then threw you into a confusion as to why poor Vinnie (and Clutch, Sven, wiploc, blt to go, Vorkosigan, etc.) could possibly say that is not true, and since we do, we must have some philisophical problem. As it is clear they are true and 100% accurate.

You do understand, of course, that this completely violates the Chicago Statement and reveals you were never following the statement at all.

Cross Examiner

That's an interesting set of opinions, blt to go ... particularly the counterfactual conditionals. You seem a bit upset so I'll withhold a critique at the present. More importantly, what you've been arguing for is now demonstrably irrelevant to what I've been arguing for and vice versa. We've apparently been talking past each other for some time now.

Regards,
BGic

Johann_Kaspar

Reading that thread and the debate I was thinking I am in the humour folder.

IMHO, it is quite useless to discuss inerrancy. That is an act of faith and is irrational. Any discussion on that subject with a xian is a complete lost of time. What did you expect?

When someone will meet a speaking snake, drop a line, please.

Johann_Kaspar

Forgot to add: inerrancy? What about translations? How many people do read the bible in Hebrew which is the only that makes sense (well, historically speaking I mean).