Brandon9000 wrote: neologist wrote: It's amusing when we are, in effect, saying the same thing. You say our understanding of thunder and lightning has worked well enough and the bible is not scientific. I agree.
Where we disagree is in your assertion that the bible cannot be verified. It can, once the straw men have been exposed.
Okay, tell me one way the existence of God could be verified.
By removal of straw men, of course. But also by verification of prophecy. Deuteronomy 18:21,22) I know many believe prophecies were written after the fact; but there are a few not so easily explained. Here is one I have posted before that is often overlooked: How could Isaiah have known that such a great city as Babylon would never be rebuilt? Yet we read in Isaiah chapter 13:
17 "Here I am arousing against them the Medes, who account silver itself as nothing and who, as respects gold, take no delight in it. 18 And [their] bows will dash even young men to pieces. And the fruitage of the belly they will not pity; for sons their eye will not feel sorry. 19 And Babylon, the decoration of kingdoms, the beauty of the pride of the Chal·de´ans, must become as when God overthrew Sod´om and Go·mor´rah. 20 She will never be inhabited, nor will she reside for generation after generation. And there the Arab will not pitch his tent, and no shepherds will let [their flocks] lie down there. 21 And there the haunters of waterless regions will certainly lie down, and their houses must be filled with eagle owls. And there the ostriches must reside, and goat-shaped demons themselves will go skipping about there. 22 And jackals must howl in her dwelling towers, and the big snake will be in the palaces of exquisite delight. And the season for her is near to come, and her days themselves will not be postponed."
I realize this single example cannot be taken as proof of anything. But there are others.
It is also most interesting that this great city is mentioned symbolically in the book of Revelation as a religious entity
Brandon9000 wrote:
Even if it could be shown that present theory wasn't adequate to explain something, which I do not grant, the last thing I'd do would be to switch to primitive superstitions. If you have an emotional need to believe this stuff, go ahead, but don't claim a rational basis for it.
neologist wrote:The straw man rears its head.
Brandon9000 wrote: Interesting that you dodge in and jab, then dance back out without making it clear what you mean or what your argument is. Elaborate, please.
Straw man highlighted.
