hephzibah wrote:come on now setanta... give me a break... sheesh... Explain please how your statement disproves anything I've said this far.
It has been stated that there are contradictions in the bible, which is what makes it "unreliable". Exactly how is anyone suppose to prove anything if no one is willing to look at these alleged contradictions to see if they are true?
Well, i am not making extraordinary claims, so i have no burden of proof. I have, in fact already addressed Neo on the issue of contradictions, i was simply responding to your post about the sun being created and the division between the night and day, in the context of the putative reliability of the bible.
God is a supernatural construct. Science insists on naturalistic explanations. To find a middle ground between those two positions (which do
not mutually exlude one another--they are simply framed in differing terms), it is necessary to examine the claims of each for logic. Further than that, since logic can be internally consistent but still rely upon false premises, one must examine the premises.
I am simply pointing out that if one proceeds from the premise that the cosmos were intentionally created by a purposeful intellect, those making such a claim needs must provide evidence that this were so.
neologist wrote:Black, thank you. I brought scones. Would you like one?
Yes, that would be nice.
Quote:Actually, I am asking for specific arguments, not generalized bloviations such as this one: "Ron L. Hubbard's scientology would be a fitting sequel to Revelation, a great science fiction book."
I'm really sick of the use of "bloviation," especially as i associate with a member who has posted nothing but hostile remarks to me for months. However, i can see your point about the Hubbard remark, although i consider it witty and germane in a referential sense.
I have pointed out to Miss Eppie that one specific argument is the creation story itself--we know, for as well as we can know anything (predictive ability and the failure of falsification), that the earth is a dependency of the star we call the sun, and that our planet revolves around the sun, and rotates on its axis, accounting for night and day as the concepts with which we are familiar. Observing as much in a discussion of
Genesis is a specific argument against the reliability of the bobble.
Quote:And, rather than directing me to off site links or trips to the bookstore, I would hope some folks would simply state objections in their own words. So far Terry and Soz are the only ones to have posted anything substantive. I believe my answer to Terry was satisfactory at least in part. But since no one has bothered to slice and dice it, what can I say?
Well, i feel under no compulsion to parse your responses to others, or to come to the defense of their theses--although anyone is at any time, entitled to comment on those or any posts.
I believe my remarks to Miss Eppie constitute a substantive objection to the proposition that the bobble is reliable. While on the topic of astrophysics, the contention that the sun stood still: (Joshua 10:12-13, to wit:
Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. (King James Version)--is also evidence of the unreliability of the bobble. If the earth were to be instantly arrested in its rotation--things would go flying off the table, so to speak, like nobody's business. The sudden release of potential energy would cause the seas, lakes and rivers to boil, not to mention serious confusing all the little birdies.
As i say, i consider this a substantive objection to the contention that the bobble is reliable.
Quote:There is a veritable avalanche of reasonable objections to the bible which I believe can be answered. I'll bet Frank, in his heyday, would have loved to get in on this.
Avalanche, yes--but i'll throw stones at you one or two at a time. You do know, don't you, that i'll ridicule any attempt at tortured exegesis which is not implicit in the literal text?
Which issues do you think we don't agree on?
