maliagar wrote:Thank you.
No prob. Please take your hand off my butt.
maliagar wrote:Now we can continue our discussion afresh.
I am quite willing to put the bum grabbing behind us.
maliagar wrote:since God is outside the realm of what is empirically verifiable, there is no way science can rule God out (or in) of the equation. The only thing empirical science can (and should) do is avoid the concept of God (Occam's razor).
That argument is compelling because it simply places a belief up on a shelf and calls it untouchable. It is rooted in a nice twist for theists. It is, indeed impossible to empirically disprove something that gives itself omnipotence.
"There was no world back then? Oh, hmmm, ok God doesn't need the world. He can live anywhere."
But the same can be said of many things. It's impossible to disprove that there are aliens who have sex with us rigorously and conceal this by their infalliable ability to erase all traces and evidence of their existence except to those who have faith. Sure there is no evidence of these horny aliens but that's cause of their no-evidence-except-if-you-have-faith trick, right?
So yes, science should indeed avoid the concept of God, as should intelligent people everywhere. It is a concept that shouldn't be given any more credence than a similarly illogical and fantastic myth.
maliagar wrote:
Therefore, your objections would have to focus on the seemingly empirical part of the Genesis story (how many days, what was created first and what second, etc.).
Certainly. But you have set a trap for yourself.
maliagar wrote:The problem is: 4000 years ago (when the text was written), there were no people with such a mindset. I'm sure you agree that the human authors, and the human audience, had a totally different set of expectations when composing and receiving stories like this. So, the first thing to understand the text in its own terms would be: Read it like the authors and intended public intended it to be read.
I agree, but you apply this selectively. You can't say their text is meant to be taken with a grain of salt because they were ignorant for things that can be empirically disproven but then cling to the equally ignorant prejudices they hold (such as the homophobia you demosntrate with only naturalistic fallacy and theology to support you).
maliagar wrote:This is valid for the foundational myths of all cultures throughout history: The stories have to be interpreted according to the mindsets of authors and intended audience.
Can it not be argued that the passages about murdering homosexuals is also a product of a less enlightened time? Or do you get to pick and choose?
maliagar wrote:
Quote:...and subsequent geneology can be dated to solomon's temple aging the passages' time frame at betweeen 6 and 7 thousand years (I can look up the exact passages if you like).
I don't understand this passage.
You should, after all it's a Catholic product:
You claim that your religion (Catholic) is not "Creationist" as you define as taking a literal interpretation of the Bible. Yet Catholicism is the very source for "young earth" Creationism.
Theophilus of Antioch was the first person that I know of who suggested the use of the geneology (this is why the begats are way cool if you study them, my favorite 'begat' is Eber, Peleg, Reu. It's on of the shortest verses in the Bible and I had to memorize the whole damn thing as a kid). Anywho I digress. Back to Catholics inventing literal creationism.
Archbishop Usher of the
Catholic Church was the person who took the Bible in the most literal fashion of all men in history. He claimed to know even the time that the World was created back in 1650.
He claimed that the 'begat's date the Earth. Which they do.
Here is a sampling of his research:
Code:Genesis 11 (King James Version):
10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
11 And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:
13 And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.
14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:
15 And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.
16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:
17 And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters.
18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:
19 And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters.
20 And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug:
21 And Reu lived after he begat Serug two hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters.
22 And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor:
23 And Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah:
25 And Nahor lived after he begat Terah an hundred and nineteen years, and begat sons and daughters.
26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
27 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.
29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.
30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child.
31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.
If you desire I can provide all of them in addition to subsequently discovered cross referenced scriptures (to preclude arguments about name problems etc).
Now he went a bit overboard. He had some dates that could have been off by a year or two and some that he rounded. But he still made the bold proclamation that the world was created on Sunday, October 23rd, 4004, beginning at sunset of the 22nd.
Now we know his precision is laughable. The small rounding of the ages he totalled preclude that precision.
But the fact is, that give or take a few years the world is not supposed to be older than 6,000 years and change. That can be verified through multiple means if the Bible is "right" (correct).
This concept was very popular among all theists until the avent of carbon dating and other basic science that made 6,000 look silly.
Sure science's numbers shift. But they are all estimates. Even if ALL the Bible's geneology is wrong it can't be wrong by millions of years. With almost 60 ages added it can be but pocket change in the grand scheme of things.
But you agree with me that the earth is nowhere near 6,000 years old right?
If not we can discuss that. It will be fun. :wink:
As to your assertion that the days could be symbolic of greater time periods this is a famously refuted move in the history of this debate. The "grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself" that God created predates both the sun, signs, seasons, "the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly" etc etc.
If the time frame were more than a day the separation of these ecosystems would not survive uner the laws of nature of God's creation. Take your pick.
That is why that line of defense has long been abandoned by most scholarly theists in favor of increasingly ambiguous arguments.
The vague "intelligent design" line of belief is currently the most defensible position theists maintain.
So the bottom line is, yes, I think that my personal opinion taht Genesis is wrong, incorret, etc is perfectly valid. You used a fallacious appeal to authority when you said only the "community" it was intended for can interpret it but in my above argument I used arguments from what you profess is the only valid such community, the Catholic church.
Bring on the train.
Now you seem to have revealed that you interpret much of the Bible as mythical and fictional. I applaud that. Many religious scholars are making this evolution to more defensible theism.
But my question to you si why stop there? If the myth of seven day creation is accepted as false why not some of the more antiquated attitudes about tolerance?
"I think I can I think i can I think I can, I know I can, I know I can..."
Choo chooooooo
I loved trains as a kid.
I don't agree the many mentions of it were written in metaphor or language of appearance.
