The Stuff of scientism - SCIENCE vs God: The OBJECTION that is getting old...

[Grumblenuts]

...Crickets...

 

[Hollie]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

You're assertion, assuming I understand it correctly, is debatable.

Your assumption appears to be that the Bible is a science text. It is not.

No. Not at all, but it does entail claims that are scientific in nature.

The earth being immovable and firm is not a scientific claim. Does the earth really have a foundation?

The earth travels a determinable path around our sun. Our moon can be charted with accuracy. This would be impossible if everything was simply random. And this is what the Bible means. But I'm sure you already knew this.

Gravity is not a random force. Planets are subject to cosmic bombardment, asteroid impact, etc.

Is that the gods design?

 

[alang1216]

I don't believe in God, not because of science but because I find no convincing evidence that I should. Science is the study of the natural world while religion/God is the study of the supernatural world. Both may be true but only science provides me with the evidence I require to accept it as truth.

 

[surada]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

Well, yes, the Bible doesn't apply "scientific" jargon nor promote experimentation. Oddly, classes in evolution don't promote experimentation either... Anyway, the first 5 books of the OLD TESTAMENT are indeed historical. And what's a lie in the Bible is in fact exposed as a lie. And facts in the Bible are straight forwardly revealed as matter-of-fact. But frankly, everything scientists say or believe isn't entirely provable nor repeatable in all cases.

The first five books of the Bible are borrowed and adapted from much older civilizations around them .. mostly from Sumer and the North Coast Canaanites. These stories are recorded on thousands of clay tablets in Syria and Dilmun and Sumer.. and they are a thousand years older than Genesis. The stories developed differently in Judah and Israel .. until they were cobbled together around 500 BC.

 

[Ringtone]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

You're assertion, assuming I understand it correctly, is debatable.

Your assumption appears to be that the Bible is a science text. It is not.

No. Not at all, but it does entail claims that are scientific in nature.

The earth being immovable and firm is not a scientific claim. Does the earth really have a foundation?

Uh, the Bible, in this instance, is not asserting anything about an astronomically immovable planet. LOL! This expression is variously used in both the Old and New Testament to denote the fact that God created the Earth and the parameters of its existence, moreover, that he alone, not some mysterious, insufficient cause, as atheists assert, is the cause of its existence/origin, that he alone is the ground of its existence. Where have you and, apparently, that other dunce Grumblenuts been all these many years?

Behold the literary, theological, historical, etymological and philosophical ignorance of the typical new atheist.

 

[Hollie]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

You're assertion, assuming I understand it correctly, is debatable.

Your assumption appears to be that the Bible is a science text. It is not.

No. Not at all, but it does entail claims that are scientific in nature.

The earth being immovable and firm is not a scientific claim. Does the earth really have a foundation?

Uh, the Bible, in this instance, is not asserting anything about an astronomically immovable planet. LOL! This expression is variously used in both the Old and New Testament to denote the fact that God created the Earth and the parameters of its existence, moreover, that he alone, not some mysterious, insufficient cause, as atheist assert, is the cause of its existence/origin, that he alone is the ground of its existence.

That’s pretty typical. Ignore what’s written in the Bible in favor of what you would like to see. So here we can see the revisionists and re-writers select those elements and passages that they are comfortable with, and merely ignore the rest. This is tremendously arbitrary, and outright foolish. It also is evidence that holy texts are the **last** books one should use to support a reality based worldview.

I would point out that the New Testament agreeing with the Old Testament is not any reason to accept that any gods created existence. Let’s look at it another way. I make no claims about existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this claim relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The ID creationer, in this case, you, asserts that "logic and reason are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality" of supernatural gods.

Now I already conclude I have made my claim logically-- that reality is logical, and reasonably -- that reality is rational. But what do you claim?

That logic is flawed and reason is flawed and to be supplanted by belief in the supernatural. Well, if you are right, you are admitting that the very tools you use to make your perception/assertion -- is flawed and not to be trusted!

If you are wrong -- then you are simply wrong, or illogical and irrational. And why should we listen to the assertions of someone who admits they are making irrational and illogical statements? What discerns any difference between the assertions of the ID creationer, assertions made without reason or logic, and a man in a padded room who thinks himself Napoleon (to use the cliché)?

 

[Ringtone]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

Well, yes, the Bible doesn't apply "scientific" jargon nor promote experimentation. Oddly, classes in evolution don't promote experimentation either... Anyway, the first 5 books of the OLD TESTAMENT are indeed historical. And what's a lie in the Bible is in fact exposed as a lie. And facts in the Bible are straight forwardly revealed as matter-of-fact. But frankly, everything scientists say or believe isn't entirely provable nor repeatable in all cases.

The first five books of the Bible are borrowed and adapted from much older civilizations around them .. mostly from Sumer and the North Coast Canaanites. These stories are recorded on thousands of clay tablets in Syria and Dilmun and Sumer.. and they are a thousand years older than Genesis. The stories developed differently in Judah and Israel .. until they were cobbled together around 500 BC.

So says the historical naturalist of disbelief who has never examined the biblical text in the light of the first principles of metaphysics and logic against the abject imbecility of the pagan traditions of created gods. The fact that there exists various, cultural narratives from antiquity about, essentially, the same things, doesn't tell him that the core of these various narratives is true or that the Abrahamic-Judeo narrative is uniquely true, just because it's written expression is predated by others. Never mind that Moses is the author of the written narrative of the Abrahamic-Judeo tradition, i.e., the oral narrative that predates the narratives of paganism, never mind that the biblical narrative is profoundly different in moral, ontological and theological terms relative to its benighted contemporaries. . . .

 

[Ringtone]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

You're assertion, assuming I understand it correctly, is debatable.

Your assumption appears to be that the Bible is a science text. It is not.

No. Not at all, but it does entail claims that are scientific in nature.

The earth being immovable and firm is not a scientific claim. Does the earth really have a foundation?

Uh, the Bible, in this instance, is not asserting anything about an astronomically immovable planet. LOL! This expression is variously used in both the Old and New Testament to denote the fact that God created the Earth and the parameters of its existence, moreover, that he alone, not some mysterious, insufficient cause, as atheist assert, is the cause of its existence/origin, that he alone is the ground of its existence.

That’s pretty typical. Ignore what’s written in the Bible in favor of what you would like to see. So here we can see the revisionists and re-writers select those elements and passages that they are comfortable with, and merely ignore the rest. This is tremendously arbitrary, and outright foolish. It also is evidence that holy texts are the **last** books one should use to support a reality based worldview.

I would point out that the New Testament agreeing with the Old Testament is not any reason to accept that any gods created existence. Let’s look at it another way. I make no claims about existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this claim relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The ID creationer, in this case, you, asserts that "logic and reason are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality" of supernatural gods.

Now I already conclude I have made my claim logically-- that reality is logical, and reasonably -- that reality is rational. But what do you claim?

That logic is flawed and reason is flawed and to be supplanted by belief in the supernatural. Well, if you are right, you are admitting that the very tools you use to make your perception/assertion -- is flawed and not to be trusted!

If you are wrong -- then you are simply wrong, or illogical and irrational. And why should we listen to the assertions of someone who admits they are making irrational and illogical statements? What discerns any difference between the assertions of the ID creationer, assertions made without reason or logic, and a man in a padded room who thinks himself Napoleon (to use the cliché)?

Yours is the typical reaction of the textually and theologically unlearned atheist who stupidly refuses to be corrected when their dunderheaded hermeneutics are falsified . . . otherwise he can no longer cling to the fallacious premises of his manifestly hackneyed literary criticisms.

Oh, look, everybody, Hollie actually believes that the metaphoric expression in the Bible regarding the creation of the world and the ontological foundation thereof actually goes to the notion of an astronomically immovable planet in spite of the fact that no one of repute, including believers of antiquity, have ever understood it to mean any such stupid thing.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

 

[BreezeWood]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

You're assertion, assuming I understand it correctly, is debatable.

Your assumption appears to be that the Bible is a science text. It is not.

No. Not at all, but it does entail claims that are scientific in nature.

The earth being immovable and firm is not a scientific claim. Does the earth really have a foundation?

Uh, the Bible, in this instance, is not asserting anything about an astronomically immovable planet. LOL! This expression is variously used in both the Old and New Testament to denote the fact that God created the Earth and the parameters of its existence, moreover, that he alone, not some mysterious, insufficient cause, as atheist assert, is the cause of its existence/origin, that he alone is the ground of its existence.

That’s pretty typical. Ignore what’s written in the Bible in favor of what you would like to see. So here we can see the revisionists and re-writers select those elements and passages that they are comfortable with, and merely ignore the rest. This is tremendously arbitrary, and outright foolish. It also is evidence that holy texts are the **last** books one should use to support a reality based worldview.

I would point out that the New Testament agreeing with the Old Testament is not any reason to accept that any gods created existence. Let’s look at it another way. I make no claims about existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this claim relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The ID creationer, in this case, you, asserts that "logic and reason are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality" of supernatural gods.

Now I already conclude I have made my claim logically-- that reality is logical, and reasonably -- that reality is rational. But what do you claim?

That logic is flawed and reason is flawed and to be supplanted by belief in the supernatural. Well, if you are right, you are admitting that the very tools you use to make your perception/assertion -- is flawed and not to be trusted!

If you are wrong -- then you are simply wrong, or illogical and irrational. And why should we listen to the assertions of someone who admits they are making irrational and illogical statements? What discerns any difference between the assertions of the ID creationer, assertions made without reason or logic, and a man in a padded room who thinks himself Napoleon (to use the cliché)?

Yours is the typical reaction of the textually and theologically unlearned atheist who stupidly refuses to be corrected when their dunderheaded hermeneutics are falsified . . . otherwise he can no longer cling to the fallacious premises of his manifestly hackneyed literary criticisms.

Oh, look, everybody, Hollie actually believes that the metaphoric expression in the Bible regarding the creation of the world and the ontological foundation thereof actually goes to the notion of an astronomically immovable planet in spite of the fact that no one of repute, including believers of antiquity, have ever understood it to mean any such stupid thing.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

.

... actually goes to the notion of an astronomically immovable planet in spite of the fact that no one of repute, including believers of antiquity, have ever understood it to mean any such stupid thing.

.
your right ringtone -
.
When Galileo advanced the proposition that Earth revolved around the sun and was, in fact, only one of many planets that did so, he was tried by the Inquisition and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.
.
you and the inquisition are in a class all your own.

 

[surada]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

Well, yes, the Bible doesn't apply "scientific" jargon nor promote experimentation. Oddly, classes in evolution don't promote experimentation either... Anyway, the first 5 books of the OLD TESTAMENT are indeed historical. And what's a lie in the Bible is in fact exposed as a lie. And facts in the Bible are straight forwardly revealed as matter-of-fact. But frankly, everything scientists say or believe isn't entirely provable nor repeatable in all cases.

The first five books of the Bible are borrowed and adapted from much older civilizations around them .. mostly from Sumer and the North Coast Canaanites. These stories are recorded on thousands of clay tablets in Syria and Dilmun and Sumer.. and they are a thousand years older than Genesis. The stories developed differently in Judah and Israel .. until they were cobbled together around 500 BC.

So says the historical naturalist of disbelief who has never examined the biblical text in the light of the first principles of metaphysics and logic against the abject imbecility of the pagan traditions of created gods. The fact that there exists various, cultural narratives from antiquity about, essentially, the same things, doesn't tell him that the core of these various narratives is true or that the Abrahamic-Judeo narrative is uniquely true, just because it's written expression is predated by others. Never mind that Moses is the author of the written narrative of the Abrahamic-Judeo tradition, i.e., the oral narrative that predates the narratives of paganism, never mind that the biblical narrative is profoundly different in moral, ontological and theological terms relative to its benighted contemporaries. . . .

The Ugaritic tablets are so much older than Moses, if there every actually was a Moses.. Most likely he's a literary device.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

Well, yes, the Bible doesn't apply "scientific" jargon nor promote experimentation. Oddly, classes in evolution don't promote experimentation either... Anyway, the first 5 books of the OLD TESTAMENT are indeed historical. And what's a lie in the Bible is in fact exposed as a lie. And facts in the Bible are straight forwardly revealed as matter-of-fact. But frankly, everything scientists say or believe isn't entirely provable nor repeatable in all cases.

The first five books of the Bible are borrowed and adapted from much older civilizations around them .. mostly from Sumer and the North Coast Canaanites. These stories are recorded on thousands of clay tablets in Syria and Dilmun and Sumer.. and they are a thousand years older than Genesis. The stories developed differently in Judah and Israel .. until they were cobbled together around 500 BC.

So says the historical naturalist of disbelief who has never examined the biblical text in the light of the first principles of metaphysics and logic against the abject imbecility of the pagan traditions of created gods. The fact that there exists various, cultural narratives from antiquity about, essentially, the same things, doesn't tell him that the core of these various narratives is true or that the Abrahamic-Judeo narrative is uniquely true, just because it's written expression is predated by others. Never mind that Moses is the author of the written narrative of the Abrahamic-Judeo tradition, i.e., the oral narrative that predates the narratives of paganism, never mind that the biblical narrative is profoundly different in moral, ontological and theological terms relative to its benighted contemporaries. . . .

The Ugaritic tablets are so much older than Moses, if there every actually was a Moses.. Most likely he's a literary device.

Any online sources you can point to for verification of any of this would be appropriate and greatly appreciated.

 

[Hollie]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

You're assertion, assuming I understand it correctly, is debatable.

Your assumption appears to be that the Bible is a science text. It is not.

No. Not at all, but it does entail claims that are scientific in nature.

The earth being immovable and firm is not a scientific claim. Does the earth really have a foundation?

Uh, the Bible, in this instance, is not asserting anything about an astronomically immovable planet. LOL! This expression is variously used in both the Old and New Testament to denote the fact that God created the Earth and the parameters of its existence, moreover, that he alone, not some mysterious, insufficient cause, as atheist assert, is the cause of its existence/origin, that he alone is the ground of its existence.

That’s pretty typical. Ignore what’s written in the Bible in favor of what you would like to see. So here we can see the revisionists and re-writers select those elements and passages that they are comfortable with, and merely ignore the rest. This is tremendously arbitrary, and outright foolish. It also is evidence that holy texts are the **last** books one should use to support a reality based worldview.

I would point out that the New Testament agreeing with the Old Testament is not any reason to accept that any gods created existence. Let’s look at it another way. I make no claims about existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this claim relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The ID creationer, in this case, you, asserts that "logic and reason are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality" of supernatural gods.

Now I already conclude I have made my claim logically-- that reality is logical, and reasonably -- that reality is rational. But what do you claim?

That logic is flawed and reason is flawed and to be supplanted by belief in the supernatural. Well, if you are right, you are admitting that the very tools you use to make your perception/assertion -- is flawed and not to be trusted!

If you are wrong -- then you are simply wrong, or illogical and irrational. And why should we listen to the assertions of someone who admits they are making irrational and illogical statements? What discerns any difference between the assertions of the ID creationer, assertions made without reason or logic, and a man in a padded room who thinks himself Napoleon (to use the cliché)?

Yours is the typical reaction of the textually and theologically unlearned atheist who stupidly refuses to be corrected when their dunderheaded hermeneutics are falsified . . . otherwise he can no longer cling to the fallacious premises of his manifestly hackneyed literary criticisms.

Oh, look, everybody, Hollie actually believes that the metaphoric expression in the Bible regarding the creation of the world and the ontological foundation thereof actually goes to the notion of an astronomically immovable planet in spite of the fact that no one of repute, including believers of antiquity, have ever understood it to mean any such stupid thing.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Yours is the typical reaction of the hyper-religious extremist who reads his Bibles not as they are but how he wants them to be. The hyper-religious creates for himself a genuinely unsolvable dilemma. He claims there is a source material that lays out the belief system. He claims this source material has a level of functionality that supports that belief system as well. He further asserts that unless the "author" of that support system (a god or god(s)) endows one with some special knowledge (knowledge that can’t be shared in a meaningful way), one cannot understand that support system as laid out and supported by the source material.

Then the hyper-religionist will selectively pick and choose from the Bible those parts that don't offend his tender sensibilities as the book itself ranges from fact to fiction, from literalism to metaphor helter-skelter, and the hyper-religionist assumes the role of being the final arbiter of which parts are to be taken as literal and which are not.

Is Joshua's sun-standing still (i.e., Earth stopping its rotation) a true rendering of an historical event, or not? Is the flood true? Is Adam and Eve and original sin true (this one is primary, for without it, all the rest is unnecessary), is the fixed and immovable, is the earth flat?

Could be. Mayhaps. Depends. Kinda. Sorta. Maybe a talking serpent maybe not, maybe condemn all of humanity for fruit theft. Why not. That's what you embrace. Meanwhile, the underlying message remains: take the parts you like and ignore the rest.

You don’t quite get that same message from the Illiad, do you? It's intended as a fictional retelling, and few people debate its relative accuracy. But plenty of people think Bibles and Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Gravity is not a random force.

I'd argue that it's not really a force at all since, as defined. It's an ever changing electromagnetic attraction toward a center of combined (moving) external mass(es). A field, in other words. I say "as defined" or by convention because it could easily be viewed and treated as a repulsive field rather than being attraction based with the same (fleeting) end result. We are always in motion, making us "real", material, substantive, "magnetic." Contrast with the ethereal, dielectric, counterspacial. "Random"? LOL! What then are these so-called "gravity waves"? Pulses due to distant spinning masses such as black holes? I don't know. Not confident anyone does at this point.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The earth travels a determinable path around our sun. Our moon can be charted with accuracy. This would be impossible if everything was simply random. And this is what the Bible means. But I'm sure you already knew this.

So when the Bible says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" but apparently no Sun yet else there'd be light, was the Sun then placed into a "determinable path around" the Earth such that the Earth just appears to be the Sun's bitch and not the other way round?

Still no response, eh? We still say stuff like "The Sun rises in the East." Probably always will. Because that's what it still appears to do. We don't normally observe things from an entire solar system perspective. Yet, we are now fully aware that the Earth is really just turning us toward the Sun. It's not "rising" at all. We didn't know that back when we wrote the Bible. Obviously. "But I'm sure you already knew this." Now squirm off.

 

[Ringtone]

The sun's creation four days after the earth's creation is not scientific in nature (Gen 1:14-19).

Well, that's not entirely true. When you say not scientific in nature, what you actually mean is that this is not scientifically accurate in any literal sense.

Bear with me for a moment and think.

Once again, I never said that the Bible is a scientific text as such at all. Of course it's not; notwithstanding, it does make claims of a scientific nature, including the claim, apparently, that the Sun was created after the Earth. I say apparently because over the centuries theologians have variously rendered the Creation Hymn in terms of allegory, and, simultaneously, the perspective (or point of view) of the narrative is, mostly, that of terrestrial beings, namely, that of pre-scientific man, not entirely that of God's preeminently objective perspective outside and beyond the material realm of being. Also, and this is an aside, the Creation Hymn of the Bible claims that beyond the "firmament" God created light on the first day, which is obviously something other than the greater light that ruled the day (Sun) and the lesser "light" (Moon) that ruled the night.

Alternately wrong and right in the literal sense, the Bible does make claims of a scientific nature, howbeit, mostly from the earth-bound perspective of pre-scientific creatures. They did the best they could with their rudimentary-to-increasingly-sophisticated grasp of mathematics and a technologically unaided means of observation.

I assume that we all understand that the ancients' cosmogony was geocentric, not only that, but prior to the Third Century BC, man believed that the Earth was a flat expanse. By the way, while Hollie's biblical hermeneutics are myopic due to her penchant for hysterics in the face of anything that smacks of "God talk," she does touch on something of interest regarding the recurring juxtaposition of perspectives.

The noun phrase the foundations of the earth, the English translation from the Hebrew of the Old Testament, and its equivalent expression the foundations of the world, the English translation from the Koine Greek of the New Testament, highlights the difference in the understanding of things between the ancients and post-Hellenists. The latter knew that the Earth was spherical and that it apparently rotated, howbeit, at the center of the Universe, i.e., at the center of the concentric circles of the outer celestia bodies (Aristotelian cosmology prior to Copernicus, Brahe, and Kepler).

The noun phrase is not the immovable planet of the immovable planet. LOL! That would be redundant and nonsensical, even to the ancient Hebrews who believed that the foundations were a flat expanse in the literal sense. They understood that the ultimate thrust of the expression was metaphoric, that it ultimately pertained to a theological truth, which is readily apparent from the various contexts in which it appears. Ultimately, the foundations of the earth/world goes to God's sustaining power and knowledge, his omnipotence and omniscience. Paul elucidates the matter in his letter to the Colossians as follows:

For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together [or subsist]".​

Ruminating on the expression and its various iterations, Berkeley's observes that God is the Being "Who never looks away," meaning that God sustains the substance of the physical world in his mind.

But however interesting all of this may be to some . . . let me redirect your attention back to the topic of the OP.

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

The OP doesn't go to creation and the Bible at all. It goes to the hayneyed notion that God and science, or more accurately, that theology/philosophy and science are adversarial fields of study in some sense, ultimately, that only science is a reliable source of knowledge.

That's pseudoscientific gibberish. Initially I thought that's what you were getting at when you wrote that "Its [sic] not either or." But, perhaps, not.

Science's purview is limited to the phenomena of the physical world. We do not observe, for example, the imperatives of logic, mathematics and morality. We intuite them. The metaphysics of theology and philosophy necessarily precede and have primacy over science. In other words, science necessarily proceeds from the metaphysical presupposition that the physical world is governed by the laws of physics, that its phenomena are fixed and, therefore, predictable, rational, and that we as rational beings can decipher them and subsequently describe the physical world. Empirical phenomena do not interpret themselves. Minds do proceeding from one metaphysical presupposition or another.

A new heaven and earth were created after Israel gained independence from Babylon (Is 65:17-18). Also after Christ conquered Judea. Not new planets; new creations.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

 

[Ringtone]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

You're assertion, assuming I understand it correctly, is debatable.

Your assumption appears to be that the Bible is a science text. It is not.

No. Not at all, but it does entail claims that are scientific in nature.

The earth being immovable and firm is not a scientific claim. Does the earth really have a foundation?

Uh, the Bible, in this instance, is not asserting anything about an astronomically immovable planet. LOL! This expression is variously used in both the Old and New Testament to denote the fact that God created the Earth and the parameters of its existence, moreover, that he alone, not some mysterious, insufficient cause, as atheist assert, is the cause of its existence/origin, that he alone is the ground of its existence.

That’s pretty typical. Ignore what’s written in the Bible in favor of what you would like to see. So here we can see the revisionists and re-writers select those elements and passages that they are comfortable with, and merely ignore the rest. This is tremendously arbitrary, and outright foolish. It also is evidence that holy texts are the **last** books one should use to support a reality based worldview.

I would point out that the New Testament agreeing with the Old Testament is not any reason to accept that any gods created existence. Let’s look at it another way. I make no claims about existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this claim relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The ID creationer, in this case, you, asserts that "logic and reason are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality" of supernatural gods.

Now I already conclude I have made my claim logically-- that reality is logical, and reasonably -- that reality is rational. But what do you claim?

That logic is flawed and reason is flawed and to be supplanted by belief in the supernatural. Well, if you are right, you are admitting that the very tools you use to make your perception/assertion -- is flawed and not to be trusted!

If you are wrong -- then you are simply wrong, or illogical and irrational. And why should we listen to the assertions of someone who admits they are making irrational and illogical statements? What discerns any difference between the assertions of the ID creationer, assertions made without reason or logic, and a man in a padded room who thinks himself Napoleon (to use the cliché)?

Yours is the typical reaction of the textually and theologically unlearned atheist who stupidly refuses to be corrected when their dunderheaded hermeneutics are falsified . . . otherwise he can no longer cling to the fallacious premises of his manifestly hackneyed literary criticisms.

Oh, look, everybody, Hollie actually believes that the metaphoric expression in the Bible regarding the creation of the world and the ontological foundation thereof actually goes to the notion of an astronomically immovable planet in spite of the fact that no one of repute, including believers of antiquity, have ever understood it to mean any such stupid thing.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Yours is the typical reaction of the hyper-religious extremist who reads his Bibles not as they are but how he wants them to be. The hyper-religious creates for himself a genuinely unsolvable dilemma. He claims there is a source material that lays out the belief system. He claims this source material has a level of functionality that supports that belief system as well. He further asserts that unless the "author" of that support system (a god or god(s)) endows one with some special knowledge (knowledge that can’t be shared in a meaningful way), one cannot understand that support system as laid out and supported by the source material.

Then the hyper-religionist will selectively pick and choose from the Bible those parts that don't offend his tender sensibilities as the book itself ranges from fact to fiction, from literalism to metaphor helter-skelter, and the hyper-religionist assumes the role of being the final arbiter of which parts are to be taken as literal and which are not.

Is Joshua's sun-standing still (i.e., Earth stopping its rotation) a true rendering of an historical event, or not? Is the flood true? Is Adam and Eve and original sin true (this one is primary, for without it, all the rest is unnecessary), is the fixed and immovable, is the earth flat?

Could be. Mayhaps. Depends. Kinda. Sorta. Maybe a talking serpent maybe not, maybe condemn all of humanity for fruit theft. Why not. That's what you embrace. Meanwhile, the underlying message remains: take the parts you like and ignore the rest.

You don’t quite get that same message from the Illiad, do you? It's intended as a fictional retelling, and few people debate its relative accuracy. But plenty of people think Bibles and Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.

 

[Ringtone]

I don't believe in God, not because of science but because I find no convincing evidence that I should. Science is the study of the natural world while religion/God is the study of the supernatural world. Both may be true but only science provides me with the evidence I require to accept it as truth.

You putatively find no evidence for God's existence, though it be right in front of you, because you don't believe in the ramifications of the first principles of metaphysics and logic, that is, until you unwittingly do, by necessity, believe in them everytime who make any assertion whatsoever.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Science's purview is limited to the phenomena of the physical world.

Baloney. Science just means to study. Physics is a science. Metaphysics (a part of both physics and philosophy) is a science. Philosophy is a science. Mathematics..

Mathematics (from Greek: μάθημα, máthēma, 'knowledge, study, learning') includes the study of such topics as quantity (number theory),[1] structure (algebra),[2] space (geometry),[1] and change (mathematical analysis).[3][4][5] It has no generally accepted definition.[6][7] {...}

You, otoh, are a bonehead.

 

[Ringtone]

The Bible is not science. Scientists did not write it.

Why do non-scientists keep injecting science discussions into creation and the Bible?

Well, yes, the Bible doesn't apply "scientific" jargon nor promote experimentation. Oddly, classes in evolution don't promote experimentation either... Anyway, the first 5 books of the OLD TESTAMENT are indeed historical. And what's a lie in the Bible is in fact exposed as a lie. And facts in the Bible are straight forwardly revealed as matter-of-fact. But frankly, everything scientists say or believe isn't entirely provable nor repeatable in all cases.

The first five books of the Bible are borrowed and adapted from much older civilizations around them .. mostly from Sumer and the North Coast Canaanites. These stories are recorded on thousands of clay tablets in Syria and Dilmun and Sumer.. and they are a thousand years older than Genesis. The stories developed differently in Judah and Israel .. until they were cobbled together around 500 BC.

And what is the basis of this contention of yours other than the scholarship of historical naturalists?

This line of argumentation, with which I'm well-acquainted, is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of historical naturalism. It merely assumes sans any concrete justification that the written narrative of the Bible cannot possibly be older because it entails prophecies about events that were not entirely fulfilled before, roughly, 700 to 500 BC. In other words, historical naturalists beg the question.

 

[Ringtone]

. . .

By the way, norwegan, the post in the above regarding Berkeley's extrapolation should read:

Ruminating on the expression and its various iterations, Berkeley observes that God is the Being "Who never looks away," meaning that God sustains the substance of the physical world in his mind.​

I started to relay the matter differently, changed my mind and forgot to strike the possessive 's from the end of Berkeley. Sorry for any confusion.