Freethought & Rationalism Archive

buckshot23 · 08-29-2006, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

You are again inventing scenarios I did not suggest. Why do you continue this way? Are you not able to understand me, do you wish to dodge my questions, are you pulling my leg, or what?

Substitute solar system for universe then.

Quote:

I never mentioned knowing nothing of the universe.

Noted. Sorry.
:huh:

Quote:

By disagreeing with experts, one calls them dumb indirectly (or, alternatively, one claims that they have an agenda - which I fail to see in this case).

That is just bullocks.(what is the German equivalence?) If I am right then they are wrong, not dumb.

Quote:

What was difficult to understand here?

Nothing is. Are you implying that I must accept all scientific theories if I accept a single one of them?

Quote:

So the writer introduced just more metaphors?

No just that a frame of reference of the earth is all these verses even imply. Is my nickel in the same place when I wake up in the morning? Should I qualify it when I tell you where my nickel is? Should I qualify sunrises as not really sunrises or should I just accept that we are using relational language that everybody on earth uses?

Quote:

You dodged the point: The point is that your analogy fails because in your examples, it's very easy to clear up any misunderstandings.

Which is utterly irrelevant. You use language every single day of positional relationships when telling someone where something is. You count on the fact that the "earth does not move" everyday when you look for the book you left on the night stand the night before. Instead of qualifying its location you just go to the night stand because in our frame of reference it did not move.

Quote:

Letting these verses in the bible without providing an easy way to clear the meaning up can only mean that your god preferred humans to misunderstand it.

And yet nobody believed God was a rock with its even clearer inferance.

Quote:

If you disagree with this conclusion, saying that this is a problem with my expectations is empty. You have to give an argument why one should expect otherwise.

I do have a problem with your conclusions. Your empty expectations have no more weight than the electrons that carried the charge from your computer keyboard to the servers of this site. It was not the point of these passages to teach cosmology or even hint at it. Your quote mining will never change that.

Quote:

BTW, I found it quite illuminating that you snipped this paragraph:

There are absolutely no verses in the bible which suggest a heliocentric world view. But there are verses which could be interpreted as supporting geocentrism. Exactly what people did for hundreds and thousands of years.

You only made some irrelevant comments on me saying "bullocks" - but ignored the following explanation why it's bullocks. Just to remind you: This was my answer to your claim "If you knew nothing about the solar system then the bible could suggest about anything it or any text really."

If one had no knowledge of the solar system then texts could infer a great deal of things. That was the point, I never claimed helocentrism was in the bible. The bible tells us very little about cosmology.

Quote:

Either support this by explaining who the bible could suggest a heliocentric view, or retract it. Good luck.

I won't retract because I never said anything of the sort. This statement is what I replied to...

Quote:

Originally Posted by sven

Suppose you knew nothing about the solar system and then read the verses.

emphasis mine
This is obviously a ridiculous statement. If you knew nothing about the solar system then you wouldn't get any view from the bible. Can we move this one off the table now please?

buckshot23 · 08-29-2006, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

We know quite a bit about this context from other Hebrew writings, such as 1 Enoch (formerly in the Bible, still in some Bibles, and personally endorsed by Jude who's in every modern Christian Bible IIRC).

It's rather hard to argue that the solid sky-dome, and particularly the little detachable stars, are useful metaphors like "sunrise" and "sunset". The complex system of slots/gates in the dome (not shown here), through which the Sun and the Moon enter and leave at different times of the year, aren't useful metaphors either: indeed, these are so useless that for centuries even poets have not seen fit to mention them (as far as I know).

If you have anything to add about this subject, please do.

Huon · 08-30-2006, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

...
This is obviously a ridiculous statement. If you knew nothing about the solar system then you wouldn't get any view from the bible. Can we move this one off the table now please?

No, we cannot. I do not understand why neither the OT nor the NT could not tell us the present scientific theory about the solar system, or possibly a better scientific theory ?

Is it contempt against the human species ? Or simply indifference ?

Jack the Bodiless · 08-30-2006, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

If you have anything to add about this subject, please do.

What else do you require? The relevant verses are detailed in the link I provided.

Sven · 08-30-2006, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

I had more to say and you behaved a little better in your next post.

"behaved better"? I see.

Quote:

I really don't. You asked me why I take that psalm passage metaphorically and I told you but you didn't like the answer.

Yes, I don't like non sequiturs. Sue me.

Quote:

Yes I think context is a good thing to consider in these discussions. The whole passage uses metaphorical language and you want to rip a literal side issue out of context to support your belief.

Which belief, please?

Quote:

I do so for religious reasons.

Which are? Revelation? Is there any "religious reason" which has ever led to something on which (almost all) humans universally agree on?

Quote:

Choose to ignore context if you like but any objective person would see what I am saying. What is that passage talking about? Cosmology or something else. Obviously the latter.

It's talking about beliefs of the author - which is of course different than only cosmology. You (unintentionally) propose a false dichotomy here: Either the passage is only about the power of your god or the passage is only about cosmology. These are obviously not the only options.

Quote:

Thinking isn't an argument. Sorry couldn't resist.

You know, there was no reason to put the "think" in my statement in bold. Exactly because I realize that I did not give an argument, I closed with: "But thinking is not an argument - neither on my nor on your side."

[snip ground already covered]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

There's nothing about "esatblishing the earth in its orbit" - neither here nor anywhere else in the bible.

Quote:

Who said there was?

You said "God has power to establish the earth in its orbit which in our reference point doesn't move." As long as this claim is not connected in any way to the verse in question, it's not an argument, but only your belief that this is the framework in which we have to interpret this verse.

Quote:

Just taking your "standard" to its logical conclusion.

Yep. A "standard" which you invented.

Quote:

The author may very well be a geocentrist but that is not the same thing as this text advocating geocentrism.

A simple "yes" would have been sufficient.

Quote:

I fail to see the significance in this. Does this text teach geocentrism or not?

Since I don't believe that the bible teaches anything (only its writers may have in some occasions wanted to teach something), this question is meaningless to me. My argument (and that of theistic evolutionists) is simply this: Neither this verse nor Genesis 1+2 teach anything about scientific questions - they both only reflect the beliefs of their writers.

[snip already covered things]

[quote=Sven]The argument that most people were geocentrists at this time, but that no one believed in god being a rock./quote]

Quote:

And yet there is clear language that God is a rock! And yet there is clear language that God is a rock! Which is proof that the author was using metaphoric language. Why can't you grasp this?

Of course I grasp it! I only call you out on your non sequitur! :banghead:

Quote:

Is it just that you don't want to? Or is that I have three letters (YEC)in my profile that you just can't let yourself understand this point.

AFAIK, attributing motives to other posters is not approved upon here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Of course we can agree on this! As soon as you agree that Genesis 1+2 is not the best to take claims about biology, geology, etc. from.

Quote:

To a certain degree of course.

I see. We are indeed making progess.

Quote:

I fail to see evidence, especially from your posts, that Genesis should not be taken literally as history.

Because, as I already argued, there's absolutely no reason to take any creation story literally (as long as it's not supported by reality).

Quote:

Consensus is not an argument.

Of course consensus among experts is an argument. You use it everyday: The consensus among engineers, the consensus among doctors, the consensus among Christians (oh wait, there's hardly any)...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

It's relevant to me because I fail to understand why your god preferred humans misunderstanding the bible.

Quote:

Who said he did?

Logic.
P1 We have an omnipotent being.
P2 Reality is some way.
C The omnipotent being likes it this way.

Sven · 08-30-2006, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

Substitute solar system for universe then.

I went back and saw that I indeed worded my proposal somewhat badly.
"Suppose you knew nothing about the solar system and then read the verses."

Although I think my meaning was clear, obviously it wasn't. Well, let's try this: "Suppose you had only the observations from everyday life (sunrises and sunsets etc.), not the means of science (Galileo etc.). Then read the verse. Then tell me with a straight face that they (or anything else in the bible) suggests anything else than a geocentric worldview."

I hope I have nothing left to nitpick.

Quote:

Noted. Sorry. :huh:

Thanks.

Quote:

That is just bullocks.(what is the German equivalence?)

I see that it should be "bollocks". I should really look some words up first.

In German, it's either "Schwachsinn" or "totaler Quatsch".

Quote:

If I am right then they are wrong, not dumb.

What you are ignoring is that they have studied the subject in much greater detail then you. Given this, they have to be dumb if they come to different conclusions although they know more.

If you disagree, please explain the reason why they are wrong. Simply saying that it is not because they are dumb does not tell us the real reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

That's a non answer. Answering "Why exactly you have the view of the Earth going round the sun?" with "On this I have been convinced." tells us exactly nothing.

Quote:

:huh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

What was difficult zo understand here?

Quote:

Nothing is. Are you implying that I must accept all scientific theories if I accept a single one of them?

No. I have no idea where you got the idea from. I'm simply trying to understand the difference - how is it that you could be convinced of the modern view of the solar system, but not about the modern view of biology?
In other words: Which kind of evidence does convince you and which does not?

[snip strawmen/false analogies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

You dodged the point: The point is that your analogy fails because in your examples, it's very easy to clear up any misunderstandings.

Quote:

Which is utterly irrelevant. You use language every single day of positional relationships when telling someone where something is. You count on the fact that the "earth does not move" everyday when you look for the book you left on the night stand the night before. Instead of qualifying its location you just go to the night stand because in our frame of reference it did not move.

How does anything address here the fact that your analogy fails because there's no way to clear up misunderstandings of this verse?

Quote:

And yet nobody believed God was a rock with its even clearer inferance.

Buckshot, still repeating this just makes you look silly. *sigh*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

If you disagree with this conclusion, saying that this is a problem with my expectations is empty. You have to give an argument why one should expect otherwise.

Quote:

I do have a problem with your conclusions. Your empty expectations have no more weight than the electrons that carried the charge from your computer keyboard to the servers of this site.

Buckshot, calling my expectations "empty" still is no argument for why one should not expect means to correct obvious sources of misunderstandings.

Quote:

If one had no knowledge of the solar system then texts could infer a great deal of things. That was the point, I never claimed helocentrism was in the bible. The bible tells us very little about cosmology.

See, and theistic evolutionists think the same. They only replace "cosmology" by "biology and geology".

Quote:

I won't retract because I never said anything of the sort.

OK. This was obviously based on a misreading of my proposal (could have been clearer). So I take it that you agree that there's no way that one could extract a heliocentric worldview from the bible?

buckshot23 · 08-30-2006, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

What else do you require? The relevant verses are detailed in the link I provided.

I suppose I require not to be jumping all over the bible in these conversations. If you have something do add about these two verses then please do let us know.

buckshot23 · 08-30-2006, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

No, we cannot. I do not understand why neither the OT nor the NT could not tell us the present scientific theory about the solar system, or possibly a better scientific theory ?

Is it contempt against the human species ? Or simply indifference ?

Would it be reasonable to expect theories from 100 years ago to be in the bible? How about 1000? Complaining about a "modern view" being lacking isn't fair.

Jack the Bodiless · 08-30-2006, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

I suppose I require not to be jumping all over the bible in these conversations. If you have something do add about these two verses then please do let us know.

Why do you speak of "context", but now wish to limit the discussion to "two verses"? Why shouldn't we be "jumping all over the Bible" to build up a picture of the Biblical worldview, which establishes the context?

buckshot23 · 08-30-2006, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Why do you speak of "context", but now wish to limit the discussion to "two verses"? Why shouldn't we be "jumping all over the Bible" to build up a picture of the Biblical worldview, which establishes the context?

This is a good point, however this verse in question would be an expansion beyond the topic. Why is Enoch excluded? I in no way feel like arguing this. That being the case these verses are rather typical of the arguments for the bible advocating geocentrism.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.