RAFH

How do you know which one is the real wife? Perhaps the one living with him is a pretender. Perhaps he is a bigamist and all of them are his wives, though he denies it now. Perhaps none are, perhaps he and his current mate killed the real wife for her money.

Ah, are what ifs fun? You can come up with so many potentials.

Nuwanda

Ah, not knowing which is the real wife commits one to the belief that there is a real wife, one that must be discerned among many options. It does not commit one to believe that a real wife does not exist.

Is not science grounded in the "what ifs?"

David B

Well, I suppose it is, if you view hypotheses as 'what ifs' - which doesn't strike me as as an unreasonable way of putting it.

Once you have the hypothesis, of course, then one must find a method of seeing if it the hypothesis fits reality, and then observe or perform experiment to verify it (or not!).

Further, the more a hypothesis seems not to fit in with what is currently known (like levitation, say, or walking on water, or talking snakes, or, for that matter, continents being on the move), then the more rigorous ones tests need to be, and the more one requires to find a mechanism for how the claimed phenomenon happens.

David B

Gawen

Why shouldn't they? After all, long ago people who believed in these gods. Throughout the middle-east, people believed in quite a few gods. Many had adopted personal gods and the patriarch of the family picked one god for everyone as well. And then there were the tribal gods.

These gods listed in the bible were believed in enough for the Commandment:
'You (thou) shall have no other gods before Me.'

Notice it doesn't say 'You (thou) shall have no other gods before Me because I am the one true God'

Really bad analogy.

RAFH

What doesn't commit one to believe a real wife doesn't exist?

Grounded, no. Though 'what if' is a part of the process. You should read the scientific method. Scientists don't just sit around dreaming up 'what ifs'. Scientific endeavor is based on observation of phenomena which is not adequately explained by current theory (scientific definition). That leads to distillation of a principle or principles responsible for the observed anomaly or anomalies, which is where the what iffing may come in. Essentially that is called brain-storming, seeking ideas by the shot-gun method. That can be an effective method, particularly if one has no idea of what is going on. Another effective method, one which is far more effective but also more dangerous in that it can result from and contain preconceptions which lead the researcher in the wrong direction, is to follow the evidence where it leads. By either positively building up or negatively reducing down one is led to a potential solution. As noted, this method has its dangers in that preconceptions are more likely to affect the outcome, but it is very powerful. It also requires a lot of experience and good intuition. Once principles are derived, by whatever means, they need to be tested. This is done by hypothesizing the consequences of the principles. If they are true, then this consequence should follow. While some might describe this as what iffing, it is really just following logic. What must be true if the principles are true, what must be false if the principles are false. Then one can devise experiments to test the hypotheses and in turn, either validate or invalidate the principles. If the experimental results validate the hypotheses, the principles are validated, at least conditionally. This is when peer review enters. The scientist prepares his paper describing his obsevations, his principle, the hypotheses, the experiments and the results and what he deduces/infers from such and publishes it for review. This is to eliminate the researcher's inherent biases. Others will review the paper and perhaps duplicate the experiments, perhaps generate hypotheses of their own and develop experiments to test those and/or the original hypotheses. They will challenge the findings and conclusions and the scientist must defend his work. If he is successful, the principles may become theory.

What ifs have only a very small part, if any, in the process.

ecco

Nunwanda,

Have you completely ignored this part of my post #17

...or did I just miss your response?

Or, do you realize just how futile it would be?

Headache

Yes!

So, you believe that the bible is more or less incorrect on these gods, but then I need to see your yardstick for what is real and what is not real in the bible. Please explain the yardstick you are using.

What has wifes got to do with gods? We can see the wifes and ask them questions, the same can not be said for any gods.

Cege

Someone else has already asked, but I'll repeat since it was my first question on your examples: what did you know about the blind man, how long and well had you known him, was his blindness total or partial, was it documented medically before, was it medically documented after healing was claimed?

Nuwanda

The yardstick is hermeneutics. The Bible says again and again that "The Lord God is one God". References to other gods is not the same as validating them as real gods. I can understand to some degree why you might read the bible and think this but I can only understand it if you confessed to either having no knowledge of biblical interpretation, you read it out of context or without reading the bible in full, or you ignore obvious scriptures which explain that any so-called "god" besides Jehovah is a dumb idol made by the hands of man, or demonic in nature. That's the short answer.


If you don't get the analogy, as I noticed one of the moderators couldn't either, then I can't help. It calls on basic imagination skills. I can't give you that.

RAFH

Again, you haven't any evidence they are not his wives, nor the woman he's living with is his wife. And as noted, we can interrogate these women, none of these gods are available. Plus, you have only your book to support your claims. Not the best authority.