|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 8, 2020 22:13:52 GMT
Sure.. but you've moved the goal posts. The biblical account requires a miracle .. there are no miracles.. It's not a miracle. It's just "luckily timed." Does that work for you?  |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jul 8, 2020 22:19:31 GMT
Sure.. but you've moved the goal posts. The biblical account requires a miracle .. there are no miracles.. It's not a miracle. It's just "luckily timed." That'd be a miracle..  |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 8, 2020 22:28:15 GMT
What is a 'scientific perspective'? I'm a trained scientist, and I have never heard that one.
Also, I have yet to see science claim anything, except a perpetual motion machine, which defies the first law of thermodynamics, is impossible. So can you give us an example of where you think science has made any other claims of impossibility?
Taking the Bible miracles as an example, I can think of several technologies that would enable their replication. Raising the dead, water to wine, parting of water, all are within known possible technologies that will exist in the next few hundred years.
Freon
Science has made countless claims of certainty that turned out to be wrong. Countless, eh? That sounds fabricated. Please show me even a few of these 'countless' claims.
But let's assume you are correct. Who then, disproved what 'science' thought?
I will bet 100% of the time it was other scientists. Science is self-correcting. And science, as a whole, only has three laws, that is, three theories that are so well known and tested, and to which all other theories of science are based, that they are considered repeatable in all situations. Those would be the laws of thermodynamics. Outside of those, all scientific theories, from evolution to the speed of light, are open to the possibility that they are flawed. Most well accepted theories, such as evolution, have been analyzed so thoroughly, have been subjected to alternatives so frequently, and yet have had no better explanation, that they are accepted as laws.
Freon
|
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 8, 2020 22:32:06 GMT
There is no evidence that the Bible is anything more than exaggerated stories that might be based on some actual historical events. To talk about 'historically documented' events, as if that statement makes them credible, is presumptuous at best, and some would consider it farcical. What other ancient texts do you consider factual, or is the Bible the only one?
Why do Bible believers expect everyone else to view their anecdotal story book as historically accurate? We don't.
If you believe in it, that's groovy, but it's just your opinion to see it that way.
Freon
Um...are you even following the thread? Or just cherry-picking certain posts to misinterpret? Go back up and read the post that referenced the documented crossing of the Red Sea by Napoleon. Honestly...  Yeah, some guy describes a natural phenomena that you incorrectly view as evidence that a Biblical event occurred.
If you believe that, you'd believe a real estate broker could be a good president.....oh wait...
Nevermind.
|
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 8, 2020 22:48:43 GMT
What is a 'scientific perspective'? I'm a trained scientist, and I have never heard that one.
Also, I have yet to see science claim anything, except a perpetual motion machine, which defies the first law of thermodynamics, is impossible. So can you give us an example of where you think science has made any other claims of impossibility?
Taking the Bible miracles as an example, I can think of several technologies that would enable their replication. Raising the dead, water to wine, parting of water, all are within known possible technologies that will exist in the next few hundred years.
Freon
Freon, Read through the thread before taking potshots at individual posts. Mercy, I simply don't agree with you, and I have stated why.
Your handlers have not taught you how to address contradiction, it seems.
Freon
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 9, 2020 0:25:56 GMT
No you didn't .. but it certainly follows that the Red Sea crossing initially discussed is the biblical account involving a miracle .. Either the parting was a miracle or it was a known phenomena. Which means it was a known phenomena..
So...not impossible. Here's my point. Our "scientific perspective" can deem something impossible... until it happens. Then we seek an explanation for it, preferably a scientific explanation (but there are limits to what science can explain). Another example is the orbit of Mercury, the path of which was "impossible" according to Newtonian physics. It demanded explanation. It is explained by Relativity. So how do we approach a historically documented event that seems "impossible"? We just say it didn't happen? Or do we pursue other explanations?
We pursue scientific explanations.
Not childrens' fantasy stories.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 9, 2020 1:03:28 GMT
Yeah, some guy describes a natural phenomena that you incorrectly view as evidence that a Biblical event occurred.
If you believe that, you'd believe a real estate broker could be a good president.....oh wait...
Nevermind.
I never brought up a biblical event. My ploy was that people would discount something as "impossible" simply because a version was included in the biblical record. But faced with a more recent historical account...it's now deemed "possible." My point was not that "the biblical record is true." I have neither said it nor implied it, despite your insistent inferences. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 9, 2020 1:05:17 GMT
We pursue scientific explanations.
Not childrens' fantasy stories.
Wonderful. That's a good idea. If by "children's fantasy stories" you mean "the Bible," the point of the Bible is a theological, not scientific (or political or sociological or psychological or whatever) explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 9, 2020 1:16:04 GMT
Freon, Read through the thread before taking potshots at individual posts. Mercy, I simply don't agree with you, and I have stated why.
Your handlers have not taught you how to address contradiction, it seems.
Freon
Are you saying that you can't be bothered to acquaint yourself with the context of the conversation? No need for the snark about "handlers." |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 9, 2020 1:17:31 GMT
Now, now. Let's stick with Moses for a while. Lemme see.... Exodus wasn't it.... hang on, got theKJV on my Kindle... Yep, just checked. God did it via Moses's Rod, at command the waters parted. So, was it a miracle or just a luckily-timed natural phenomenon? If the latter, why the big deal? "Luckily-timed..." Yeah, quite fortunate that. Not miraculous, just "luckily timed." Part of the problem is that most people have been fooled by the Hollywood-ized version of the story that isn't even accurate. "Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left." (Exodus 14:21-22, NIV) The Hebrew word for "wall" here is used both literally and figuratively in the Old Testament. It reads to me like hyperbole. I've heard people express disappointment that the "miracle doesn't look like Charlton Heston's version" and then complain that it's "not miraculous at all" because it's explainable by natural circumstances, all the while complaining the "miracles are impossible." Real "damned if you do, damned if you don't," wouldn't you say? But sure..."luckily timed." Oh, come off it. God did it.... via Moses's staff. At the right moment (unless you're one of Pharaoh's cavalry. Or horses). Or God did it by arranging tides,, waterlevels, wind at exactly the right time for the Exodus. Either way, you're crediting God. And yet, you also post that Napoleon's soldiers remarked as a curiosity on a similar phenomenon. Christian Crusaders on (iirc) the 5th Crusade were massacred because of fickle Nile delta tides. Apparently that was Allah. Who also did conjuring tricks with flying donkeys. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 9, 2020 1:20:47 GMT
Science has made countless claims of certainty that turned out to be wrong. Countless, eh? That sounds fabricated. Please show me even a few of these 'countless' claims.
But let's assume you are correct. Who then, disproved what 'science' thought?
I will bet 100% of the time it was other scientists. Science is self-correcting. And science, as a whole, only has three laws, that is, three theories that are so well known and tested, and to which all other theories of science are based, that they are considered repeatable in all situations. Those would be the laws of thermodynamics. Outside of those, all scientific theories, from evolution to the speed of light, are open to the possibility that they are flawed. Most well accepted theories, such as evolution, have been analyzed so thoroughly, have been subjected to alternatives so frequently, and yet have had no better explanation, that they are accepted as laws.
Freon
Don't be ridiculous. Many a bishop has shown many a physicist to be hopelessly wrong about gas pressures, elasticity in metals, interferometry etc. etc. Why, just off the cuff I am sure the religious posters here can give you scores of amusing examples. Go on guys. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 9, 2020 1:22:16 GMT
Oh, come off it. God did it.... via Moses's staff. At the right moment (unless you're one of Pharaoh's cavalry. Or horses). Or God did it by arranging tides,, waterlevels, wind at exactly the right time for the Exodus. Either way, you're crediting God. And yet, you also post that Napoleon's soldiers remarked as a curiosity on a similar phenomenon. My point was...it's not impossible. Is it? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 9, 2020 1:24:01 GMT
Don't be ridiculous. Many a bishop has shown many a physicist to be hopelessly wrong about gas pressures, elasticity in metals, interferometry etc. etc. Why, just off the cuff I am sure the religious posters here can give you scores of amusing examples. Go on guys. You guys are hilarious. Insisting on having an argument that nobody wants to have with you. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 9, 2020 1:38:56 GMT
Don't be ridiculous. Many a bishop has shown many a physicist to be hopelessly wrong about gas pressures, elasticity in metals, interferometry etc. etc. Why, just off the cuff I am sure the religious posters here can give you scores of amusing examples. Go on guys. You guys are hilarious. Insisting on having an argument that nobody wants to have with you. Tell us about how returning from the dead, flying donkeys, virgin births and walking on water are entirely explicable and, simultaneously, miracles. |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Jul 9, 2020 1:43:21 GMT
What is a 'scientific perspective'? I'm a trained scientist, and I have never heard that one.
Also, I have yet to see science claim anything, except a perpetual motion machine, which defies the first law of thermodynamics, is impossible. So can you give us an example of where you think science has made any other claims of impossibility?
Taking the Bible miracles as an example, I can think of several technologies that would enable their replication. Raising the dead, water to wine, parting of water, all are within known possible technologies that will exist in the next few hundred years.
Freon
Science has made countless claims of certainty that turned out to be wrong.
Like?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 9, 2020 1:44:50 GMT
Tell us about how returning from the dead, flying donkeys, virgin births and walking on water are entirely explicable and, simultaneously, miracles. Is that the conversation you're insisting on having? Maybe we should start a new thread on the Religion Forum. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 9, 2020 2:02:26 GMT
Tell us about how returning from the dead, flying donkeys, virgin births and walking on water are entirely explicable and, simultaneously, miracles. Is that the conversation you're insisting on having? Maybe we should start a new thread on the Religion Forum. ...ooops. I thought this was. I'm just clicking on the notifications. Can anyone shift this? And, incidentally, where's Seawolf? And WritersBlock? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 9, 2020 2:13:03 GMT
...ooops. I thought this was. I'm just clicking on the notifications. Can anyone shift this? And, incidentally, where's Seawolf? And WritersBlock? Yeah, the move is kind of overdue... |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 9, 2020 3:21:17 GMT
Yeah, some guy describes a natural phenomena that you incorrectly view as evidence that a Biblical event occurred.
If you believe that, you'd believe a real estate broker could be a good president.....oh wait...
Nevermind.
I never brought up a biblical event. My ploy was that people would discount something as "impossible" simply because a version was included in the biblical record. But faced with a more recent historical account...it's now deemed "possible." My point was not that "the biblical record is true." I have neither said it nor implied it, despite your insistent inferences. Sorry, not buying it. It is a roundabout strategy to endorse the Bible. Why even mention the Bible, otherwise?
And you DO believe in the Bible, else why would you state that Faith, the Biblical version of it (whatever that means), the one you said you profess, is different than Faith, as it is actually defined.
There is a certain conceit to saying something like that.
Finally, you continue to not answer some basic questions, like if you voted for Trump. It's a fair question in a political forum, but you keep dodging it. Why?
My question to you is who are you? We've seen some crazy conservatives in here, but they all seem to have a basic mold. Not very educated, anti-science, indoctrinated with fundamentalist Christianity, false-victimhood, devoted to Trump, just to name a few.
So what flavor are you? We know you are a Christian, and seem to have a brain, which is wonderful because it would be fantastic to understand conservatism from the perspective of someone who uses vocabulary in excess of two syllable words.
Or maybe you are a progressive liberal, and I am completely misunderstanding you.
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 9, 2020 13:14:37 GMT
Sorry, not buying it. It is a roundabout strategy to endorse the Bible. Why even mention the Bible, otherwise?
I didn't mention it first. You are demonstrating a persistent effort to ignore context and attribute intent. Why? First "my opinion on Trump" and now this.
And you DO believe in the Bible, else why would you state that Faith, the Biblical version of it (whatever that means), the one you said you profess, is different than Faith, as it is actually defined.
Irrelevant to the topic at hand.
There is a certain conceit to saying something like that. Oh, now it's "conceit," is it?
Finally, you continue to not answer some basic questions, like if you voted for Trump. It's a fair question in a political forum, but you keep dodging it. Why?
I did answer that question. Now you are demonstrating what is called "willful ignorance." Let me set you straight.
I DID NOT vote for Trump. I live IN CANADA. I have NO ABILITY to vote in an American election. Further, I WOULD NOT vote for Trump. I have made that clear many times. I hold him in no regard whatsoever, and I defy you to find ANY EVIDENCE whatsoever that I hold him in any regard. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Or maybe you are a progressive liberal, and I am completely misunderstanding you.
You certainly seem intent on misunderstanding me, regardless of my vain attempts to be quite transparent.
Freon
|
|
