Bible Vs Scientism

[MichaelBoll]

Don't know about the place of the third Heaven, but it sounds like the birds fly in the first heaven and the stars shine in the second heaven. I suppose we could call the edge of the atmosphere a "barrier".

I don't think that the rotation and revolution of the Earth is unbiblical, though. Everyone talks of the Sun rising and setting, even today. It is acceptable to observe and speak of things from a relativistic perspective.

Thanks for your honest and direct answer. Dr. Michael Heiser, who also believes we live on a spinning ball orbiting the sun, had an artist create this image of Hebrew cosmology, ie: the world as described in the scriptures...


What do you think about it? Aside from the Bible saying that the sun, moon, and stars are IN the firmament - not under them - it seems to be a fairly accurate scriptural description, don't you think?

 

[MichaelBoll]

Not sure why you think I must answer for your logical fallacies and lack of reasoning

There was no "must" implied. This is a discussion forum. Most people on discussion forums post things they believe and are then willing to explain (and even stand and vigorously defend) their beliefs to those who see things differently. You made an assertion, and I simply talked out how I understood the mechanics of your assertion, and asked you politely to further explain your assertion. I'm not sure how my explanation of how I honestly understand the working mechanics of what you claimed is a "logical fallacy and lack of reasoning", but I'm quite sure you won't be any more willing to explain that to me than you were to explain your first assertion.

A lot of people just parrot things they've heard others say, without actually understanding those things themselves. My request for an explanation was me giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were not one of those people.

 

[MichaelBoll]

You're still focusing on the wrong thing.

Really? Then please, by all means, help me out. Please clearly explain to me what I'm focusing on, why it is the wrong thing, and what thing I should be focusing on. 🙂

 

[Dino246]

Really? Then please, by all means, help me out. Please clearly explain to me what I'm focusing on, why it is the wrong thing, and what thing I should be focusing on. 🙂

As I stated previously, focus on the impossible part, not the physical part.

 

[MichaelBoll]

You asked for an explanation for the issue as you misunderstood it.

That remains to be seen. I'm sure your (or Magenta's) explanation of how it actually does work will confirm that it was indeed my misunderstanding after all, and we can put this thing to bed.

Can I assume that an explanation is forthcoming?

Yes, because it is.

Again, that remains to be seen. How can we be sure that my explanation of the required mechanics is a strawman if you don't explain the proper mechanics of how it works?

Explanation forthcoming?

Where did the concept of "stuck" originate? With Magenta, or with you? Trace that, and then we'll continue.

Is that information pertinent to the explanation? Perhaps you also need to know exactly which definition of "stuck" I'm using, and from which dictionary?

I initiated the concept of stuck.

Explanation forthcoming?

 

[MichaelBoll]

As I stated previously, focus on the impossible part, not the physical part.

So then, just remove the word "physically", and you'll give me the answer I've been asking and asking for? Okay.

Owing a debt of 10,000 talents is NOT impossible.
Seeing a very tall tree from everywhere on earth IS impossible.
Seeing all the kingdoms of the earth from a very high mountain IS impossible.

Jesus used an example of a man owing 10,000 talents, which is NOT impossible. You claimed that it logically followed that Jesus would then also use an example of seeing all the kingdoms of the earth from a very high mountain - which IS impossible.

I'm asking how using an example that IS impossible logically follows using an example that is NOT impossible.

 

[GaryA]

What the freak? In light of the evidence, let me rephrase: "I didn't INTENTIONALLY put any reaction on your post."

Nor would I have chosen a sad face. Nor would I have posted the reaction and then lied about doing so. But it seems clear that the reaction came from my account/device, and so I can only assume that it was another one of those times that I pull my phone out of my pocket, only to find out that it has opened up five apps and three web pages and that I'm one click away from purchasing $8,000 worth of airline tickets to Tibet.

I do it all the time - most times I catch it and reverse it right away.

(You do realize that you can go back at any time and remove it - right?)

You gotta be careful how you handle the device...

 

[GaryA]

I do it all the time

A more accurate statement would be:

"I have noticed myself doing this recently..."

 

[Dino246]

That remains to be seen. I'm sure your (or Magenta's) explanation of how it actually does work will confirm that it was indeed my misunderstanding after all, and we can put this thing to bed.

Can I assume that an explanation is forthcoming?


Again, that remains to be seen. How can we be sure that my explanation of the required mechanics is a strawman if you don't explain the proper mechanics of how it works?

Explanation forthcoming?


Is that information pertinent to the explanation? Perhaps you also need to know exactly which definition of "stuck" I'm using, and from which dictionary?

I initiated the concept of stuck.

Explanation forthcoming?

Yes, you initiated the concept of "stuck" and defined it the first time you used it: "Each molecule of gas remains exactly in the same spot in relation to the earth at all times?"

The answer to that question is obviously No. The appropriate response was as mine was: That's a strawman fallacy: a misrepresentation which is criticized, with the intent to dismiss the claim.

 

[Dino246]

So then, just remove the word "physically", and you'll give me the answer I've been asking and asking for? Okay.

Owing a debt of 10,000 talents is NOT impossible.
Seeing a very tall tree from everywhere on earth IS impossible.
Seeing all the kingdoms of the earth from a very high mountain IS impossible.

Jesus used an example of a man owing 10,000 talents, which is NOT impossible. You claimed that it logically followed that Jesus would then also use an example of seeing all the kingdoms of the earth from a very high mountain - which IS impossible.

I'm asking how using an example that IS impossible logically follows using an example that is NOT impossible.

A servant owing a king 10,000 talents is so far from reality as to be impossible. That amount would be impossible to pay back even in many lifetimes, which is exactly the point Jesus was making with the illustration: it is impossible to "pay God back" for our sin.

 

[GaryA]

A servant owing a king 10,000 talents is so far from reality as to be impossible. That amount would be impossible to pay back even in many lifetimes, which is exactly the point Jesus was making with the illustration: it is impossible to "pay God back" for our sin.

Talk about strawman...

SMH

Whether it can be paid back or not has no bearing on the reality of the possibility of it existing.

Otherwise, should the U.S. simply declare the following? :

"Because we can never pay the multi-trillions of dollars of debt - it cannot possibly be real ..."

 

[Dino246]

Talk about strawman...

SMH

Whether it can be paid back or not has no bearing on the reality of the possibility of it existing.

Otherwise, should the U.S. simply declare the following? :

"Because we can never pay the multi-trillions of dollars of debt - it cannot possibly be real ..."

Please define "strawman" (as you used it) without looking it up.

 

[oyster67]

What do you think about it? Aside from the Bible saying that the sun, moon, and stars are IN the firmament - not under them - it seems to be a fairly accurate scriptural description, don't you think?

Fascinating! I suppose it is possible. We shall see very soon!

 

[GaryA]

Please define "strawman" (as you used it) without looking it up.

Let's start here:

That's a strawman fallacy: a misrepresentation which is criticized, with the intent to dismiss the claim.

Any form of elaboration made that can be used to "take down the whole thing" may constitute a strawman argument; it does not have to [specifically] be criticism of the target claim.

 

[Dino246]

Let's start here:

Any form of elaboration made that can be used to "take down the whole thing" may constitute a strawman argument; it does not have to [specifically] be criticism of the target claim.

So please explain your comment, "Talk about strawman...".

 

[GaryA]

So please explain your comment, "Talk about strawman...".

Somewhere between

I agree that owing 10,000 talents is not a physical impossibility, but it is completely implausible. That means that Jesus using metaphors that are physically impossible on a globe Earth is not ruled out by any principle of logic.

and

A servant owing a king 10,000 talents is so far from reality as to be impossible. That amount would be impossible to pay back even in many lifetimes, which is exactly the point Jesus was making with the illustration: it is impossible to "pay God back" for our sin.

it occurred to me that you seemed to be doing the same thing to @MichaelBoll that you claimed he was doing to someone else.

I thought you were trying to shoot down his premise with strawman-style tactics.

Good grief - I took a shower and went out to a restaurant to eat - after getting back and looking over your conversation with MB, I am now a little confused over what seemed to make better sense earlier.

It's late, I'm a bit tired - what can I say...

 

[Dino246]

Somewhere between

and

it occurred to me that you seemed to be doing the same thing to @MichaelBoll that you claimed he was doing to someone else.

I thought you were trying to shoot down his premise with strawman-style tactics.

Good grief - I took a shower and went out to a restaurant to eat - after getting back and looking over your conversation with MB, I am now a little confused over what seemed to make better sense earlier.

It's late, I'm a bit tired - what can I say...

I wasn't intentionally using a strawman argument in this case, though I might occasionally employ one to illustrate the folly of another person's position.

Since Mr. Boll does not respond for days at a time, I may have lost the gist of the conversation in there somewhere. If so, my bad.

 

[elights]

The knowledge of how old the earth is if it’s not specifically communicated in biblical texts is obviously irrelevant to our walk with God,the word of God wasn’t written to satisfy our curiosity but to reveal God’s plan for mankind and anything He deemed a necessity to that cause is shown in the Bible,believing or not the Bible isn’t what makes it to be what it is!

 

[MichaelBoll]

A servant owing a king 10,000 talents is so far from reality as to be impossible. That amount would be impossible to pay back even in many lifetimes...

Note that Jesus didn't say the servant owed a man the money, but a king. Note also that Solomon was taking in almost 1000 talents of gold every year - which was worth 20 times as much as silver. Solomon used 10,000 talents of silver just in the construction of God's Temple!

2 Chronicles 9:27... "The king made silver as common as stones in Jerusalem ..."
1 Kings 10:21... "silver was not considered as anything in the days of Solomon."

And Haman told King Ahasuerus that he'd pay 10,000 talents of silver of his own money for the destruction of the Jews.

So a servant (likely a tributary prince) owing 10,000 talents of silver to a king is certainly NOT "so far from reality as to be impossible". Heck, it's not even implausible if the country were poor and hadn't paid tribute for a few years.

Nor would it make any sense whatsoever for the debtor to promise to pay back every penny if it were "so far from reality as to be impossible". Nor would it make sense for the king put the servant in prison until such time as the entire debt was paid back.

Your argument from incredulity is flawed. And you have by no means demonstrated that Jesus using an example that is 100% impossible logically follows Jesus using an example that you personally think is very implausible - despite evidence to the contrary.

We don't have to talk about it anymore. I've made my point. You are free to reject my point. But hopefully you'll keep this fact in the back of your mind: The Father and the Son each used events in the Bible that would be 100% IMPOSSIBLE if we lived on a ball.

...which is exactly the point Jesus was making with the illustration: it is impossible to "pay God back" for our sin.

Jesus' point was that God has forgiven us a BUNCH of debt, and so we should be willing to forgive others their debts - which are piddly when compared to how much God has forgiven us.

Your interpretation of Jesus' point fails for the reasons outlined above.

 

[MichaelBoll]

Yes, you initiated the concept of "stuck" and defined it the first time you used it: "Each molecule of gas remains exactly in the same spot in relation to the earth at all times?"

The answer to that question is obviously No. The appropriate response was as mine was: That's a strawman fallacy: a misrepresentation which is criticized, with the intent to dismiss the claim.

Hmm... I'm pretty sure that asking valid questions cannot rightfully be a "strawman fallacy" - especially when those questions are followed up with a polite and sincere request for further clarification.

The Scientism claim: The atmosphere moves along with the rotation of the earth.
My understanding of that claim: The atmosphere is - for all intents and purposes - "velcroed" to the earth.
Magenta's statement: Gravity causes the atmosphere to move along with the rotation of the earth.
My questions: You mean like gas molecules are held fast to the earth and each other? Please explain.
Magenta's snark: Why do you think it's my job to explain it to you?
Your diversion: You made a strawman argument, so let's use a bunch of posts to talk more about that instead of the issue.

Do you notice what's missing? Your and/or Magenta's ACTUAL EXPLANATION for how gravity causes the atmosphere to move along with the earth.

Now listen closely, so as not to get confused again and think I'm making an argument of any kind - let alone a strawman...

In MY OWN understanding, the atmosphere must be affixed to the earth (and itself) in order for it to be physically forced to move right along with a ball that is moving underneath it.

If the atmosphere is NOT actually affixed to the earth (or its molecules to each other), then there is NO reason why spinning the earth in any direction at any time would cause the atmosphere above it (but not attached to it) to follow in that same direction.

In MY OWN understanding, the Scientism argument becomes even more ludicrous when you consider that the atmosphere is thinner (and is under far less gravitational pull) the farther you go up, and when you consider that huge swaths of the atmosphere break free from this "velcro effect" and move in all different directions... all the time, and at all altitudes.

So you guys can either expose yourselves as parrots, claiming crap you've heard and believe on blind faith - but can't possibly explain... or you can give an actual EXPLANATION for why my own understanding of the Scientism claim is flawed, and how this "velcro effect" actually DOES work.

Which will it be?