Is the Bible Literally True? No, of Course Not!

[Into the Night]

The realities of science, like the realities of the internal combustion engine, while they may exist, don't magically flow through the air and embed themselves in our brains, Alex. There have to be people who discover and learn those realities.

Buzzword fallacies. You have no idea what 'reality' even means or how it's defined.
Science is not 'discovery'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Internal combustion engines are not 'discovery'. They simply are. They are any engine where the fuel is consumed in an internal chamber, usually using the expanding gases to convert thermal energy into kinetic energy. An external combustion engine converts thermal energy into kinetic energy by an indirect means, and the fuel is consumed outside of that medium.

Examples of internal combustion engines are reciprocating engines typically found in cars and trucks, locomotives, auto engines, ships, and some aircraft; and jet engines found in some tanks and some aircraft, and even some ships.

Examples of external combustion engines are power plants, auto engines, some cars, ships, and some locomotives. The medium usually used for these is water. Sometimes helium or nitrogen is used, or even a synthetic material.

Engineering is not science, Sock.

Right...and yet your opinion of many aspects of the Bible and science

The Bible is a set of books, Sock. They are plainly written. They don't need interpretation. The ONLY authoritative reference of the Bible is the Bible itself.
Theories of science are plainly written. They don't need interpretation. The ONLY authoritative reference of any theory of science is the author of that theory.
The Constitution is law. It is plainly written. It doesn't need interpretation. The ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution is the Constitution itself.

conflict with many who are as, or more, knowledgeable than you.

False authority fallacy. Any 'experts' you dream up are NOT authoritative references.

My dad seems to believe he is an expert in troubleshooting.

Do the police know? How many 'troubles' have been murdered in this way?

As someone who is much, much closer to an expert than he, I know he's not, yet he chooses, like you, to believe what he WANTS to believe.

You are not an expert on anything, Sock. You are a nothing. Don't try to make up shit about yourself.

 

[Into the Night]

Wrong. The Bible especially is not plainly written.

It is, Sock. You just can't read or understand English.

That's why there is significant disagreement, even among Christians, about dozens upon dozens of topics. I literally copied/pasted words from the Bible and Gfm swears they don't mean what they say. If the Bible is clear, that wouldn't happen.

You tried to change the Bible, Sock. You can't do that and still call it the Bible in an effort to destroy it.

Again....I mean, you just HAVE to be a troll.

...annnnnnnnnd back to your usual insult stream.

 

[ZenMode]

Buzzword fallacies. You have no idea what 'reality' even means or how it's defined.
Science is not 'discovery'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Internal combustion engines are not 'discovery'. They simply are. They are any engine where the fuel is consumed in an internal chamber, usually using the expanding gases to convert thermal energy into kinetic energy. An external combustion engine converts thermal energy into kinetic energy by an indirect means, and the fuel is consumed outside of that medium.

Examples of internal combustion engines are reciprocating engines typically found in cars and trucks, locomotives, auto engines, ships, and some aircraft; and jet engines found in some tanks and some aircraft, and even some ships.

Examples of external combustion engines are power plants, auto engines, some cars, ships, and some locomotives. The medium usually used for these is water. Sometimes helium or nitrogen is used, or even a synthetic material.

Engineering is not science, Sock.

The Bible is a set of books, Sock. They are plainly written. They don't need interpretation. The ONLY authoritative reference of the Bible is the Bible itself.
Theories of science are plainly written. They don't need interpretation. The ONLY authoritative reference of any theory of science is the author of that theory.
The Constitution is law. It is plainly written. It doesn't need interpretation. The ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution is the Constitution itself.

False authority fallacy. Any 'experts' you dream up are NOT authoritative references.

Do the police know? How many 'troubles' have been murdered in this way?

You are not an expert on anything, Sock. You are a nothing. Don't try to make up shit about yourself.

Addressing one part now, before the rest of this post.

"Science is a set of falsifiable theories."

Where do these theories come from? Does "science" magically generate them?

 

[Into the Night]

Addressing one part now, before the rest of this post.

"Science is a set of falsifiable theories."

Where do these theories come from? Does "science" magically generate them?

It is good you are keeping it to one question at a time.

Theories of science may come from anywhere. They may be inspired by noting a pattern of observations, by re-arranging or combining other theories of science, in one's dreams, or even by watching an episode of Sponge Bob.

A theory of science must be:
* a theory
* falsifiable

ALL theories (scientific or otherwise) must pass the internal consistency check. No theory may be based on a fallacy. The theory MUST be based on a valid argument.
ALL theories of science must also pass the external consistency check. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science (exclusionary rule). One or both theories must be False.

A theory of science must be able to withstand tests designed to destroy it (tests against the null hypothesis of that theory). The tests must be definable, practical to conduct, specific, and produce a specific result. As long as a theory survives such tests and such tests are available, it is automatically part of the body of science. No vote needed. No consensus is used. There is no voting bloc in science.

Any theory of science, may be falsified by such a test at any time. No theory is ever proven True. It is possible, however, to prove a theory of science False.

Once falsified, the theory is no longer a valid argument.

Example:

Kepler's laws came out of careful observation of the orbits of planets (particularly Mars). Much of this data came from Tycho's data, which Kepler published for Tycho upon his death. Tycho's observatory had the best instrumentation at the time.

Maxwell's law came out of combining other theories of science into one.

Einstein's law came out of a dream and by applying the Pythagorean theorem to a graph of space and time.

Newton's law of motion came out of combining Kepler's laws and Galileo's observations and his own observations.

No theory can be proven True. Observations are not a proof, since all observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.

 

[ZenMode]

It is good you are keeping it to one question at a time.

Theories of science may come from anywhere. They may be inspired by noting a pattern of observations, by re-arranging or combining other theories of science, in one's dreams, or even by watching an episode of Sponge Bob.

A theory of science must be:
* a theory
* falsifiable

ALL theories (scientific or otherwise) must pass the internal consistency check. No theory may be based on a fallacy. The theory MUST be based on a valid argument.
ALL theories of science must also pass the external consistency check. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science (exclusionary rule). One or both theories must be False.

A theory of science must be able to withstand tests designed to destroy it (tests against the null hypothesis of that theory). The tests must be definable, practical to conduct, specific, and produce a specific result. As long as a theory survives such tests and such tests are available, it is automatically part of the body of science. No vote needed. No consensus is used. There is no voting bloc in science.

Any theory of science, may be falsified by such a test at any time. No theory is ever proven True. It is possible, however, to prove a theory of science False.

Once falsified, the theory is no longer a valid argument.

Example:

Kepler's laws came out of careful observation of the orbits of planets (particularly Mars). Much of this data came from Tycho's data, which Kepler published for Tycho upon his death. Tycho's observatory had the best instrumentation at the time.

No theory can be proven True. Observations are not a proof, since all observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.

I guess you didn't understand my question...

"Theories of science may come from anywhere. They may be inspired by noting a pattern of observations, by re-arranging or combining other theories of science, in one's dreams, or even by watching an episode of Sponge Bob."

WHO is noticing the patterns? WHO is combining other theories? WHO is rearranging theories? Do you believe that protons and neutrons theorize about the movement of electrons in their orbits?

 

[Kafka]

Have you considered what we don't know about radiometric dating?

You mean what YOU don't know?

 

[IBDaMann]

You mean what YOU don't know?

If you need me to be more specific, I mean what you don't know, because you are scientifically illiterate, but that I do, because I'm not.

I haven't given anyone a thorough raking over the coals since I forced ZenMode into debilitating king-tipping flash-backs, so as long as you are stepping up to the plate, let's do you.

That is what I mean. Let's talk about that.

 

[IBDaMann]

atheists deny the existence of gods

Incorrect. Atheists lack theism. It's all right there in the word itself. I am an atheist; I lack theism. I do not believe that there is/are (a) god(s) and I do not believe that there are no gods. I don't have any belief on the matter and I certainly do not "deny" anything.

......agnostics deny knowledge regarding the existence of gods

Nope, but notice how you have completely departed from the domain of "belief" and are now in the domain of "knowledge". The short answer is that agnostics understand "supernatural gods/spirits" to be unknowable.

It is not the case that agnostics are somehow presented "knowledge" of the existence of gods but then stupidly reject it all. Agnostics have never experienced anything that they equate with "knowledge of gods," and when presented with concepts of supernatural gods/spirits, those supernatural beings are presented as being unknowable. For example, you can claim that there is a Christian God. I could respond "Excellent, would you introduce Him to me so that I can know Him and have knowledge of His existence?" ... and you would immediately tell me that I must first believe. When I then tell you that I'll certainly believe when He makes himself known to me, you would roll your eyes and with a condescending shaking of your head, assure me that God will simply never make Himself known to me because He doesn't bother with nonbelievers ... and you will have just explained why your God is unknowable.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Nope,

your ignorance is incurable.......

 

[IBDaMann]

your ignorance is incurable.......

Projection. Your ignorance is incurable; you take too much pride in it.

 

[Kafka]

If you need me to be more specific, I mean what you don't know, because you are scientifically illiterate, but that I do, because I'm not.

I haven't given anyone a thorough raking over the coals since I forced ZenMode into debilitating king-tipping flash-backs, so as long as you are stepping up to the plate, let's do you.

That is what I mean. Let's talk about that.

Feel free to blather as you wish about yet another topic you know vanishingly little about. But make sure to only ever make vague claims about your "great knowledge" but never show any.

 

[gfm7175]

Nope. I posted specif verses. You ha e not shown that I changed them. Still waiting!

ZenMode =

 

[ZenMode]

I guess you didn't understand my question...

"Theories of science may come from anywhere. They may be inspired by noting a pattern of observations, by re-arranging or combining other theories of science, in one's dreams, or even by watching an episode of Sponge Bob."

WHO is noticing the patterns? WHO is combining other theories? WHO is rearranging theories? Do you believe that protons and neutrons theorize about the movement of electrons in their orbits?

 

[gfm7175]

Wrong.

Yes, that's what you are.

The Bible especially is not plainly written.

It is not The Bible's fault that you don't understand English.

That's why there is significant disagreement, even among Christians, about dozens upon dozens of topics.

Such disagreements aren't because "The Bible isn't plainly written" (and most of the disagreements are minor/inconsequential disagreements). Such disagreements can and do stem from a number of things, including the fact that The Bible contains a number of passages that can make some people feel uncomfortable, and a number of passages that aren't politically correct, so some people will add/subtract from The Bible in order to quell their uncomfortable feelings and/or to align with political correctness. That's not an issue of The Bible not being plainly written; that's an issue of people understanding the plain writing but not liking what they read (so they try to change it).

Such disagreements also stem from people like yourself who are completely unfamiliar with The Bible as a whole (and/or with the English language), and otherwise "have it out" against Christians and wish to "prove them wrong", so they change The Bible in a lame effort to falsify it.

I literally copied/pasted words from the Bible

Yup, words which you still don't understand, as you refused all attempts from me to teach you about those words. After you copy/pasted those words, you attempted to change the meaning of those words into something other than the plain English text that they are.

and Gfm swears they don't mean what they say.

No, it is YOU who swears that those words don't mean what they say. I've already explained this to you.

If the Bible is clear, that wouldn't happen.

If ZenMode wasn't dishonest, that wouldn't happen.

Again....I mean, you just HAVE to be a troll.

Nah. You're much better at it than I am.

 

[ZenMode]

Yes, that's what you are.


It is not The Bible's fault that you don't understand English.

Greek.... or Aramaic.

Such disagreements aren't because "The Bible isn't plainly written" (and most of the disagreements are minor/inconsequential disagreements). Such disagreements can and do stem from a number of things, including the fact that The Bible contains a number of passages that can make some people feel uncomfortable, and a number of passages that aren't politically correct, so some people will add/subtract from The Bible in order to quell their uncomfortable feelings and/or to align with political correctness. That's not an issue of The Bible not being plainly written; that's an issue of people understanding the plain writing but not liking what they read (so they try to change it).

Not true. There are theological disagreements about what's required for salvation. Some say all you have to do is believe. Some say that you have "act" like a Christian. Some people believe there is a literal hell that people are sent to (per New Testament) and other people don't believe that (per the Old Testament). I could go on and on.

Such disagreements also stem from people like yourself who are completely unfamiliar with The Bible as a whole (and/or with the English language), and otherwise "have it out" against Christians and wish to "prove them wrong", so they change The Bible in a lame effort to falsify it.

You're conflating "not agreeing with you" with "not familiar with the Bible".

Yup, words which you still don't understand, as you refused all attempts from me to teach you about those words. After you copy/pasted those words, you attempted to change the meaning of those words into something other than the plain English text that they are.

I do understand them as they are written. You want to interpret them differently. Again, if the Bible were clear....

No, it is YOU who swears that those words don't mean what they say. I've already explained this to you.

Yes, you've explained your interpretation of them. I've explained my interpretation of them. Remember when I said there's no point in continuing the discussion because we aren't going to agree. I continue to be right.

If ZenMode wasn't dishonest, that wouldn't happen.


Nah. You're much better at it than I am.

 

[Into the Night]

I guess you didn't understand my question...

"Theories of science may come from anywhere. They may be inspired by noting a pattern of observations, by re-arranging or combining other theories of science, in one's dreams, or even by watching an episode of Sponge Bob."

WHO is noticing the patterns? WHO is combining other theories? WHO is rearranging theories? Do you believe that protons and neutrons theorize about the movement of electrons in their orbits?

I understood your question and answered it. I already answered these too.
RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

You mean what YOU don't know?

You are describing yourself again, Sock. You cannot project YOUR problems on anybody else.

 

[Into the Night]

Feel free to blather as you wish about yet another topic you know vanishingly little about. But make sure to only ever make vague claims about your "great knowledge" but never show any.

Wow. You 'tipped your king' (as IBDaMann usually puts it) pretty damn fast.

You didn't even try to present an argument, even when openly invited to.

 

[Into the Night]

ZenMode =

You forgot

 

[Into the Night]

Greek.... or Aramaic.

You aren't attempting to misquote the Greek or Aramaic version, Sock. You are attempting to misquote the English version.

Not true.

It is true, Sock.

There are theological disagreements about what's required for salvation. Some say all you have to do is believe. Some say that you have "act" like a Christian. Some people believe there is a literal hell that people are sent to (per New Testament) and other people don't believe that (per the Old Testament). I could go on and on. You're conflating "not agreeing with you" with "not familiar with the Bible". I do understand them as they are written. You want to interpret them differently. Again, if the Bible were clear.... Yes, you've explained your interpretation of them. I've explained my interpretation of them. Remember when I said there's no point in continuing the discussion because we aren't going to agree. I continue to be right.

Strawman fallacies. What churches teach is not the Bible, Sock. The Bible, and ONLY the Bible, is the authoritative reference of the Bible. Your attempts to misquote the Bible in order to destroy the Bible isn't going to work.