40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 135 times

40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #1

Post by Compassionist »

Please see

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: 40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #51

Post by The Tanager »

Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 4:27 pmI am 50% certain that the Earth exists and that it is spherical. How can I know that there is an objective truth about my subjective experiences and preferences? The lack of 100% certainty is frustrating because I want 100% certainty so that I can know and understand what exists and what does not exist.
This doesn’t give a rational reason why it should be 100% certainty or bust. Why is less than 100% a significant problem?
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 4:27 pmHow can something be immaterial and timeless? Space-time and matter-energy began with Big Bang. How can something be space-timeless and matter-energyless? How can we even know that such an entity exists and that this entity caused the Big Bang? What you are proposing creates more questions than answers.
If they were unanswerable questions, then we’d have a problem, but they aren’t. It’s not illogical for something to be immaterial and timeless, is it? If so, then give the logical argument that shows this to be true. If not, then what’s the problem? We can know an entity exists through logical reasoning based on what we already know (not 100% but good enough unless you can show it’s 100% certainty or bust) about reality.
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 4:27 pmPlease see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth Metaphysical truths are not the same as logical truths. In my subjective and limited experience, metaphysical truths are things people believe in even though they can't prove they exist e.g. Ganesha, Jesus, Venus, Thor, Allah, Zeus, Jehovah, fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, Lochness monster, Big Foot, unicorns, aliens, etc.
I agree logical truths and metaphysical truths are not the same. Logic helps us move from one truth (scientific, historical, whatever) to other ones, including metaphysical truths. Not all metaphysical claims are created equal. That science gives us truth about our reality (even if that reality is a simulation) is a metaphysical claim. It’s not all-or-nothing; each metaphysical claim is to be taken on its own case.

Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: 40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #52

Post by Compassionist »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 4:51 pm
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 4:27 pmI am 50% certain that the Earth exists and that it is spherical. How can I know that there is an objective truth about my subjective experiences and preferences? The lack of 100% certainty is frustrating because I want 100% certainty so that I can know and understand what exists and what does not exist.
This doesn’t give a rational reason why it should be 100% certainty or bust. Why is less than 100% a significant problem?
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 4:27 pmHow can something be immaterial and timeless? Space-time and matter-energy began with Big Bang. How can something be space-timeless and matter-energyless? How can we even know that such an entity exists and that this entity caused the Big Bang? What you are proposing creates more questions than answers.
If they were unanswerable questions, then we’d have a problem, but they aren’t. It’s not illogical for something to be immaterial and timeless, is it? If so, then give the logical argument that shows this to be true. If not, then what’s the problem? We can know an entity exists through logical reasoning based on what we already know (not 100% but good enough unless you can show it’s 100% certainty or bust) about reality.
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 4:27 pmPlease see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_truth Metaphysical truths are not the same as logical truths. In my subjective and limited experience, metaphysical truths are things people believe in even though they can't prove they exist e.g. Ganesha, Jesus, Venus, Thor, Allah, Zeus, Jehovah, fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, Lochness monster, Big Foot, unicorns, aliens, etc.
I agree logical truths and metaphysical truths are not the same. Logic helps us move from one truth (scientific, historical, whatever) to other ones, including metaphysical truths. Not all metaphysical claims are created equal. That science gives us truth about our reality (even if that reality is a simulation) is a metaphysical claim. It’s not all-or-nothing; each metaphysical claim is to be taken on its own case.
Why would I require a rational reason for anything? I am mostly emotional. I cry daily about all the suffering, injustices, and deaths. Rationality is mostly absent from what it is like to be me. Lack of 100% certainty is an emotional problem for me.

Why isn't it illogical to claim something is immaterial and timeless? What's logical about claiming that something immaterial and timeless created the universe which has space-time and matter-energy? How did this allegedly immaterial and timeless entity create space-time and matter-energy? Why did it do so? Why didn't it make all living things autotrophs and all-knowing and all-powerful?

Logic has limits. You can't use logic to prove or disprove all the metaphysical claims made by all religions. If Gods exist and are all-knowing and all-powerful, they are not constrained by logic, rationality, morality, or anything else.

Since none of the many Gods that are claimed to be real by all the self-contradictory and mutually contradictory religions saved trillions of organisms from suffering, injustice, and death, I do not trust them to save me or anyone else from suffering, injustice and death. Here are some examples of suffering, injustices, and deaths:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... death_toll
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... death_toll
https://thevegancalculator.com/animal-slaughter

Your claim "That science gives us truth about our reality (even if that reality is a simulation) is a metaphysical claim." does not make sense. There is nothing metaphysical about science. Science deals with what we can observe either directly with our sensory organs (eyes, ears, tongue, skin, and nose) or by extending our sensory perceptions using tools such as microscopes or telescopes or MRI scanners or X-rays, etc.

Please see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysics I am quoting from there "Just as physics deals with the laws that govern the physical world (such as those of gravity or the properties of waves), metaphysics describes what is beyond physics—the nature and origin of reality itself, the immortal soul, and the existence of a supreme being. Opinions about these metaphysical topics vary widely, since what's being discussed can't be observed or measured or even truly known to exist. So most metaphysical questions are still as far from a final answer as they were when Plato and Aristotle were asking them."

Metaphysics means beyond physics. All metaphysical claims rely on faith e.g. God exists and is all-knowing and all-powerful, and cannot be proven or disproven.

Epistemology is a conundrum because there are lots of hypotheses that can't be tested e.g. Simulation Hypothesis (the perceived world is simulated), Illusion Hypothesis (our perceptions are illusions), Philosophical Zombie Hypothesis (beings that appear sentient are not actually sentient), Gods Hypothesis (Gods exist and are all-knowing and all-powerful), Karma Hypothesis (sentient beings are rewarded and punished according to their Karma), Reincarnation Hypothesis (immortal souls exist and reincarnate in different bodies), Resurrection Hypothesis (immortal souls exist and are resurrected after death), Heaven and Hell Hypothesis (Heaven and Hell exist and immortal souls go there depending on their beliefs and/or actions), Undetectable Beings Hypothesis (beings that can't be detected exist e.g. angels, demons, aliens, time-travellers, ghosts, fairies, leprechauns), etc.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: 40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #53

Post by The Tanager »

Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 5:08 pmWhy would I require a rational reason for anything? I am mostly emotional. I cry daily about all the suffering, injustices, and deaths. Rationality is mostly absent from what it is like to be me. Lack of 100% certainty is an emotional problem for me.
You have raised questions in this thread and this forum rationally, even in pointing to the emotions of it. You think your emotional reactions are reasons to think God is imaginary or real and evil. So, you seem interested in being rational. If not, then why have this conversation at all?

My emotional analysis would be that I understand your emotional reactions and that I also have similar emotional reactions to what I think are injustices. I’m not sure there is much else to say unless we talk about this stuff rationally. If you want to do that, then you can respond to my further thoughts. If not, then fine and I appreciate the rational engagement you’ve given so far.

So, are you saying 100% certainty is just an emotional view or the rational view one should take? If the first, then we agree and everything I’ve said shouldn’t be held to the 100% certainty standard. If the second, then why?
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 5:08 pmWhy isn't it illogical to claim something is immaterial and timeless? What's logical about claiming that something immaterial and timeless created the universe which has space-time and matter-energy?
What’s illogical about it? If you could show that all things must be made of matter-energy or be spatial and temporal, then you’d have something, but what are the reasons?
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 5:08 pmHow did this allegedly immaterial and timeless entity create space-time and matter-energy? Why did it do so?
That it must have (which is what the Kalam argument, if the premises are true, show is the case) is a different question than how and why. Not knowing the answers to how and why doesn’t negate that it must have. Now, I think those questions can be answered, but that comes further down the line when we talk about what (if anything) God has revealed to humanity.
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 5:08 pmLogic has limits. You can't use logic to prove or disprove all the metaphysical claims made by all religions. If Gods exist and are all-knowing and all-powerful, they are not constrained by logic, rationality, morality, or anything else.
I’m not claiming logic alone can prove metaphysical claims. I don’t think that is true; logic can build off of scientific, historic, and other metaphysical claims, though, to give us good reasons to believe other metaphysical claims.

I do think logic can disprove metaphysical (and any other kind of claim), though. That’s why it’s 100% certain that science isn’t the only source of truth about reality; logic shows this is impossible. It’s also why even God is constrained by logic. God cannot be illogical. Being illogical isn't an example of having knowledge or power, but being incorrect and lacking power.
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 5:08 pmYour claim "That science gives us truth about our reality (even if that reality is a simulation) is a metaphysical claim." does not make sense. There is nothing metaphysical about science. Science deals with what we can observe either directly with our sensory organs (eyes, ears, tongue, skin, and nose) or by extending our sensory perceptions using tools such as microscopes or telescopes or MRI scanners or X-rays, etc.
Yes, but science rests on metaphysical claims being true or there is no reason to accept what science tells us. Science relies on the metaphysical claims that nature exists independent of our minds, is consistent, possesses a specific order, that nature is intelligible, that our senses and brains are giving us correct information about nature, that all natural phenomena have natural causes.
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 5:08 pm”Opinions about these metaphysical topics vary widely, since what's being discussed can't be observed or measured or even truly known to exist. So most metaphysical questions are still as far from a final answer as they were when Plato and Aristotle were asking them."

Metaphysics means beyond physics. All metaphysical claims rely on faith e.g. God exists and is all-knowing and all-powerful, and cannot be proven or disproven.
Having different opinions doesn’t mean there isn’t a true opinion. That something that can’t be [physically] observed/measured can’t be known is logically self-defeating and, therefore, (at least if one believes logical truths are something one can be certain about) cannot be true. The statement that “something that can’t be physically observed/measured can’t be known” is itself not physically observed/measured and, by its own logic, would therefore not be known to be true and so has no bearing on other beliefs. This is just illogical scientism (a metaphysical view that goes beyond actual science) begging the question.

You defined ‘faith’ as “a belief that is not based on proof”. If by ‘proof’ you mean 100% certainty, then I agree that metaphysical truths are that way. But so are scientific truths! So, if you really mean it this way, then also state that claims in physics rely on faith. But if you don’t think physics relies on faith, then you’ve got to show a different reason as to why science doesn’t, but metaphysics does.

If by ‘proof’ you mean 100% certainty then, as I’ve asked a few times, give me a rational reason why. If by ‘proof’ you mean less than 100% certainty, but still a reasonable view that outweighs the alternatives, then why does science reach that but metaphysics doesn’t?

Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: 40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #54

Post by Compassionist »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:28 am
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 5:08 pmWhy would I require a rational reason for anything? I am mostly emotional. I cry daily about all the suffering, injustices, and deaths. Rationality is mostly absent from what it is like to be me. Lack of 100% certainty is an emotional problem for me.
You have raised questions in this thread and this forum rationally, even in pointing to the emotions of it. You think your emotional reactions are reasons to think God is imaginary or real and evil. So, you seem interested in being rational. If not, then why have this conversation at all?

My emotional analysis would be that I understand your emotional reactions and that I also have similar emotional reactions to what I think are injustices. I’m not sure there is much else to say unless we talk about this stuff rationally. If you want to do that, then you can respond to my further thoughts. If not, then fine and I appreciate the rational engagement you’ve given so far.

So, are you saying 100% certainty is just an emotional view or the rational view one should take? If the first, then we agree and everything I’ve said shouldn’t be held to the 100% certainty standard. If the second, then why?
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 5:08 pmWhy isn't it illogical to claim something is immaterial and timeless? What's logical about claiming that something immaterial and timeless created the universe which has space-time and matter-energy?
What’s illogical about it? If you could show that all things must be made of matter-energy or be spatial and temporal, then you’d have something, but what are the reasons?
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 5:08 pmHow did this allegedly immaterial and timeless entity create space-time and matter-energy? Why did it do so?
That it must have (which is what the Kalam argument, if the premises are true, show is the case) is a different question than how and why. Not knowing the answers to how and why doesn’t negate that it must have. Now, I think those questions can be answered, but that comes further down the line when we talk about what (if anything) God has revealed to humanity.
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 5:08 pmLogic has limits. You can't use logic to prove or disprove all the metaphysical claims made by all religions. If Gods exist and are all-knowing and all-powerful, they are not constrained by logic, rationality, morality, or anything else.
I’m not claiming logic alone can prove metaphysical claims. I don’t think that is true; logic can build off of scientific, historic, and other metaphysical claims, though, to give us good reasons to believe other metaphysical claims.

I do think logic can disprove metaphysical (and any other kind of claim), though. That’s why it’s 100% certain that science isn’t the only source of truth about reality; logic shows this is impossible. It’s also why even God is constrained by logic. God cannot be illogical. Being illogical isn't an example of having knowledge or power, but being incorrect and lacking power.
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 5:08 pmYour claim "That science gives us truth about our reality (even if that reality is a simulation) is a metaphysical claim." does not make sense. There is nothing metaphysical about science. Science deals with what we can observe either directly with our sensory organs (eyes, ears, tongue, skin, and nose) or by extending our sensory perceptions using tools such as microscopes or telescopes or MRI scanners or X-rays, etc.
Yes, but science rests on metaphysical claims being true or there is no reason to accept what science tells us. Science relies on the metaphysical claims that nature exists independent of our minds, is consistent, possesses a specific order, that nature is intelligible, that our senses and brains are giving us correct information about nature, that all natural phenomena have natural causes.
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 5:08 pm”Opinions about these metaphysical topics vary widely, since what's being discussed can't be observed or measured or even truly known to exist. So most metaphysical questions are still as far from a final answer as they were when Plato and Aristotle were asking them."

Metaphysics means beyond physics. All metaphysical claims rely on faith e.g. God exists and is all-knowing and all-powerful, and cannot be proven or disproven.
Having different opinions doesn’t mean there isn’t a true opinion. That something that can’t be [physically] observed/measured can’t be known is logically self-defeating and, therefore, (at least if one believes logical truths are something one can be certain about) cannot be true. The statement that “something that can’t be physically observed/measured can’t be known” is itself not physically observed/measured and, by its own logic, would therefore not be known to be true and so has no bearing on other beliefs. This is just illogical scientism (a metaphysical view that goes beyond actual science) begging the question.

You defined ‘faith’ as “a belief that is not based on proof”. If by ‘proof’ you mean 100% certainty, then I agree that metaphysical truths are that way. But so are scientific truths! So, if you really mean it this way, then also state that claims in physics rely on faith. But if you don’t think physics relies on faith, then you’ve got to show a different reason as to why science doesn’t, but metaphysics does.

If by ‘proof’ you mean 100% certainty then, as I’ve asked a few times, give me a rational reason why. If by ‘proof’ you mean less than 100% certainty, but still a reasonable view that outweighs the alternatives, then why does science reach that but metaphysics doesn’t?
I often do things without knowing why I do them. I don't know why I post on this forum. It could be because I am suffering from depression, PTSD, and chronic pain. I don't know the answers to your questions. I am sorry if that is disappointing. It is disappointing for me that I don't know everything and can't do everything. I wish I was all-knowing and all-powerful then I could prevent all suffering, injustices, and deaths and make all living things equally all-knowing and all-powerful and forever happy.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: 40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #55

Post by The Tanager »

Compassionist wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 1:24 pmI often do things without knowing why I do them. I don't know why I post on this forum. It could be because I am suffering from depression, PTSD, and chronic pain. I don't know the answers to your questions. I am sorry if that is disappointing. It is disappointing for me that I don't know everything and can't do everything. I wish I was all-knowing and all-powerful then I could prevent all suffering, injustices, and deaths and make all living things equally all-knowing and all-powerful and forever happy.
I don't know your story, but I am sorry for any suffering you have gone through and I know such experiences have profound effects. I don't think you have to have all the answers. No one has all the answers. And I'm not disappointed with all of this; you are trying the best you can and so am I and you've been doing so in a kind way, as I hope I have as well. I think you are putting undue pressure on yourself by thinking you need to know everything. It's freeing, and rationally so at that, to shed that kind of standard. I hope you experience peace on that front as well as all fronts. I'm always here to share my thoughts and have my thoughts challenged. Perhaps you just need a break from trying to find the answers for a little bit. Get out in nature, go laugh with a child, serve someone in need, for stuff like these are important things to balance one's life.

Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: 40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #56

Post by Compassionist »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 3:40 pm
Compassionist wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 1:24 pmI often do things without knowing why I do them. I don't know why I post on this forum. It could be because I am suffering from depression, PTSD, and chronic pain. I don't know the answers to your questions. I am sorry if that is disappointing. It is disappointing for me that I don't know everything and can't do everything. I wish I was all-knowing and all-powerful then I could prevent all suffering, injustices, and deaths and make all living things equally all-knowing and all-powerful and forever happy.
I don't know your story, but I am sorry for any suffering you have gone through and I know such experiences have profound effects. I don't think you have to have all the answers. No one has all the answers. And I'm not disappointed with all of this; you are trying the best you can and so am I and you've been doing so in a kind way, as I hope I have as well. I think you are putting undue pressure on yourself by thinking you need to know everything. It's freeing, and rationally so at that, to shed that kind of standard. I hope you experience peace on that front as well as all fronts. I'm always here to share my thoughts and have my thoughts challenged. Perhaps you just need a break from trying to find the answers for a little bit. Get out in nature, go laugh with a child, serve someone in need, for stuff like these are important things to balance one's life.
Thank you very much.

Post Reply