40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

[Compassionist]

Please see

[Compassionist]

100% is the standard because there can be nothing higher than 100%.

Okay, so why don’t you just think about dictionaries and pure mathematics?

It would be illogical to hate the babies. The babies are not forcing the person to look after them.

Okay, they are illogical. Are their actions alone enough to say that you can say they have “love for Person A’s babies”?

Limited free will does not exist. That's why I ruled it out.

So, it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist. You think “fully addressing the issue” doesn’t include having rational reasons for specific parts of your view on the issue? Pure assumption on certain parts are "fully addressing the issue"?

I don't know much about mathematics. If you asked me to prove mathematics to be true, I would not be able to. I am far from being all-knowing and all-powerful. The meaning of words varies. Even the same word can be a noun or an adjective, etc. Dictionaries are not absolute truths I can be 100% certain about.

I can't say from external observation of behaviour whether person B has love or hate for person A's babies unless the behaviour shows me clearly e.g. if person B murders the babies of person A that would show hate for the babies.

How am I making assumptions about my definitions of free will and constrained will? Please show me what assumptions I have made. If you can prove free will exists, please do. It seems to me that you are merely re-labelling "constrained will" to be "limited free will".

Also, I am still waiting for you to prove that the Biblical God is real, and all-knowing and all-powerful, and authored the Bible, and that the Bible is true, and that the Biblical God is good.

[The Tanager]

I don't know much about mathematics. If you asked me to prove mathematics to be true, I would not be able to. I am far from being all-knowing and all-powerful. The meaning of words varies. Even the same word can be a noun or an adjective, etc. Dictionaries are not absolute truths I can be 100% certain about.

We can be 100% certain that such-and-such a word is being used to mean X, though. We won’t always be certain because someone may be explaining themselves poorly or confusingly using one term to mean something no one else has ever used it to mean or because of our inability to translate, etc. But it’s still easy to say by “floogle” I mean X. Even if floogle has three different meanings in different contexts.

My point is that definitions and pure math are the only fields where 100% certainty exists. If that is the standard, then all other subjects are pointless because we can’t know anything in them.

I can't say from external observation of behaviour whether person B has love or hate for person A's babies unless the behaviour shows me clearly e.g. if person B murders the babies of person A that would show hate for the babies.

Then why do you believe that actions of caring for another is rightly called love? If that were the case, then Person B loves Person A’s babies, even though Person B illogically despises them

How am I making assumptions about my definitions of free will and constrained will? Please show me what assumptions I have made. If you can prove free will exists, please do. It seems to me that you are merely re-labelling "constrained will" to be "limited free will".

No, I’m saying you are assuming those are the only two options. My “limited free will” is not a mere re-labelling of your “constrained will” because it disagrees that the will is “determined by variables…”.

Also, I am still waiting for you to prove that the Biblical God is real, and all-knowing and all-powerful, and authored the Bible, and that the Bible is true, and that the Biblical God is good.

You have the burden in this thread to support your claim that the Bible contains scientific inaccuracies. Why should I have to prove these things to contest your claim there? That’s shifting the burden.

[Compassionist]

I don't know much about mathematics. If you asked me to prove mathematics to be true, I would not be able to. I am far from being all-knowing and all-powerful. The meaning of words varies. Even the same word can be a noun or an adjective, etc. Dictionaries are not absolute truths I can be 100% certain about.

We can be 100% certain that such-and-such a word is being used to mean X, though. We won’t always be certain because someone may be explaining themselves poorly or confusingly using one term to mean something no one else has ever used it to mean or because of our inability to translate, etc. But it’s still easy to say by “floogle” I mean X. Even if floogle has three different meanings in different contexts.

My point is that definitions and pure math are the only fields where 100% certainty exists. If that is the standard, then all other subjects are pointless because we can’t know anything in them.

I can't say from external observation of behaviour whether person B has love or hate for person A's babies unless the behaviour shows me clearly e.g. if person B murders the babies of person A that would show hate for the babies.

Then why do you believe that actions of caring for another is rightly called love? If that were the case, then Person B loves Person A’s babies, even though Person B illogically despises them

How am I making assumptions about my definitions of free will and constrained will? Please show me what assumptions I have made. If you can prove free will exists, please do. It seems to me that you are merely re-labelling "constrained will" to be "limited free will".

No, I’m saying you are assuming those are the only two options. My “limited free will” is not a mere re-labelling of your “constrained will” because it disagrees that the will is “determined by variables…”.

Also, I am still waiting for you to prove that the Biblical God is real, and all-knowing and all-powerful, and authored the Bible, and that the Bible is true, and that the Biblical God is good.

You have the burden in this thread to support your claim that the Bible contains scientific inaccuracies. Why should I have to prove these things to contest your claim there? That’s shifting the burden.

I am an agnostic pragmatist. Even though I am only 50% certain that the universe and other organisms are real instead of being simulated, I treat them as if they were real. That's why I say "please" and "thank you" to other humans even though I am not certain whether they are real or simulated.

Can't the meaning of words change over time? How do you now that mathematics is 100% certain? Can you prove mathematics to be 100% certain?

I don't understand what you are talking about with regard to person B being forced by person A to look after person A's babies. The babies are innocent. Why would person B hate the babies?

According to my observations about how thoughts pop into my consciousness and taking into account how other humans have described how thoughts pop into their consciousnesses, I concluded that neither I, nor others have control over what thoughts occur to us.

Why can I think in only five languages? If I had free will, I should be able to think in all languages. There are currently 7,106 "living" languages. There are also "dead" languages that are no longer spoken by any human.

In addition to thinking about my thoughts, I also thought about my sensory perceptions, my deliberations, my words, and my actions. My definitions of free will and constrained will arose after many years of thinking about the topics.

I wish organisms could plug into each other's consciousness with the equivalent of WiFi. Then we could truly know what it is like to be another being. I think words are inadequate tools for communication. Why would an all-knowing and all-powerful God choose to use words in ancient books to communicate with us? Why not show up and communicate with everyone directly?

Christians believe that the Biblical God is real and he is all-knowing and all-powerful and that he authored the Bible and that the Bible is true and that the Biblical God is good. In fact, I used to believe all five of these premises. I just believed them without any evidence that these premises are true. I was told by other Christians that these premises were true and I was gullible enough to believe them. I left Christianity once I read the whole Bible instead of reading just cherry-picked verses.

I wish you or another Christian would incontrovertibly prove to me that the Biblical God is real and is all-knowing and all-powerful and that he authored the Bible and that the Bible is true and that the Biblical God is good. If you don't want to do this or can't do this, that's ok. I am not going to blame you.

I already said that I don't consider metaphysical truths to be truths. You claimed that the two creation accounts in Genesis are metaphysical truths. I disagree. I am convinced that they are lies.

[The Tanager]

I am an agnostic pragmatist. Even though I am only 50% certain that the universe and other organisms are real instead of being simulated, I treat them as if they were real. That's why I say "please" and "thank you" to other humans even though I am not certain whether they are real or simulated.

What is pragmatic about thinking about injustice? Or about discussing metaphysical questions? You can survive and navigate life without these things.

Can't the meaning of words change over time?

Yes, they do change over time, but not within the same utterance. When you said “words” above, you had a specific concept or meaning in mind. Even if you use “words” in a different way at some other time, even if it’s in the next sentence you think, write, or speak. So, any time one defines their terms, we can be 100% certain that is what they mean in that moment (even if they adjust the meaning later or did a poor job of explaining what they meant).

How do you now that mathematics is 100% certain? Can you prove mathematics to be 100% certain?

I haven’t delved into this thought much, so I could be wrong, but pure mathematics seems similar to definitions to me. What it means to be ‘2’ and ‘+’ and ‘3’ and ‘=’ logically requires the answer to be ‘5’.

I don't understand what you are talking about with regard to person B being forced by person A to look after person A's babies. The babies are innocent. Why would person B hate the babies?

I don’t see why it matters why they hate Person A’s babies. Maybe they are racist. Maybe they have illogically hated the babies because of their hatred for the parents. Maybe some other reason. The way you defined “love” before through the example (the meerkat is said to love solely because they took care of their babies) would lead to saying Person B loves Person A’s babies even though Person B hates those babies (for whatever reason). That seems contradictory to me.

According to my observations about how thoughts pop into my consciousness and taking into account how other humans have described how thoughts pop into their consciousnesses, I concluded that neither I, nor others have control over what thoughts occur to us.

It’s not just about what thoughts pop in my head (although I’m not sure I believe we don’t have any control over that); it’s more about what we choose to do with what pops into our head. After reading this it popped into my head that personal observations aren’t the only thing one should base their conclusions on. Then it popped into my head that the observations of others still don’t complete what we should base our opinions on. What about logic? Then a hamburger popped into my head. Other thoughts popped in, but I’m not writing it all down. You are committed to believing I couldn’t have chosen to write down any of the other things. Well, why not?

Why can I think in only five languages? If I had free will, I should be able to think in all languages.

Free will, as you define that, but not limited free will.

Christians believe that the Biblical God is real and he is all-knowing and all-powerful and that he authored the Bible and that the Bible is true and that the Biblical God is good. In fact, I used to believe all five of these premises. I just believed them without any evidence that these premises are true. I was told by other Christians that these premises were true and I was gullible enough to believe them. I left Christianity once I read the whole Bible instead of reading just cherry-picked verses.

I didn’t grow up a Christian, eventually read through the Bible, thought through other things, and had certain experiences that led me to become a Christian, since having experiences and doubting and thinking through all sorts of issues and remaining a Christian. I don’t think I cherry pick to stay here. Neither of our stories here is objective support for or against the Biblical God.

I wish you or another Christian would incontrovertibly prove to me that the Biblical God is real and is all-knowing and all-powerful and that he authored the Bible and that the Bible is true and that the Biblical God is good. If you don't want to do this or can't do this, that's ok. I am not going to blame you.

It’s impossible to incontrovertibly prove anything beyond a certain definition you want to use, pure mathematics, and maybe something else but I don’t know what it would be. Sure, 100% certainty sounds great, but we can’t get there and I’m not convinced it should be the standard. I’d love to hear why you think it should be our standard in this area.

I already said that I don't consider metaphysical truths to be truths.

But why not? Especially when that statement is a metaphysical claim itself. If it’s not true (since metaphysical truths aren’t truths), then why did you just say it, as though you believed it to be true? Should I treat it as true and choose my beliefs accordingly? But you believe that I can't even choose my thoughts, though, right?

You claimed that the two creation accounts in Genesis are metaphysical truths. I disagree. I am convinced that they are lies.

I claimed they make claims about metaphysical truths, but, yes, I also believe those claims are true. You have disagreed because you claim there are scientific inaccuracies, but they aren’t scientific claims so they can’t be accurate or inaccurate about that. I'll gladly go into why I believe the things I do, but we've got to get out all we will in analyzing your claim first. It helps me to keep things straight.

[Compassionist]

I am an agnostic pragmatist. Even though I am only 50% certain that the universe and other organisms are real instead of being simulated, I treat them as if they were real. That's why I say "please" and "thank you" to other humans even though I am not certain whether they are real or simulated.

What is pragmatic about thinking about injustice? Or about discussing metaphysical questions? You can survive and navigate life without these things.

Can't the meaning of words change over time?

Yes, they do change over time, but not within the same utterance. When you said “words” above, you had a specific concept or meaning in mind. Even if you use “words” in a different way at some other time, even if it’s in the next sentence you think, write, or speak. So, any time one defines their terms, we can be 100% certain that is what they mean in that moment (even if they adjust the meaning later or did a poor job of explaining what they meant).

How do you now that mathematics is 100% certain? Can you prove mathematics to be 100% certain?

I haven’t delved into this thought much, so I could be wrong, but pure mathematics seems similar to definitions to me. What it means to be ‘2’ and ‘+’ and ‘3’ and ‘=’ logically requires the answer to be ‘5’.

I don't understand what you are talking about with regard to person B being forced by person A to look after person A's babies. The babies are innocent. Why would person B hate the babies?

I don’t see why it matters why they hate Person A’s babies. Maybe they are racist. Maybe they have illogically hated the babies because of their hatred for the parents. Maybe some other reason. The way you defined “love” before through the example (the meerkat is said to love solely because they took care of their babies) would lead to saying Person B loves Person A’s babies even though Person B hates those babies (for whatever reason). That seems contradictory to me.

According to my observations about how thoughts pop into my consciousness and taking into account how other humans have described how thoughts pop into their consciousnesses, I concluded that neither I, nor others have control over what thoughts occur to us.

It’s not just about what thoughts pop in my head (although I’m not sure I believe we don’t have any control over that); it’s more about what we choose to do with what pops into our head. After reading this it popped into my head that personal observations aren’t the only thing one should base their conclusions on. Then it popped into my head that the observations of others still don’t complete what we should base our opinions on. What about logic? Then a hamburger popped into my head. Other thoughts popped in, but I’m not writing it all down. You are committed to believing I couldn’t have chosen to write down any of the other things. Well, why not?

Why can I think in only five languages? If I had free will, I should be able to think in all languages.

Free will, as you define that, but not limited free will.

Christians believe that the Biblical God is real and he is all-knowing and all-powerful and that he authored the Bible and that the Bible is true and that the Biblical God is good. In fact, I used to believe all five of these premises. I just believed them without any evidence that these premises are true. I was told by other Christians that these premises were true and I was gullible enough to believe them. I left Christianity once I read the whole Bible instead of reading just cherry-picked verses.

I didn’t grow up a Christian, eventually read through the Bible, thought through other things, and had certain experiences that led me to become a Christian, since having experiences and doubting and thinking through all sorts of issues and remaining a Christian. I don’t think I cherry pick to stay here. Neither of our stories here is objective support for or against the Biblical God.

I wish you or another Christian would incontrovertibly prove to me that the Biblical God is real and is all-knowing and all-powerful and that he authored the Bible and that the Bible is true and that the Biblical God is good. If you don't want to do this or can't do this, that's ok. I am not going to blame you.

It’s impossible to incontrovertibly prove anything beyond a certain definition you want to use, pure mathematics, and maybe something else but I don’t know what it would be. Sure, 100% certainty sounds great, but we can’t get there and I’m not convinced it should be the standard. I’d love to hear why you think it should be our standard in this area.

I already said that I don't consider metaphysical truths to be truths.

But why not? Especially when that statement is a metaphysical claim itself. If it’s not true (since metaphysical truths aren’t truths), then why did you just say it, as though you believed it to be true? Should I treat it as true and choose my beliefs accordingly? But you believe that I can't even choose my thoughts, though, right?

You claimed that the two creation accounts in Genesis are metaphysical truths. I disagree. I am convinced that they are lies.

I claimed they make claims about metaphysical truths, but, yes, I also believe those claims are true. You have disagreed because you claim there are scientific inaccuracies, but they aren’t scientific claims so they can’t be accurate or inaccurate about that. I'll gladly go into why I believe the things I do, but we've got to get out all we will in analyzing your claim first. It helps me to keep things straight.

I wish I knew all the answers to all your questions. I can't even answer my own questions.

How can we know what is real, and what is not real? 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. How can we know what is true and what is false?

Many religious books claim to be written by God or Gods. Many religious books make many claims about God or Gods. They also make many claims about other things. How do we know which book is true and which book is false? I think all religious books are false. I could be wrong. I don't have any way to objectively know anything. All of my knowledge is subjective. I wish I was all-knowing and all-powerful then I could answer all your questions and mine, too. Have you looked at https://www.evilbible.com and http://skepticsannotatedbible.com and http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm and http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/index.htm ?

[The Tanager]

Okay, so to sum up where I see things (as far as this discussion goes):

(1) I see no good reason to think the Biblical texts cited (much less just the beginning creation stories of Genesis) are making scientific claims and, therefore, there can’t be meaningful scientific inaccuracies to where the truth claims of the Bible can be rejected.

(2) I also see no good reason to think that a loving God would make beings that have to make perfect moral choices.

That seems to be what your critiques of the biblical God revolved around. You seem to have nothing to add to those major points, so I’m fine ending that part of our conversation. It’s fair game that I now answer the questions you’ve asked of me:

Also, I am still waiting for you to prove that the Biblical God is real, and all-knowing and all-powerful, and authored the Bible, and that the Bible is true, and that the Biblical God is good.

This has various steps.

(1) The standard of knowledge

100% certainty is only available within definitions and pure mathematics (that I know of). Everything else has less than 100% certainty, but we can get greater than 50% certainty on many things. This is a result of the world we live in and the kinds of creatures we are.

If you truly think 100% certainty should be the standard, then there is no reason to go further in this discussion. Of course, that this is the standard isn’t one of the things you said you were 100% certain about, as it is a metaphysical claim, so you probably do want to move forward. Now, would a good God make this the case? Well, that’s a part of your question about whether the Biblical God is good, so we can revisit this then.

(2) Ways to get at truth

Again, assuming 100% certainty isn’t the standard, we’ve already talked about how science can’t be the only way to get at truth. You’ve said metaphysical truth can’t get us truth, but if that were the case, then you couldn’t believe that science gets us truth because it relies on metaphysical truths to give us the truth it does. So, I think we can move on to your questions above, but stop me if you have questions or critiques so far.

(3) Theism is more reasonable than atheism

I think there are multiple lines of argument in favor of theism. I think one of the best is an extended form of the Kalam cosmological argument, sketched out here:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The space-time cosmos began to exist.
P3. Therefore, the space-time cosmos has a cause (from P1 and P2)
P4. If the space-time cosmos has a cause, then this cause would be immaterial, eternal, uncaused, extremely powerful, and personal.
P5. Therefore, the cause of the space-time cosmos is immaterial, eternal, uncaused, extremely powerful, and personal (from P3 and P4).

I think P5 is the beginnings of a being we term “God”. What initial questions or critiques do you have?

We’ll get to these next parts eventually (as I think they cover the questions you asked of me) after getting past step 3:

(4) A moral god is more reasonable than an immoral god

(5) Christian theism is more reasonable than other forms of theism

(6) The biblical texts preserve for us the teachings of God

(7) The biblical texts teach us truths

(8) The biblical picture of God is of a good God

[Compassionist]

Okay, so to sum up where I see things (as far as this discussion goes):

(1) I see no good reason to think the Biblical texts cited (much less just the beginning creation stories of Genesis) are making scientific claims and, therefore, there can’t be meaningful scientific inaccuracies to where the truth claims of the Bible can be rejected.

(2) I also see no good reason to think that a loving God would make beings that have to make perfect moral choices.

That seems to be what your critiques of the biblical God revolved around. You seem to have nothing to add to those major points, so I’m fine ending that part of our conversation. It’s fair game that I now answer the questions you’ve asked of me:

Also, I am still waiting for you to prove that the Biblical God is real, and all-knowing and all-powerful, and authored the Bible, and that the Bible is true, and that the Biblical God is good.

This has various steps.

(1) The standard of knowledge

100% certainty is only available within definitions and pure mathematics (that I know of). Everything else has less than 100% certainty, but we can get greater than 50% certainty on many things. This is a result of the world we live in and the kinds of creatures we are.

If you truly think 100% certainty should be the standard, then there is no reason to go further in this discussion. Of course, that this is the standard isn’t one of the things you said you were 100% certain about, as it is a metaphysical claim, so you probably do want to move forward. Now, would a good God make this the case? Well, that’s a part of your question about whether the Biblical God is good, so we can revisit this then.

(2) Ways to get at truth

Again, assuming 100% certainty isn’t the standard, we’ve already talked about how science can’t be the only way to get at truth. You’ve said metaphysical truth can’t get us truth, but if that were the case, then you couldn’t believe that science gets us truth because it relies on metaphysical truths to give us the truth it does. So, I think we can move on to your questions above, but stop me if you have questions or critiques so far.

(3) Theism is more reasonable than atheism

I think there are multiple lines of argument in favor of theism. I think one of the best is an extended form of the Kalam cosmological argument, sketched out here:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The space-time cosmos began to exist.
P3. Therefore, the space-time cosmos has a cause (from P1 and P2)
P4. If the space-time cosmos has a cause, then this cause would be immaterial, eternal, uncaused, extremely powerful, and personal.
P5. Therefore, the cause of the space-time cosmos is immaterial, eternal, uncaused, extremely powerful, and personal (from P3 and P4).

I think P5 is the beginnings of a being we term “God”. What initial questions or critiques do you have?

We’ll get to these next parts eventually (as I think they cover the questions you asked of me) after getting past step 3:

(4) A moral god is more reasonable than an immoral god

(5) Christian theism is more reasonable than other forms of theism

(6) The biblical texts preserve for us the teachings of God

(7) The biblical texts teach us truths

(8) The biblical picture of God is of a good God

Please see: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysics

I am quoting from the above dictionary: "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 relies on faith. One either believes in God or Gods or one does not. Since metaphysical entities can't be observed, one can't prove the existence of metaphysical entities. Many religious books make metaphysical claims. These claims often contradict what we know from science and history. We can't prove that metaphysical claims override knowledge gained through science. It is clear that the two creation accounts in Genesis don't match what we know from science. You claimed that Genesis accounts are metaphysical truths. How do you know that they are metaphysical truths? The central problem is that we can't prove metaphysical truths. There are also other creation accounts in other religious books. How do you know they are not metaphysical truths?

If God is loving and designed humans and other living things, why didn't he make all living things autotrophs? I can't reconcile the existence of a loving God with the existence of herbivores, carnivores, omnivores and parasites. Why are there design flaws in human bodies https://nautil.us/top-10-design-flaws-i ... dy-235403/ if we were designed by an all-knowing and all-powerful God? Why are 99.9% of all the species to exist so far on Earth already extinct if they were designed by a loving God? Either God is imaginary and evil or real and evil.

Your P1 argument is an assumption. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation Particles and anti-particles spontaneously appear and disappear without any cause. It's possible our universe began without any cause. It is not possible to test whether our universe began with a cause or without a cause. Also, we know about the existence of the universe through sensory perceptions. It is possible that what we perceive is not real but is either a simulation or a hallucination or an illusion or a dream.

Your P4 argument is also an assumption. How do we know that God exists and that God created our universe? We don't know. We are assuming.

The Bible is full of inaccuracies http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/list.html and contradictions http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/number.html therefore it is false.

The Bible is full of God's atrocities. Please see http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/categories.html and https://www.evilbible.com Also, the world is full of sufferings, injustices, and deaths. Therefore, God cannot be good. It's possible that God is real and evil. It is also possible that God is imaginary and evil. I think the latter is more likely due to all the inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible. A real God would have made sure there is no inaccuracies and contradictions in a book authored by him.

[The Tanager]

Please see: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysics

I am quoting from the above dictionary: "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 relies on faith. One either believes in God or Gods or one does not.

How are you defining “faith” here? We’ve already talked about how we agree it’s not 100% certain. But that doesn’t mean it’s not based on evidence and other rational beliefs. Some metaphysical claims aren’t evidence and reasoning based, but I won’t be making those kinds of metaphysical claims.

Since metaphysical entities can't be observed, one can't prove the existence of metaphysical entities.

Is this statement observable? If not (and it’s obviously not), by your logic, it can’t be proven true and we shouldn’t base any belief on it being true. This is self-defeating. It seems to come from a scientistic (not scientific) way of thinking. Physical observation is not the only way to truth. The sciences themselves rely upon metaphysical truths to be considered knowledge. You’ve got to shed this error.

Many religious books make metaphysical claims. These claims often contradict what we know from science and history. We can't prove that metaphysical claims override knowledge gained through science. It is clear that the two creation accounts in Genesis don't match what we know from science.

Metaphysical claims logically cannot contradict scientific or historical claims because they are completely different claims. The religious books may make scientific claims alongside metaphysical claims and could be wrong on the scientific claims, but this wouldn’t mean they are wrong on the metaphysical claims.

You keep saying it is clear that the Genesis accounts don’t match what we know from science, but you haven’t shown it. They are not making scientific claims. They are making metaphysical claims. Genesis isn’t an ancient science treatise. It’s aiming to teach what the authors believed about God, the purpose of humans, and their interactions. Either back up your claim that the Genesis accounts are scientific treatises or stop saying they are.

You claimed that Genesis accounts are metaphysical truths. How do you know that they are metaphysical truths? The central problem is that we can't prove metaphysical truths. There are also other creation accounts in other religious books. How do you know they are not metaphysical truths?

That is part of number 7, as I categorized your questions, so bring it back into the discussion when we reach that.

If God is loving and designed humans and other living things, why didn't he make all living things autotrophs? I can't reconcile the existence of a loving God with the existence of herbivores, carnivores, omnivores and parasites. Why are there design flaws in human bodies https://nautil.us/top-10-design-flaws-i ... dy-235403/ if we were designed by an all-knowing and all-powerful God? Why are 99.9% of all the species to exist so far on Earth already extinct if they were designed by a loving God? Either God is imaginary and evil or real and evil.

This is part of number 8, so bring it back into the discussion then.

Also, we know about the existence of the universe through sensory perceptions. It is possible that what we perceive is not real but is either a simulation or a hallucination or an illusion or a dream.

Yes, you are right that this should have been one of the points of discussion; we can call it:

(2.5) it is more reasonable that this world we experience is not a hallucination, simulation, or dream

The short answer is that, all else being equal, it is more parsimonious to believe this isn’t a simulation because simulation theory posits everything the non-simulation theory posits (although, obviously re-interpreted ontologically) plus an additional layer of reality that is causing, housing, and controlling the simulation. Thus, I think the burden is on the simulation theorist to shift the balances with evidence.


(3) Theism is more reasonable than atheism

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The space-time cosmos began to exist.
P3. Therefore, the space-time cosmos has a cause (from P1 and P2)
P4. If the space-time cosmos has a cause, then this cause would be immaterial, eternal, uncaused, extremely powerful, and personal.
P5. Therefore, the cause of the space-time cosmos is immaterial, eternal, uncaused, extremely powerful, and personal (from P3 and P4).

Your P1 argument is an assumption. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation Particles and anti-particles spontaneously appear and disappear without any cause. It's possible our universe began without any cause. It is not possible to test whether our universe began with a cause or without a cause.

You are using “cause” in a narrower sense than the argument means it. There seems to be disagreement among physicists on whether there is no efficient cause, but we can put that debate to the side. Let’s assume there is no efficient cause in these fluctuations. In P1 we aren’t just talking about efficient causation. There is still a material cause to these fluctuations. Without the quantum field and the properties it has, these particles and antiparticles would not exist. This example does not contradict P1.

Your P4 argument is also an assumption. How do we know that God exists and that God created our universe? We don't know. We are assuming.

No, it’s not based on assumption; I just haven’t offered all the support for it being true. It doesn’t matter if P1-P3 is unsound, though, so let’s fully engage on those first.

The Bible is full of inaccuracies http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/list.html and contradictions http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/number.html therefore it is false.

This is part of number 7, so bring it back into the discussion then.

The Bible is full of God's atrocities. Please see http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/categories.html and https://www.evilbible.com Also, the world is full of suffering, injustice, and death. Therefore, God cannot be good.

This is part of number 8, so bring it back into the discussion then.

[Compassionist]

Please see: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysics

I am quoting from the above dictionary: "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 relies on faith. One either believes in God or Gods or one does not.

How are you defining “faith” here? We’ve already talked about how we agree it’s not 100% certain. But that doesn’t mean it’s not based on evidence and other rational beliefs. Some metaphysical claims aren’t evidence and reasoning based, but I won’t be making those kinds of metaphysical claims.

Since metaphysical entities can't be observed, one can't prove the existence of metaphysical entities.

Is this statement observable? If not (and it’s obviously not), by your logic, it can’t be proven true and we shouldn’t base any belief on it being true. This is self-defeating. It seems to come from a scientistic (not scientific) way of thinking. Physical observation is not the only way to truth. The sciences themselves rely upon metaphysical truths to be considered knowledge. You’ve got to shed this error.

Many religious books make metaphysical claims. These claims often contradict what we know from science and history. We can't prove that metaphysical claims override knowledge gained through science. It is clear that the two creation accounts in Genesis don't match what we know from science.

Metaphysical claims logically cannot contradict scientific or historical claims because they are completely different claims. The religious books may make scientific claims alongside metaphysical claims and could be wrong on the scientific claims, but this wouldn’t mean they are wrong on the metaphysical claims.

You keep saying it is clear that the Genesis accounts don’t match what we know from science, but you haven’t shown it. They are not making scientific claims. They are making metaphysical claims. Genesis isn’t an ancient science treatise. It’s aiming to teach what the authors believed about God, the purpose of humans, and their interactions. Either back up your claim that the Genesis accounts are scientific treatises or stop saying they are.

You claimed that Genesis accounts are metaphysical truths. How do you know that they are metaphysical truths? The central problem is that we can't prove metaphysical truths. There are also other creation accounts in other religious books. How do you know they are not metaphysical truths?

That is part of number 7, as I categorized your questions, so bring it back into the discussion when we reach that.

If God is loving and designed humans and other living things, why didn't he make all living things autotrophs? I can't reconcile the existence of a loving God with the existence of herbivores, carnivores, omnivores and parasites. Why are there design flaws in human bodies https://nautil.us/top-10-design-flaws-i ... dy-235403/ if we were designed by an all-knowing and all-powerful God? Why are 99.9% of all the species to exist so far on Earth already extinct if they were designed by a loving God? Either God is imaginary and evil or real and evil.

This is part of number 8, so bring it back into the discussion then.

Also, we know about the existence of the universe through sensory perceptions. It is possible that what we perceive is not real but is either a simulation or a hallucination or an illusion or a dream.

Yes, you are right that this should have been one of the points of discussion; we can call it:

(2.5) it is more reasonable that this world we experience is not a hallucination, simulation, or dream

The short answer is that, all else being equal, it is more parsimonious to believe this isn’t a simulation because simulation theory posits everything the non-simulation theory posits (although, obviously re-interpreted ontologically) plus an additional layer of reality that is causing, housing, and controlling the simulation. Thus, I think the burden is on the simulation theorist to shift the balances with evidence.


(3) Theism is more reasonable than atheism

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The space-time cosmos began to exist.
P3. Therefore, the space-time cosmos has a cause (from P1 and P2)
P4. If the space-time cosmos has a cause, then this cause would be immaterial, eternal, uncaused, extremely powerful, and personal.
P5. Therefore, the cause of the space-time cosmos is immaterial, eternal, uncaused, extremely powerful, and personal (from P3 and P4).

Your P1 argument is an assumption. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation Particles and anti-particles spontaneously appear and disappear without any cause. It's possible our universe began without any cause. It is not possible to test whether our universe began with a cause or without a cause.

You are using “cause” in a narrower sense than the argument means it. There seems to be disagreement among physicists on whether there is no efficient cause, but we can put that debate to the side. Let’s assume there is no efficient cause in these fluctuations. In P1 we aren’t just talking about efficient causation. There is still a material cause to these fluctuations. Without the quantum field and the properties it has, these particles and antiparticles would not exist. This example does not contradict P1.

Your P4 argument is also an assumption. How do we know that God exists and that God created our universe? We don't know. We are assuming.

No, it’s not based on assumption; I just haven’t offered all the support for it being true. It doesn’t matter if P1-P3 is unsound, though, so let’s fully engage on those first.

The Bible is full of inaccuracies http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/list.html and contradictions http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/number.html therefore it is false.

This is part of number 7, so bring it back into the discussion then.

The Bible is full of God's atrocities. Please see http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/categories.html and https://www.evilbible.com Also, the world is full of suffering, injustice, and death. Therefore, God cannot be good.

This is part of number 8, so bring it back into the discussion then.

By the word "faith" I mean a belief that is not based on proof.

I have tried to observe metaphysical entities such as Gods and angels and Satan and demons, etc. I have never managed to do it. If you can show me metaphysical entities, please do. What evidence can you provide for the existence of metaphysical entities?

Science works through observations. You can't do science without observations. You are asking me to shed the central tenet of how science works. How can we possibly know anything without observations?

It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something that does not exist e.g. Gods, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, angels, demons, Satan, etc. That does not mean these things exist. If you can prove that these things exist, please do.

If the Bible is authored by God, then Genesis accounts are his accounts of how he created the world and the living things. Since it does not match what we know from science, it is false. You can disagree with me but that's not going to change the facts. The Bible is false and unethical. The Biblical God is imaginary and evil.

It is impossible to verify metaphysical claims through evidence because metaphysical entities can't be observed. We are going round and round in circles.

It is not more reasonable to claim that our sensory perceptions are that of an actual world. It is just one possibility.

We can't test the hypothesis that the universe has a cause. It's possible that the universe came into being through the process of the Big Bang without any cause. If you can test the hypothesis, please show me. Thank you.

[The Tanager]

By the word "faith" I mean a belief that is not based on proof.

Do you consider science to be based on faith, then?

I have tried to observe metaphysical entities such as Gods and angels and Satan and demons, etc. I have never managed to do it. If you can show me metaphysical entities, please do. What evidence can you provide for the existence of metaphysical entities?

Do you mean physically or scientifically know? If neither, then I’m presenting a philosophical argument in the Kalam at this moment as evidence. If you mean either of these…

Science works through observations. You can't do science without observations. You are asking me to shed the central tenet of how science works. How can we possibly know anything without observations?

It is impossible to verify metaphysical claims through evidence because metaphysical entities can't be observed. We are going round and round in circles.

No, I’m asking you to shed the logical error that science is the only kind of evidence available to us. To (rationally) trust science you have to rely on philosophical evidence.

It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something that does not exist e.g. Gods, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, angels, demons, Satan, etc. That does not mean these things exist.

I never said the opposite.

If the Bible is authored by God, then Genesis accounts are his accounts of how he created the world and the living things. Since it does not match what we know from science, it is false. You can disagree with me but that's not going to change the facts.

You aren’t supporting this as fact; you just keep stating it. Genesis is not an account of how God created the world. If so, it would be self-contradictory. The first account speaks of creation happening in seven days. The second account starts by saying this “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” (Gen 2:4). Was it seven days or one day? Surely, you don’t think the author/editor simply contradicted himself that early on and that easily. If so, then you need to apply the principle of charity in rejecting the strongest arguments an opponent has, not the ones you find easiest to defeat.

This detail points to the numbering of days as being a literary or metaphorical tool for the metaphysical claims being made: that God created the world (not how it scientifically all happened) and has a purpose for humans (to rule in His wisdom). This is what Genesis is, not a scientific treatise about how God created the world.

It is not more reasonable to claim that our sensory perceptions are that of an actual world. It is just one possibility.

If you put any weight into Occam’s Razor, it does. Scientists do. Philosophers do as well. Simpler explanations that explain the available data are more reasonable to believe true than more complex explanations that still just explain the same available data. Why would a more complex solution that explains the exact same data be more reasonable? It has more assumptions that contain no support for it. How is more assumptions more reasonable? Simulation theory is a less simple theory with no extra evidence to back it up against a non-simulation view. This is enough.