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
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: 40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #41

Post by Miles »

The Tanager wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 4:40 pm 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.
He isn't saying the texts are making scientific claims, just that the claims are not scientifically accurate. Which are:

(with video time stamp)

A. Cosmology

(1) - 23:54 - The universe was not made in 6 days (Genesis 1:1-31; Exodus 20:8-11)
(2) - 28:54 - Stars do burn out, fail or go “missing” (Isaiah 40:26)
(3) - 30:53 - Stars could never fall to the earth (Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Revelation 6:13)
(4) - 32:41 - Stars don’t determine the outcome of battles or orbit earth (Judges 5:20)
(5) - 33:52 - Jehovah doesn’t direct the constellations (Job 38:31-33)
(6) - 34:42 - Earth was not made before the sun and stars (Genesis 1:14-19)
(7) - 35:46 - The moon does not emit light (Genesis 1:14-19, Isaiah 13:10; 30:26; 60:19, Jeremiah 31:35, Ezekiel 32:7-8, Matthew 24:29)
(8) - 36:21 - The sun is not a mere light that can be paused or reversed (Joshua 10:13, 14, 2 Kings 20:11, Amos 8:9, Habakkuk 3:11)
(9) - 38:06 - The heavens do not have “foundations” or “pillars” (2 Samuel 22:8, Job 26:11)

B. Geology

(10) - 40:36 - Earth and its geological features are in motion (1 Chronicles 16:30; Psalm 65:6; 93:1; 96:10; 104:8, Proverbs 8:25)
(11) - 43:10 - Earth is not disc shaped (Isaiah 40:22, compare Isaiah 22:18)
(12) - 46:37 - Earth does not have “boundaries” or “ends” (Job 38:13, Psalm 74:17, Isaiah 5:26)
(13) - 47:12 - The earth does not have “four corners” (Isaiah 11:12, Ezekiel 7:2, Revelation 7:1)
(14) - 47:26 - Earth is not “long” or flat “like clay under a seal” (Job 11:9; 38:5, 14)
(15) - 50:16 - There is no hypothetical vantage point for viewing the whole earth (Daniel 4:10, 11; Matthew 4:8)
(16) - 51:39 - The earth has no cornerstone, pillars, supports or foundations (1 Sam 2:8, 2 Sam 22:16, Job 9:6; 38:4-6, Psalm 75:3; 82:5, Isaiah 24:18; 48:13, Jeremiah 31:37, Micah 6:2, Zechariah 12:1)
(17) - 52:05 - The sea has no permanently fixed “boundaries” (Job 38:8-11, Jeremiah 5:22)
(18) - 53:58 - There are no “gates of death” (Job 38:17)
(19) - 54:45 - There’s no scientific evidence to support a global flood (Genesis 6:9-8:19)

C. Meteorology

(20) - 56:44 - There was never any firmament or canopy above the earth (Genesis 1:6-8; 8:2)
(21) - 57:54 - The sky is not solid (Job 37:18)
(22) - 59:08 - God doesn’t draw up water (Job 36:27, 28)
(23) - 1:01:17 - God doesn’t direct the weather (Job 38:25-29, 35-37)
(24) - 1:02:29 - Snow and hail isn’t “stored” (Job 38:22, 23)
(25) - 1:02:51 - Rainbows did not begin in 2369 BCE (Genesis 9:13-17)

D. Biology

(26) - 1:04:14 - The first man wasn’t made 6,000 years ago out of dust (Genesis 1:27: 2:7; 3:19)
(27) - 1:04:41 - The first woman wasn’t made from one of man’s ribs (Genesis 2:18-22)
(28) - 1:06:47 - The origin of humans doesn’t predate rain and vegetation (Genesis 2:5-7)
(29) - 1:09:10 - There were no angel-human hybrid giants (Genesis 6:4)
(30) - 1:10:14 - God didn’t bring all animal life to one man for naming (Genesis 2:18-20)
(31) - 1:10:57 - Flying creatures did not precede land animals (Genesis 1:21-24)
(32) - 1:15:53 - Life evolved through evolution by natural selection (Genesis 1:20-25)
(33) - 1:18:51 - Animals aren’t in “subjection” to humans (Genesis 1:26-27)
(34) - 1:20:54 - Carnivores did not originate as herbivores (Genesis 1:30)
(35) - 1:22:14 - Not all animals are terrified of humans (Genesis 9:2)
(36) - 1:24:26 - Snails don’t melt as they move along (Psalm 58:8)
(37) - 1:25:45 - There’s no such thing as a flying, fiery snake (Isaiah 30:6)
(38) - 1:27:15 - A human can’t survive 3 days in the digestive system of a fish (Jonah 1:17)

E. Linguistics

(39) - 1:31:57 - Human languages didn’t originate at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:5-9)

F. Mathematics

(40) - 1:33:01 - The value of pi is not 3, it’s approx. 3.14 (1 Kings 7:23-26; 2 Chronicles 4:2-5)
source

(2) I also see no good reason to think that a loving God would make beings that have to make perfect moral choices.
And I fail to see why a so-called loving god would invest all of humanity with original sin because of a single error two individuals once made long ago. Sound fair to you?

You seem to have nothing to add to those major points, so I’m fine ending that part of our conversation.
What more need be said. God simply got a lot of stuff wrong. Sometimes very wrong.


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.
How does this address Compassionist's question about the reality of god or the truth of the Bible?

(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.
Please show us an example where science relies on metaphysical ("an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. Metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.") truths to "give us the truth it does."

(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. [Possibly]
P2. The space-time cosmos began to exist. [While this may seem reasonable, cosmologists, those who deal with the space-time cosmos, withhold agreement and don't' go so far as to say it's a fact. Do you have some factual information that they are wrong?]
P3. Therefore, the space-time cosmos has a cause (from P1 and P2) [Considering that P2 is not a fact your "therefore" is not sound]

P4. If the space-time cosmos has a cause, then this cause would be immaterial, eternal, uncaused, extremely powerful, and personal. [Why? Why does the cause necessarily have to be immaterial, eternal, uncaused, extremely powerful, and personal? You've certainly made no argument for it?]

P5. Therefore, the cause of the space-time cosmos is immaterial, eternal, uncaused, extremely powerful, and personal (from P3 and P4). [Again, an unsound conclusion. Your "Therefore" doesn't logically follow from anything you've said]

I think P5 is the beginnings of a being we term “God”. What initial questions or critiques do you have?
Why would this be necessarily so? Recall, P5 is unsound.

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
Agreed. A god that doesn't invest the sins of a father upon his children is more reasonable than one who does. As is a god that doesn't condone slavery, or the killing of practicing homosexual men, or one who orders the killing of innocent women, children, or babies.

(5) Christian theism is more reasonable than other forms of theism
What is your basis for saying so? Have you actually investigated all the other forms? I rather doubt it.

(6) The biblical texts preserve for us the teachings of God
Which ain't all that great, are they? I mean, do you think we should own slaves? God sees nothing wrong with it. Do you think we should kill practicing homosexual males? God does. Do you think killing innocent women, children, and babies is okay? God does.


(7) The biblical texts teach us truths
Truths such as:

Genesis 1:14-19
God creates light before the sun and stars

Genesis 2:2
God gets tired and rested

Genesis 4:17
Cain gets a wife from outta nowhere

Genesis 6:11-13
God kills everything to make the world less violent

Genesis: 7:13-14
50,000-million animals boarded Noah’s ark

Genesis 19:26
Lots wife is turned into a pillar of salt for looking back

Genesis 32:24-30
Jacob wrestles with God and wins

Exodus 9:14
God sends plagues so people can get to know him better

Exodus 10:4-5
The plague of Locusts are so thick that they cover the whole face of the earth

etc.

etc.
(8) The biblical picture of God is of a good God
Well, some of the time anyway. Too many times the picture is that of a bad god.

.

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 #42

Post by The Tanager »

Miles wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:37 pmHe isn't saying the texts are making scientific claims, just that the claims are not scientifically accurate.
Why should something be faulted for being inaccurate about a kind of claim it’s not making?
Miles wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:37 pmAnd I fail to see why a so-called loving god would invest all of humanity with original sin because of a single error two individuals once made long ago. Sound fair to you?
I don’t believe the Bible teaches what most people mean when they say “original sin”. Neither do many Christians throughout all of Christian history. Yes, this understanding of original sin you are rejecting is held by many Christians, but not this one.

(1) The standard of knowledge

I think the standard should be reasonable beliefs that are more rational than alternatives, not 100% percent.
Miles wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:37 pmHow does this address Compassionist's question about the reality of god or the truth of the Bible?
If one thinks the standard is 100% or one shouldn’t believe it, then they shouldn’t believe in the reality of god or the truth of the Bible or any scientific claim or any historical claim, etc.

(2) Ways to get at truth
Miles wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:37 pmPlease show us an example where science relies on metaphysical ("an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. Metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.") truths to "give us the truth it does."
That nature exists independent of our minds, is consistent, and possesses a specific order. That nature is intelligible. That we can know nature through our senses and intellect. That all natural phenomena have natural causes. Stuff like that.


(3) Theism is more reasonable than atheism

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Miles wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:37 pm[Possibly]
Not just possibly, but this is the most rational belief to hold. It’s logically impossible for something to come from nothing because nothing is the complete absence of anything, including any potential to cause something to happen. If something can come into being from nothing, why doesn’t this happen now? Why doesn’t a bear just pop into existence right next to you. Common experience confirms the truth of this premise.

P2. The space-time cosmos began to exist.
Miles wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:37 pm[While this may seem reasonable, cosmologists, those who deal with the space-time cosmos, withhold agreement and don't' go so far as to say it's a fact. Do you have some factual information that they are wrong?]
The most common strong scientific models currently support the truth of this premise, although there are scientists who are exploring alternatives. Many scientists (and philosophers) believe these alternatives have scientific weaknesses, but I agree this question isn’t settled scientifically. But it doesn’t need to be.

There are philosophical arguments in favor of it that would make it illogical for the space-time cosmos to be eternal. Here are two arguments sketched out. Feel free to ask questions, ask why I think the premises are true if it’s unclear, or make critiques to help flesh this out more. I’m trying to avoid information overload as much as possible, so I know more needs to be delved into.

Q1. If the space-time cosmos never began to exist (i.e., is eternal), then there has been an infinite number of past events prior to today.
Q2. An infinite number of things cannot exist.
Q3. Therefore, the space-time cosmos cannot be eternal.

But even if the above is wrong and there can be an infinite number of things existing, there is this narrower argument:

R1. If the space-time cosmos never began to exist (i.e., is eternal), then the series of past events (which would be actually infinite) has been formed by adding one event after another.
R2. No series which is formed by adding one member after another can be actually infinite.
R3. Therefore, the space-time cosmos cannot be eternal.

So, back to the Kalam, if P1 and P2 go through (and it doesn’t fail for anything you’ve mentioned yet), then P3 must be true: the space-time cosmos has a cause for its beginning to exist.

P4. If the space-time cosmos has a cause, then this cause would be immaterial, eternal, uncaused, extremely powerful, and personal.
Miles wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:37 pm[Why? Why does the cause necessarily have to be immaterial, eternal, uncaused, extremely powerful, and personal? You've certainly made no argument for it?]
And I said as much. I’m trying to engage these in bit size chunks, not provide a 20 page paper at once for someone to read through and try to respond back to.

This cause must be uncaused because an infinite series of causes is impossible. Since it created the space-time cosmos (i.e., all of matter and time), it must transcend those (self-causation is logically impossible…something material can’t logically cause the existence of all material things and the same with being time); being immaterial and eternal/timeless. It seems obvious to me that something which can bring all of space-time into existence must be very powerful, but perhaps you think such a thing would only need a tiny bit of power to do so?

But it’s the personal bit that gets us to what can rightly be termed a “God”. I think the strongest argument is that impersonal eternal causes cannot produce temporal effects. The problem is that if an impersonal cause is sufficient to produce its effects, whenever the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. Think of the cause of water freezing. For simplicity’s sake, when the temperature is below 0 degrees Celsius, any water present will be frozen. If the temperature (the cause) has eternally been below 0, then any water present would have eternally been frozen. It would be impossible for the temperature to have always been below 0, but the water began to freeze some finite amount of time ago.

We’ve seen that the cause of the universe must be eternal. So, if that cause is impersonal, the universe would have to be permanently, timelessly, eternally there as well. But that’s not the case. The universe came into being, what, 14 billion years ago.

Personal entities, however, can have the freedom to produce effects independent of any prior determining conditions. A personal will that has sufficient power has the freedom and ability to get an effect with a beginning.

P5. Therefore, the cause of the space-time cosmos is immaterial, eternal, uncaused, extremely powerful, and personal (from P3 and P4).
Miles wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:37 pm[Again, an unsound conclusion. Your "Therefore" doesn't logically follow from anything you've said]
Arguments as a whole are sound or unsound. This argument is logically valid, so P5 necessarily follows if P3 and P4 are true and they don’t fail for anything you’ve mentioned so far.
Miles wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:37 pmI think P5 is the beginnings of a being we term “God”. What initial questions or critiques do you have?

Why would this be necessarily so? Recall, P5 is unsound.
When people talk about “God,” in its most basic form, they are talking about a personal being. Classical theism also talks about this personal being being immaterial, timeless/eternal, extremely powerful and uncaused. Why don’t you think these characteristics are indicative of what people mean (at its most basic, not specific views of God, that’s later in the discussion) by “God”?

You can bring back up your critiques of 4-8 when we reach that part of the conversation.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: 40 scientific inaccuracies from the Bible

Post #43

Post by Miles »

The Tanager wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 9:34 am
Miles wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:37 pmHe isn't saying the texts are making scientific claims, just that the claims are not scientifically accurate.
Why should something be faulted for being inaccurate about a kind of claim it’s not making?
.
.
.
.

When people talk about “God,” in its most basic form, they are talking about a personal being. Classical theism also talks about this personal being being immaterial, timeless/eternal, extremely powerful and uncaused. Why don’t you think these characteristics are indicative of what people mean (at its most basic, not specific views of God, that’s later in the discussion) by “God”?
Ever accidentally delete an entire post before? I just did.

After spending a good deal of time replying to your thoughtful post I accidentally hit the CTRL key and deleted it all. Even checking my history failed to bring up anything helpful. Upshot: I simply can't go over it all again, especially with its demanding formatting; however, I will take you up on your following offer:

You can bring back up your critiques of 4-8 when we reach that part of the conversation.

as long as the previous issues aren't rehashed.


My apologies

Miles

.

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 #44

Post by Compassionist »

The Tanager wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 12:38 pm
Compassionist wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 11:51 amBy the word "faith" I mean a belief that is not based on proof.
Do you consider science to be based on faith, then?
Compassionist wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 11:51 amI 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…
Compassionist wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 11:51 amScience 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?
Compassionist wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 11:51 amIt 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.
Compassionist wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 11:51 amIt 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.
Compassionist wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 11:51 amIf 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.
Compassionist wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 11:51 amIt 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.
The Bible is full of inaccuracies, contradictions, cruelties, and injustices. I don't know if you looked at these in the past http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/categories.html but if you look at them in the future you will see that I am right.

If you can devise an experiment to test the hypothesis that something caused our universe to come into being, please do. As far as I can tell, it is an untestable hypothesis. Please see https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/what ... -big-bang/ I am quoting from it:
The Big Bang is the moment that space and time (or ‘space-time’) came into existence. Before the Big Bang there was no space or time. So, it is actually meaningless to ask what caused the Big Bang to happen – there was no Universe in which that cause could have existed.

This might seem like a bit of a cheat, but there are other good reasons to suppose a cause for the Big Bang might not exist. Quantum physics has shown us that some events have no cause at all. Things can happen randomly, spontaneously, and for no particular reason. This unpredictable and ‘causeless’ nature of the Universe is experimentally verified but has nothing to do with our inability to observe correctly – it is a fundamental property of the Universe. So, although there may have been a cause for the Big Bang that we are unaware of, modern cosmology neither defines nor requires one.
As far as we can tell, the universe we appear to exist in is ever-expanding. If the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is correct then our universe is one of many universes. We can't prove or disprove it as we don't have the ability to detect or visit other universes yet.

I have already said in previous posts that all our knowledge is subjective and we can't know anything objectively. What we know through scientific observations is still known through sensory perceptions. Sensory perceptions can be reality or simulations or hallucinations or illusions or dreams. I have no way to ascertain which of the five options is correct. If you can show me how I can know something objectively, please do. Thank you.

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 #45

Post by The Tanager »

[Replying to Compassionist in post #44]
Compassionist wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:14 pmThe Bible is full of inaccuracies, contradictions, cruelties, and injustices. I don't know if you looked at these in the past http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/categories.html but if you look at them in the future you will see that I am right.
I’ve looked and I think you are wrong, but this is later in our discussion. When that happens, bring up specific problems you see. For now, let's focus on the beginning steps.
Compassionist wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:14 pmIf you can devise an experiment to test the hypothesis that something caused our universe to come into being, please do. As far as I can tell, it is an untestable hypothesis.
If you can tell me why such a hypothesis can only be decided upon with science, please do. I’ve given an argument as to why science logically cannot be the only way to truth. You keep ignoring that and restate that since science can’t tell us the truth on an issue, then there’s no hope of knowing.
Compassionist wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:14 pmThe Big Bang is the moment that space and time (or ‘space-time’) came into existence. Before the Big Bang there was no space or time. So, it is actually meaningless to ask what caused the Big Bang to happen – there was no Universe in which that cause could have existed.
This is philosophical nonsense. It simply assumes that material, temporal causes are the only kinds of causes that can exist.
Compassionist wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:14 pmQuantum physics has shown us that some events have no cause at all. Things can happen randomly, spontaneously, and for no particular reason. This unpredictable and ‘causeless’ nature of the Universe is experimentally verified but has nothing to do with our inability to observe correctly – it is a fundamental property of the Universe. So, although there may have been a cause for the Big Bang that we are unaware of, modern cosmology neither defines nor requires one.
I’ve already responded to this. Some interpretations of quantum physics (there are many competing ones) say there is no efficient causation of some events. Even assuming this is true, there is still, at least, a material cause: the field that has the random quantum fluctuations. Therefore, there is still a cause and this isn’t a counter to the first premise of the Kalam.
Compassionist wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:14 pmAs far as we can tell, the universe we appear to exist in is ever-expanding. If the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is correct then our universe is one of many universes. We can't prove or disprove it as we don't have the ability to detect or visit other universes yet.
If there is a multiverse, then this would be included in the “space-time cosmos” of the Kalam; it still needs a cause for its existence unless you have rational reasons to reject the philosophical arguments I sketched out in support of premise 2.
Compassionist wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:14 pmI have already said in previous posts that all our knowledge is subjective and we can't know anything objectively. What we know through scientific observations is still known through sensory perceptions. Sensory perceptions can be reality or simulations or hallucinations or illusions or dreams. I have no way to ascertain which of the five options is correct. If you can show me how I can know something objectively, please do. Thank you.
I responded when you said that, to help us get a better handle on what subjective and objective mean. You didn’t respond to my response; you just keep reverting to saying we can’t know anything objectively. Please respond to what I said.

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 #46

Post by Compassionist »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 10:38 am [Replying to Compassionist in post #44]
Compassionist wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:14 pmThe Bible is full of inaccuracies, contradictions, cruelties, and injustices. I don't know if you looked at these in the past http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/categories.html but if you look at them in the future you will see that I am right.
I’ve looked and I think you are wrong, but this is later in our discussion. When that happens, bring up specific problems you see. For now, let's focus on the beginning steps.
Compassionist wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:14 pmIf you can devise an experiment to test the hypothesis that something caused our universe to come into being, please do. As far as I can tell, it is an untestable hypothesis.
If you can tell me why such a hypothesis can only be decided upon with science, please do. I’ve given an argument as to why science logically cannot be the only way to truth. You keep ignoring that and restate that since science can’t tell us the truth on an issue, then there’s no hope of knowing.
Compassionist wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:14 pmThe Big Bang is the moment that space and time (or ‘space-time’) came into existence. Before the Big Bang there was no space or time. So, it is actually meaningless to ask what caused the Big Bang to happen – there was no Universe in which that cause could have existed.
This is philosophical nonsense. It simply assumes that material, temporal causes are the only kinds of causes that can exist.
Compassionist wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:14 pmQuantum physics has shown us that some events have no cause at all. Things can happen randomly, spontaneously, and for no particular reason. This unpredictable and ‘causeless’ nature of the Universe is experimentally verified but has nothing to do with our inability to observe correctly – it is a fundamental property of the Universe. So, although there may have been a cause for the Big Bang that we are unaware of, modern cosmology neither defines nor requires one.
I’ve already responded to this. Some interpretations of quantum physics (there are many competing ones) say there is no efficient causation of some events. Even assuming this is true, there is still, at least, a material cause: the field that has the random quantum fluctuations. Therefore, there is still a cause and this isn’t a counter to the first premise of the Kalam.
Compassionist wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:14 pmAs far as we can tell, the universe we appear to exist in is ever-expanding. If the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is correct then our universe is one of many universes. We can't prove or disprove it as we don't have the ability to detect or visit other universes yet.
If there is a multiverse, then this would be included in the “space-time cosmos” of the Kalam; it still needs a cause for its existence unless you have rational reasons to reject the philosophical arguments I sketched out in support of premise 2.
Compassionist wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:14 pmI have already said in previous posts that all our knowledge is subjective and we can't know anything objectively. What we know through scientific observations is still known through sensory perceptions. Sensory perceptions can be reality or simulations or hallucinations or illusions or dreams. I have no way to ascertain which of the five options is correct. If you can show me how I can know something objectively, please do. Thank you.
I responded when you said that, to help us get a better handle on what subjective and objective mean. You didn’t respond to my response; you just keep reverting to saying we can’t know anything objectively. Please respond to what I said.
We are going round and round in circles. I have already said that knowledge is subjective. We can't know anything objectively. If you can prove that we can know something objectively, please do. Please see https://www.dictionary.com/browse/subjective and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective I thought I had responded to all you said. Can you please tell me the number of the post you think I did not respond to? Thank you.

Quantum fluctuations occur in a vacuum. Which is another word for 'nothing'. The particles and anti-particles come into existence without any cause at all.

The problem with metaphysical truth is that one can't prove or disprove it. For example, according to Hinduism, the world we perceive through our senses is Maya which means illusion. Can we prove or disprove Maya? No. Can you prove that solipsism is true or false? No. Can you prove that you are not my hallucination or my dream? No. Can you prove that you are not a philosophical zombie? No. Can you prove that the world I perceive through my senses is real and is not a simulation or an illusion or a hallucination or a dream? No. I have asked you many times to prove that I can know something objectively but you have failed to do so. It's not your fault that you have failed. It is impossible to prove it.

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 #47

Post by The Tanager »

Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:10 amWe are going round and round in circles. I have already said that knowledge is subjective. We can't know anything objectively. If you can prove that we can know something objectively, please do. Please see https://www.dictionary.com/browse/subjective and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective I thought I had responded to all you said. Can you please tell me the number of the post you think I did not respond to? Thank you.
I’m trying to get greater clarity on what you mean when you say that we can’t know anything objectively. Which specific definition from this webpage would you say best fits your use of ‘objectively’ in that statement?
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:10 amQuantum fluctuations occur in a vacuum. Which is another word for 'nothing'. The particles and anti-particles come into existence without any cause at all.
Not what is normally meant by “nothing”. The “nothing” of a quantum vacuum is a something. In A Universe from Nothing Krauss’s “nothing” is qualified by being empty space (not the absence of space, but empty space) that is then filled with matter and antimatter that is ruled by the laws of quantum physics. And, out of that, comes quantum fluctuations. That's not nothing. The properties and nature of the field are (at least part of) the cause of the fluctuations.
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:10 amThe problem with metaphysical truth is that one can't prove or disprove it.
We can’t 100% prove it, but that’s the same thing with scientific truth, because it relies on metaphysical truths to be true. Why is this a problem?

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 #48

Post by Compassionist »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:34 pm
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:10 amWe are going round and round in circles. I have already said that knowledge is subjective. We can't know anything objectively. If you can prove that we can know something objectively, please do. Please see https://www.dictionary.com/browse/subjective and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective I thought I had responded to all you said. Can you please tell me the number of the post you think I did not respond to? Thank you.
I’m trying to get greater clarity on what you mean when you say that we can’t know anything objectively. Which specific definition from this webpage would you say best fits your use of ‘objectively’ in that statement?
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:10 amQuantum fluctuations occur in a vacuum. Which is another word for 'nothing'. The particles and anti-particles come into existence without any cause at all.
Not what is normally meant by “nothing”. The “nothing” of a quantum vacuum is a something. In A Universe from Nothing Krauss’s “nothing” is qualified by being empty space (not the absence of space, but empty space) that is then filled with matter and antimatter that is ruled by the laws of quantum physics.
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:10 amThe problem with metaphysical truth is that one can't prove or disprove it.
We can’t 100% prove it, but that’s the same thing with scientific truth, because it relies on metaphysical truths to be true. So why is this a problem?
By subjective, I mean existing in the mind, and by objective, I mean existing outside the mind. The problem is that it is impossible for a conscious being such as myself to know if there is anything that exists outside my mind. I am only 50% certain that the reality I perceive through my senses (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and skin) is actually real as opposed to being a simulation, or a hallucination, or an illusion, or a dream. This includes having a physical body, the existence of the universe, the existence of other organisms, etc.

The problem is that there is a key difference between scientific truths and metaphysical truths. People can devise experiments to test scientific truths, but people can't test metaphysical truths with experiments.

If space-time came into being with the Big Bang, how can there be something before the Big Bang?

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 #49

Post by The Tanager »

Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:57 pmBy subjective, I mean existing in the mind, and by objective, I mean existing outside the mind. The problem is that it is impossible for a conscious being such as myself to know if there is anything that exists outside my mind. I am only 50% certain that the reality I perceive through my senses (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and skin) is actually real as opposed to being a simulation, or a hallucination, or an illusion, or a dream. This includes having a physical body, the existence of the universe, the existence of other organisms, etc.
Okay, so this is about the 100% certainty issue, right? I see that as different from the objective/subjective nature of knowledge. To me, subjective/objective is about what kind of claim is being discussed. The shape of the earth is an objective kind of claim because it is a reality outside of me, not just existing in my mind. Even if we are in a simulation, that would be true. I guess not for dreams/hallucinations. There is even an objective truth about your subjective likes.

But, again, why is less than 100% a significant problem?
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:57 pmThe problem is that there is a key difference between scientific truths and metaphysical truths. People can devise experiments to test scientific truths, but people can't test metaphysical truths with experiments.
Yes, metaphysical truths can’t be tested scientifically. So what? It’s just a different kind of knowledge. Science doesn’t give us any level of reasonableness at all if metaphysical truths can’t give us any truth. Metaphysical truths can be tested through logic and reasoning, which includes not contradicting any clear scientific and historical facts.
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:57 pmIf space-time came into being with the Big Bang, how can there be something before the Big Bang?
Anything would have to be immaterial and timeless. That’s part of P4 of the Kalam I offered. But there must be a cause unless the two metaphysical arguments I offered in post 42 are untrue. So, what critiques do you have of those arguments? It matters because logic can help us test metaphysical truths. You’ve said you are certain of logical truths recently, right? Then, let’s keep following that out.

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 #50

Post by Compassionist »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 4:14 pm
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:57 pmBy subjective, I mean existing in the mind, and by objective, I mean existing outside the mind. The problem is that it is impossible for a conscious being such as myself to know if there is anything that exists outside my mind. I am only 50% certain that the reality I perceive through my senses (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and skin) is actually real as opposed to being a simulation, or a hallucination, or an illusion, or a dream. This includes having a physical body, the existence of the universe, the existence of other organisms, etc.
Okay, so this is about the 100% certainty issue, right? I see that as different from the objective/subjective nature of knowledge. To me, subjective/objective is about what kind of claim is being discussed. The shape of the earth is an objective kind of claim because it is a reality outside of me, not just existing in my mind. Even if we are in a simulation, that would be true. I guess not for dreams/hallucinations. There is even an objective truth about your subjective likes.

But, again, why is less than 100% a significant problem?
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:57 pmThe problem is that there is a key difference between scientific truths and metaphysical truths. People can devise experiments to test scientific truths, but people can't test metaphysical truths with experiments.
Yes, metaphysical truths can’t be tested scientifically. So what? It’s just a different kind of knowledge. Science doesn’t give us any level of reasonableness at all if metaphysical truths can’t give us any truth. Metaphysical truths can be tested through logic and reasoning, which includes not contradicting any clear scientific and historical facts.
Compassionist wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:57 pmIf space-time came into being with the Big Bang, how can there be something before the Big Bang?
Anything would have to be immaterial and timeless. That’s part of P4 of the Kalam I offered. But there must be a cause unless the two metaphysical arguments I offered in post 42 are untrue. So, what critiques do you have of those arguments? It matters because logic can help us test metaphysical truths. You’ve said you are certain of logical truths recently, right? Then, let’s keep following that out.
I 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.

How 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.

Please 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.

Post Reply