Answering Questions

[Sheldon]

How do we objectively determine those who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way?

Sorry but you seem to have made a claim, failed to substantiate that claim, were called on it, and in response have now asked an irrelevant non-sequitur. It's your claim, and you posted the link as evidence for it, so it is for you to justify in what way you think those passages evidence a deity.

The bible passages you quoted contained vapid platitudes and some claims, but no objective evidence. If you think this was not the case, and think it is credible evidence for your claim for an extant deity, you'd need to explain why you think that, as it obviously not clear to at least two other posters.

 

[Sheldon]

“Modern academia” doesn’t recognize many facts;

Special pleading fallacy.

they’re wedded to naturalism, ignoring all evidence of supernatural events….therefore, of necessity they have to ascribe the writing of Genesis to a later date, and many believe it…. But not everyone.

Poisoning of the well fallacy, and please do demonstrate any objective evidence for anything supernatural.

“Probably” float? Nope…

That is precisely and only what was theoretically tested in the link you provided, there is no design, only measurements, and what they tested was displacement, based a guess of what the animals in the myth would weigh. they concluded it would probably float. Even assuming they were right, so what?

They are ideal, because those ratios are similar to what modern shipbuilders of non-powered barges utilize!

Ideal for what, in what way, and please evidence this claim? Then explain how any of it remotely evidences a global flood?

 

[AppieB]

Let's go way back - back into time.
Let's see who is being vague.

First, you were about the consensus.
Agenda #1. Is it reasonable to accept an explanation/model when there is a scientific consensus?

Did I answer that question. YES, but it didn't fit your agenda.
Science is not about consensus. It's about the experimental inquiry that produces verifiable data.
So the answer to your question is no.
If the results of the experiment can be verified, then it's reasonable to accept these.

My last questions were NOT about the scientific consensus. I understood you answer was NO.
My question was if you need to be 100% certain (no doubt) in order to be reasonable to accept a scientific fact or theory. Your answer seemed to be yes. You were giving the following answers:
"If you believe that science does not verify anything 100%, then I fail to see the point of your questions, because I have already said that it is reasonable to accept what science can verify."
"It's either verified, or it's not. There is no such thing as 99% verified"
To be sure I asked the question if you hold the believe that science is only valuable or reasonable to accept when there is "no doubt" and 100% certainty? You answered that you've already answered this (instead of a clear yes or no, which would have made it a lot easier). From what I've read (purple text) it seems to me the answer is yes. But if the answer is no, that's fine by me as well. I just want to know what the answer is. There is no agenda as you have been repeatedly suggested.

Look at the two of these.
I said:
There are some things we can believe reasonably, even though we cannot be sure, but we can reasonably feel sure.
You said:
Actually I agree. Also science is not 100% sure (or absolute sure), nor is any other method. But we could be reasonably sure
Before I continue, tell me what's the difference between the two.

I don't think there is much difference. I personnally would not use the word "feel" in this context. But it looks like we are in agreement (as I stated earlier). Hence my question above about 100% certainty in science.

 

[nPeace]

Sorry but you seem to have made a claim, failed to substantiate that claim, were called on it, and in response have now asked an irrelevant non-sequitur. It's your claim, and you posted the link as evidence for it, so it is for you to justify in what way you think those passages evidence a deity.

The bible passages you quoted contained vapid platitudes and some claims, but no objective evidence. If you think this was not the case, and think it is credible evidence for your claim for an extant deity, you'd need to explain why you think that, as it obviously not clear to at least two other posters.

Fine, then since you cannot determine objectively that someone is suppressing the truth, there is no reason for me to give you anything, because I could well be wasting my time, and don't even know that... according to you.
So our conversation are over. Okay.

 

[CG Didymus]

Ah ok, my apologies, I misunderstood.

Yeah, so did nPeace. I put "undecided", because I'm willing to let people in any religion tell me why they believe what they do, but I sure like your arguments and the other arguments of the other Atheists. They really don't have any objective evidence and proof. And they do have to rely on logical fallacies a lot in trying to "give" proof and evidence. Like with Christians that take the Bible very literal. They have put themselves into a place where they've got to come up with arguments for the Sun stopping, people coming back to life, and people flying off into the clouds, plus the usual, the flood and a six-day creation. I think it's myth, legends, maybe some history... mixed with some spiritual things and a bunch of laws and rituals. Easily, all of it could be made up. But, one thing I do believe is true, it's real and true and accurate for the "true-believer". Love all the things you and the other Atheists have brought to these Christian and Baha'i threads.

 

[nPeace]

My last questions were NOT about the scientific consensus. I understood you answer was NO.
My question was if you need to be 100% certain (no doubt) in order to be reasonable to accept a scientific fact or theory. Your answer seemed to be yes. You were giving the following answers:
"If you believe that science does not verify anything 100%, then I fail to see the point of your questions, because I have already said that it is reasonable to accept what science can verify."
"It's either verified, or it's not. There is no such thing as 99% verified"
To be sure I asked the question if you hold the believe that science is only valuable or reasonable to accept when there is "no doubt" and 100% certainty? You answered that you've already answered this (instead of a clear yes or no, which would have made it a lot easier). From what I've read (purple text) it seems to me the answer is yes. But if the answer is no, that's fine by me as well. I just want to know what the answer is. There is no agenda as you have been repeatedly suggested.

I'm showing you that you are asking the same question I answered.

I don't think there is much difference. I personnally would not use the word "feel" in this context. But it looks like we are in agreement (as I stated earlier). Hence my question above about 100% certainty in science.

What is your question about 100% certainty? Did you not say that doesn't exist?
Why is it relevant, after I have already said...It's about the experimental inquiry that produces verifiable data.
If the results of the experiment can be verified, then it's reasonable to accept these.

and you agreed.
Of course, it's about the experimental inquiry and verifiable data.
?

 

[nPeace]

Yeah, so did nPeace. I put "undecided", because I'm willing to let people in any religion tell me why they believe what they do, but I sure like your arguments and the other arguments of the other Atheists. They really don't have any objective evidence and proof. And they do have to rely on logical fallacies a lot in trying to "give" proof and evidence. Like with Christians that take the Bible very literal. They have put themselves into a place where they've got to come up with arguments for the Sun stopping, people coming back to life, and people flying off into the clouds, plus the usual, the flood and a six-day creation. I think it's myth, legends, maybe some history... mixed with some spiritual things and a bunch of laws and rituals. Easily, all of it could be made up. But, one thing I do believe is true, it's real and true and accurate for the "true-believer". Love all the things you and the other Atheists have brought to these Christian and Baha'i threads.

I think you know full well this is not true.
Do scientists make inferences?
What's an inference, and if they are objective, why are inferences made otherwise, not objective?

 

[AppieB]

I'm showing you that you are asking the same question I answered.

Appearantly it is not clear to me. It would be very helpful to answer the question instead of saying you answered it before.

So please answer this: Do you you need to be 100% certain (no doubt) in order to verify a scientific fact or theory?

What is your question about 100% certainty? Did you not say that doesn't exist?

I think you can't acquire 100% certainty about anything. And science doesn't acquire 100% certainty either. I was asking if YOU think you need to be 100% certain in order to accept or believe a claim. I think you answered before that you don't need 100% certainty, in which you gave the example of your belief in a creator. Am I right?

Why is it relevant, after I have already said...It's about the experimental inquiry that produces verifiable data.
If the results of the experiment can be verified, then it's reasonable to accept these.

and you agreed.
Of course, it's about the experimental inquiry and verifiable data.
?

I've read your posts again and it seems that you are only accepting scientific knowledge that can be demonstrated in a direct experiment. You've mentioned dropping a bowling ball on a clay jar and then observing the results. I imagine the clay jar would be broken, but what more could we conclude out of this experiment? What is the scientific fact that has been demonstrated by dropping the bowling ball?
Am I reasonable to accept the theory of general relativity based upon this experiment? If not, when am I reasonable to accept this theory as the best explanation currently available?
Or is a scientific theory by definition not reasonable to accept because it can not be demonstrated by one or a few easy experiments?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You assert they are much older

Yes, “they” being the original manuscripts.

As far as the silver scrolls…. The Israelites were slaves after the Babylonians destroyed their city; it’s highly unlikely the scrolls were made after the event, since silver isn’t a possession of slaves. So, saying they were made “around” that date, is a little misleading; it would be “ealier”. That would be the obvious conclusion….that the scrolls were made earlier than the date of their subjugation.

Which, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem & it’s temple by Babylon, I honestly think was 607BC, not 586BC.

I believe that archaeology will continue uncovering older documents that will eventually support both of these claims, the age of the Torah and the date of Jerusalem’s destruction.
And clarify other facts.

 

[Sheldon]

Fine, then since you cannot determine objectively that someone is suppressing the truth, there is no reason for me to give you anything, because I could well be wasting my time, and don't even know that... according to you.

So you made a claim, failed to substantiate that claim, were called on it, and in response asked an irrelevant non-sequitur. Then when this was made plain, you now try to blame me for your dishonesty.

So our conversation are over. Okay.

Sulking and running away, are not credible arguments or evidence for your bizarre superstitious beliefs and claims, but you may of course do as you are minded to.

 

[Sheldon]

I'm showing you that you are asking the same question I answered.

This was the question:

My question was if you need to be 100% certain (no doubt) in order to be reasonable to accept a scientific fact or theory.

And no, you have not even tried to give an honest answer, but that does seem to be your MO.

What is your question about 100% certainty? Did you not say that doesn't exist?

So just as you did with me, you make a claim, and then when asked to justify or evidence it, you obfuscate with an irrelevant question.

 

[KWED]

Yes, “they” being the original manuscripts.

And what is the evidence for these "original manuscripts"?

As far as the silver scrolls…. The Israelites were slaves after the Babylonians destroyed their city; it’s highly unlikely the scrolls were made after the event, since silver isn’t a possession of slaves. So, saying they were made “around” that date, is a little misleading; it would be “ealier”. That would be the obvious conclusion….that the scrolls were made earlier than the date of their subjugation.

This is mere question begging. You are assuming that the mythical stories in the Bible are true.

Which, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem & it’s temple by Babylon, I honestly think was 607BC, not 586BC.

I quoted an expert in the field saying that the latest study settled the question of age, so I think we can defer to authority in this case.

I believe that archaeology will continue uncovering older documents that will eventually support both of these claims, the age of the Torah and the date of Jerusalem’s destruction.
And clarify other facts.

Ah, so your "evidence" for the age of the OT, Silver Scrolls, etc is merely wishful thinking.]
Fair enough.

 

[nPeace]

Appearantly it is not clear to me. It would be very helpful to answer the question instead of saying you answered it before.

So please answer this: Do you you need to be 100% certain (no doubt) in order to verify a scientific fact or theory?

I already answered.
However....

Do I need to be 100% certain (no doubt) in order to verify a scientific fact or theory? is your question.

Anything that is not 100% certain is a belief, and is not a fact.
Facts are independent of belief and opinion.

Since I am not a scientist, I leave it to them to do their experiments, and come up with their explanations.
I also, as I explained before, don't really have a problem with what a person chooses to believe. That doesn't seem to work the other way around for Atheists, as is being demonstrated here.

So while scientists believe things, which are not necessarily true, that doesn't affect my life at all. I follow what makes sense to me, and what I believe to be true.
Scientists have different beliefs also.

As I also said before, something is either verified or it isn't.
I already stated a million times already (I must have evolved by now) If the results of the experiment can be verified, then it's reasonable to accept these.
Since a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, that would make the results of the experiment I refered to, a scientific fact. The results were verified.
To repeat... There is no such thing as half, or three-quarters verified. Either it's verified, or it's not.

So anyone who wants to believe in explanations that are not verified, are free to do so. It's their choice.
It's not unreasonable for one not to believe in unverified or unverifiable beliefs.

I think you can't acquire 100% certainty about anything.
And science doesn't acquire 100% certainty either.

What is 100% certainty?
That can mean different things to different people. What does it mean to you?

I was asking if YOU think you need to be 100% certain in order to accept or believe a claim. I think you answered before that you don't need 100% certainty, in which you gave the example of your belief in a creator. Am I right?

I think I did answer that. You can always look back, if you are not certain.

I've read your posts again and it seems that you are only accepting scientific knowledge that can be demonstrated in a direct experiment. You've mentioned dropping a bowling ball on a clay jar and then observing the results. I imagine the clay jar would be broken, but what more could we conclude out of this experiment? What is the scientific fact that has been demonstrated by dropping the bowling ball?
Am I reasonable to accept the theory of general relativity based upon this experiment? If not, when am I reasonable to accept this theory as the best explanation currently available?
Or is a scientific theory by definition not reasonable to accept because it can not be demonstrated by one or a few easy experiments?

You can believe whatever you want, if you think it is reasonable for you to do so.
A scientific theory is not a scientific fact. Both are subject to change, but the difference is you cannot verify a theory.
You can give an explanation for a fact, and you may believe that that explanation is correct... if you want to.
However, that's your belief. You cannot claim the scientists... or anyone else, for that matter, who disagrees with that explanation to be unreasonable.
They are not. They are being reasonable to wait until if that belief can actually be verified.

 

[joelr]

Doing research on this... the silver scrolls is accepted as being older than 600 BC.

*** w06 1/15 p. 32 “The Earliest Known Citations of Biblical Texts” ***
scholars emphasize that the archaeological data support a date before the Babylonian exile. The paleographic observations—the dating of scripts from the shape, form, stance, stroke order, and direction—point to the same time period, that is, to the end of the seventh century B.C.E. And finally, when considering the orthography, the science of spelling, this team concludes: “The orthographic data in the plaques [scrolls] is consistent with the archaeological and palaeographical evidence in terms of the dating of the inscriptions.”
The journal Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research sums up the study of the silver scrolls, also known as the Ketef Hinnom inscriptions, as follows: “We can thus reassert the conclusion reached by most scholars that the inscriptions found on these plaques preserve the earliest known citations of biblical texts.”

The silver scrolls date back to the 7th century B.C. That is during the First Temple time period, around the time that Jeremiah the prophet lived and King Josiah reigned in Jerusalem. This was a time period when some skeptics previously doubted that the book of Numbers had even been written yet, but this find indicates that it had.

seriously, your sources are incredibly bad. It's like you have no interest in if something is actually true? The only link from that military housewife's blog is to an amateur apologetics site that follows crank versions of finds. The actual paper done on the scrolls does not date it to 700BC. Of course they will never update it with this information because actual scholars are:
1) possessed by Satan
2) they hate Jesus and lie
3) despite being highly trained they just cannot find any historical truths
4) are always wrong but housewife are always correct (if they say what you agree with)

In a scholarly report published this month, the research team concluded that the improved reading of the inscriptions confirmed their greater antiquity. The script, the team wrote, is indeed from the period just before the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. by Nebuchadnezzar and the subsequent exile of Israelites in Babylonia.

The researchers further reaffirmed that the scrolls "preserve the earliest known citations of texts also found in the Hebrew Bible and that they provide us with the earliest examples of confessional statements concerning Yahweh."

Some of the previously unreadable lines seemed to remove any doubt about the purpose of the silver scrolls: they were amulets. Unrolled, one amulet is nearly four inches long and an inch wide and the other an inch and a half long and about half an inch wide. The inscribed words, the researchers said, were "intended to provide a blessing that will be used to protect the wearer from some manner of evil forces."

The report in The Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research was written by Dr. Gabriel Barkay, the archaeologist at Bar-Ilan University in Israel who discovered the artifacts, and collaborators associated with Southern California's West Semitic Research Project. The project leader is Dr. Bruce Zuckerman, a professor of Semitic languages at U.S.C., who worked with Dr. Marilyn J. Lundberg, a Hebrew Bible specialist with the project, and Dr. Andrew G. Vaughn, a biblical historian at Gustavu
Solving a Riddle Written in Silver (Published 2004)

 

[joelr]

In that case, since you are so impatiently demanding. Here you go. Romans 1:18-20
Go your way merrily, and have a nice day.

Your evidence is a line in a book? So is Krishna real also? He's in several books! But Paul? A man who claims ghost Jesus coached him on Christianity and who hated women and said you shouldn't bother to marry because the world will be ending soon anyways?
It's true because it says so? Really?

 

[joelr]

Since I am not a scientist, I leave it to them to do their experiments, and come up with their explanations.
I also, as I explained before, don't really have a problem with what a person chooses to believe. That doesn't seem to work the other way around for Atheists, as is being demonstrated here.

Uh, it's a debate forum, it's the place to discuss ideas. People really need to stop claiming to be a victim when people engage them in a debate on a debate forum.

So while scientists believe things, which are not necessarily true, that doesn't affect my life at all. I follow what makes sense to me, and what I believe to be true.
Scientists have different beliefs also.

Bad comparison. Scientists believe things that have evidence. Usually several different lines of evidence and this evidence must first be repeated by multiple teams. Following what makes "sense" can be shown to be demonstrably incorrect as people will claim that "it just makes sense" to believe in - the law of attraction, haunted houses, mediums, psychics, the government hiding Roswell aliens at Area 51, crystal healing powers.... It doesn't stop at metaphysics, racism, gender superiority and other negatively impacting beliefs can also be justified this way. Demonstrating this is a terrible way to find out what is actually true.

You can believe whatever you want, if you think it is reasonable for you to do so.
A scientific theory is not a scientific fact. Both are subject to change, but the difference is you cannot verify a theory.
You can give an explanation for a fact, and you may believe that that explanation is correct... if you want to.
However, that's your belief. You cannot claim the scientists... or anyone else, for that matter, who disagrees with that explanation to be unreasonable.
They are not. They are being reasonable to wait until if that belief can actually be verified.

This comparison makes no sense. A theory does not graduate to a fact? A scientific theory is something that explains the facts. New facts will add to the theory if it's correct.
The general theory of evolution came out in 1859. Today we have some facts that support it, one is a long line of hominids over millions of years, each new species becomes more upright, walks more on 2 legs, less body hair, smaller skull all the way to Homo Heidelburgensis who are very close to Homo Sapien. They used tools, buried their dead and so on. These facts are explained by evolution.
There are endless amounts of other facts, chromosomes, DNA, all types of discoveries that lend more verification.

It would be reasonable to not believe a theory if it had evidence against it. Evidence good enough to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. But if it's just going by what makes sense to an individual then that's flawed. Then you could have Hindus saying evolution is not true because all creatures devolved straight from Brahman. Or it's not true because all humans are from Manu and Shatrupa the first 2 humans made by Brahma. Manu of course has a vast bloodline, given in the text and is later warned by an avatar of Vishnu that a great flood is coming. Manu builds a boat and carries his family to safety.

Now this obviously proves evolution false because it's true (it's written down!) and why else would it be written if it wasn't true?

This is from the Rigveda which may go back to 1900 BCE. Sorry science theory, the ancient myth can't be wrong.

 

[CG Didymus]

I think you know full well this is not true.

When it comes to religion, it's hard to tell what is true and what's not true, Everyone I talk to has different beliefs and they all think theirs is true.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

….they concluded it would probably float.

Lol.
Nope.
Search all you want, “probably” isn’t in this article.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/...l/news-story/a7e558bc25fecf8e2865867579f05479

“…it would work”
Here’s a quote:
“Student Thomas Morris, 22, said: “You don’t think of the Bible necessarily as a scientifically accurate source of information, so I guess we were quite surprised when we discovered it would work. We’re not proving that it’s true, but the concept would definitely work.” “

Not “probably”.

I never said anywhere it proved the Flood.

But the fact certainly doesn’t discredit the account, either. As the Ark in the EofG does.

 

[Sheldon]

Lol.
Nope.
Search all you want, “probably” isn’t in this article.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/...l/news-story/a7e558bc25fecf8e2865867579f05479

“…it would work”
Here’s a quote:
“Student Thomas Morris, 22, said: “You don’t think of the Bible necessarily as a scientifically accurate source of information, so I guess we were quite surprised when we discovered it would work. We’re not proving that it’s true, but the concept would definitely work.” “

Not “probably”.

I never said anywhere it proved the Flood.

But the fact certainly doesn’t discredit the account, either. As the Ark in the EofG does.

"University of Leicester physics students says Noah’s Ark would have floated with two each of 35,000 species of animal"

So a guestimate of the weight of species, no design, only measurements, used to calculate displacement.

"...based on the weight of the beasts and the buoyancy of the boat. The students from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Leicester who came to this conclusion used the dimensions for the boat that were given in the Bible."

"For the study, the students settled on a cubit being 48.2cm long and found the ark could support the weight of 2.5 million sheep. The university said that previous research suggested there were approximately 35,000 species of animals in Noah’s time."

Previous research?

"Scientists have recently estimated that there are approximately 8.7 million species on Earth. They believe that 1-2 million of those species are animals."

That makes that 35000 figure look pretty dubious. Also here's a heads up, the genetic diversity in any species we see today could not have come from a breeding pair, or anything like a genepool that small.

Did you read this:

"The students said it was not clear if all the animals would actually be able to fit on board."

Even based on that dubious figure they don't know if they would all have fitted, as I said, their paper was merely calculating displacement, not sea worthiness or any type of design, beyond basic dimensions.

From Encyclopaedia Britannica.
"The cubit, generally taken as equal to 18 inches (457 mm), was based on the length of the arm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger and was considered the equivalent of 6 palms or 2 spans."

Now from your link:
"For the study, the students settled on a cubit being 48.2cm long and found the ark could support the weight of 2.5 million sheep."

So two separate guestimates there for a start.

"We’re not proving that it’s true, but the concept would definitely work.”

Their concept see, would definitely float, based on their estimate of 35000 species, and their estimate of the weight, and their estimate of what a cubit is.

From your link:

"“Every object when immersed in a liquid has an upwards force acting against it — a buoyancy force; it also has a weight acting downwards — a downwards force, and in order for it to float, these two forces need to be equal.”

Oh look, they're talking about displacement, based on Archimedes principle.

Compare these facts to your hyperbole. Now again from your link...

"His colleague Benjamin Jordan added: “Using the dimensions of the ark and the density of the water, we were able to calculate its buoyancy force, which, according to Archimedes’ principle, is equal to the weight of the volume of fluid the object displaces. This meant we were then able to estimate the total mass the ark could support before the gravitational weight would overcome the buoyancy force, causing the ark to sink, which we calculated as 50.54x106kg.”"

 

[nPeace]

When it comes to religion, it's hard to tell what is true and what's not true, Everyone I talk to has different beliefs and they all think theirs is true.

I wouldn't expect a master deceiver - Matthew 13:25; John 8:44; Revelation 12:9 to do a lousy job of deceiving those whom God knows reject his truth - 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12.