Science IS religion

[Subduction Zone]

If anyone could support the belief they would. So as it stands your origin basis remains religion.

They can and they have. You only deny and run away. People get tired of that after a while.

And why do you constantly break the Ninth Commandment?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

They can and they have. You only deny and run away. People get tired of that after a while.

...

Nobody can escape Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia.

dad uses this in a sense, he simply states that everybody else's world-view falls prey to the trilemma, but he doesn't.
And then you turn around and do the same as he does. You claim that there can be given evidence for what reality really is. There can't as longs as humans remain humans. There is a "beep" good reason, how it is that science is axiomatic. You start with the assumption that the universe/the natural world is fair(doesn't cheat, that you can trust your senses(empiricism) and reason and logic(rationalism)) and it is natural(foundational dogma).
So please don't be like dad.

I get tried of these debates where everybody, their grandmother and her dog claim, that they are special and nobody else but them as an individual/special group have solved it. Everybody else can't because they run into the limits of reason, logic and evidence, but you and your special group can. You can't, dad can't and I can't. I just know it for all of us, but you two are so special.

I won't let dad get away with, but he is properly outside reach of understanding it, so I just point it out and let him be. So what about you? Can you understand that the Münchhausen Trilemma applies to us all?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody can escape Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia.

dad uses this in a sense, he simply states that everybody else's world-view falls prey to the trilemma, but he doesn't.
And then you turn around and do the same as he does. You claim that there can be given evidence for what reality really is. There can't as longs as humans remain humans. There is a "beep" good reason, how it is that science is axiomatic. You start with the assumption that the universe/the natural world is fair(doesn't cheat, that you can trust your senses(empiricism) and reason and logic(rationalism)) and it is natural(foundational dogma).
So please don't be like dad.

I get tried of these debates where everybody, their grandmother and her dog claim, that they are special and nobody else but them as an individual/special group have solved it. Everybody else can't because they run into the limits of reason, logic and evidence, but you and your special group can. You can't, dad can't and I can't. I just know it for all of us, but you two are so special.

I won't let dad get away with, but he is properly outside reach of understanding it, so I just point it out and let him be. So what about you? Can you understand that the Münchhausen Trilemma applies to us all?

You ignore the fact that applying the scientific method does have real world positive results. We could not be communicating right now if that was not the case. Hypocritically dad relies upon the science that he denies. The scientific method produces real world results that do not "prove" that it has an accurate representation of reality. Beliefs like dad's ultimately results in harming people, either on a small or a large scale. He has to rely upon that which he denies making him a hypocrite at best.

I never claimed "proof". I only claimed evidence and that is all we can rely.upon in this world of ours.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You ignore the fact that applying the scientific method does have real world positive results. We could not be communicating right now if that was not the case. Hypocritically dad relies upon the science that he denies. The scientific method produces real world results that do not "prove" that it has an accurate representation of reality. Beliefs like dad's ultimately results in harming people, either on a small or a large scale. He has to rely upon that which he denies making him a hypocrite at best.

I never claimed "proof". I only claimed evidence and that is all we can rely.upon in this world of ours.

And you ignore that it is a fact, that he can do so. And judge him to be a hypocrite at best, but you can't do that using science.
So start here: Use methodological naturalism and realize that science has a real limit in this world of ours. You can't use science to do this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

So when you judge dad, you don't use science as per evidence. That is the limit, it is a fact that dad can do, what he does and science can't show that it is wrong. Science tells you that it is natural. He is a human like you and you are both different as individual. Science can describe, explain and inform you of that, but science can't save you and give you evidence of an accurate representation of reality., for which at best dad is a hypocrite. He is not a hypocrite with evidence as per science. He is a human and so are you and I.
Don't confuse science and morality.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not sure what you are foggy about. There is a certain day the sun and stars were made.
Since I have never seen any bible verse stating a position of planets your point is moot.

Here we do see the effect. In far space any effect that takes time means that it is an unknown amount of time! Here, where we see it we see it IN our time. We know how much time in involved here.


Not ONLY for that. His creation has multi purposes. Try looking at the rest of the bible for some.
Rather than defend your claim then you say you don't really care. OK.
Just the right size and distance for it's job.

It depends on how we view the solar system. If it encompasses all the bodies that are in the sun'r gravity, or just the planetary area out to Pluto.

"We took the radius of the solar system to be 39.5 AU, which means it has a diameter of 79 AU. This means you could put the Solar System about 800 times in one Light Year.

If you include all the comets like we did in the second part, then the Solar System has a diameter of about 100,000 AU

Which means it is significantly greater than One Light Year."

https://www.quora.com/How-big-is-Solar-System-in-terms-of-light-years

Voyager is NOT EVEN A LIGHT DAY AWAY!


Got that right, more like oracles of Satan!
The key is applying calculations properly. Not just running big numbers.

They cannot see evidence in any light but the colored religious biased light of their religion.
Bingo! The origins 'sciences' are not science. They are fables and belief based.

I feel like your quotes mischaracterize what I'm saying. I don't feel like it has been a learning experience either, so I'm bowing out. Thanks for your patience and bizarre ideas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you ignore that it is a fact, that he can do so. And judge him to be a hypocrite at best, but you can't do that using science.
So start here: Use methodological naturalism and realize that science has a real limit in this world of ours. You can't use science to do this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

So when you judge dad, you don't use science as per evidence. That is the limit, it is a fact that dad can do, what he does and science can't show that it is wrong. Science tells you that it is natural. He is a human like you and you are both different as individual. Science can describe, explain and inform you of that, but science can't save you and give you evidence of an accurate representation of reality., for which at best dad is a hypocrite. He is not a hypocrite with evidence as per science. He is a human and so are you and I.
Don't confuse science and morality.

It appears that you are making false accusations. I never said or implied that science answers everything. This thread is about dad's false claim that religion is a science. It is not about science being the be all and end all. The scientific method is perhaps the strongest tool that we have for solving problems, but you are right that it does not solve all problems. It also clearly is not a religion. Sadly all dad has is a rather evil religion that he wishes to push on everyone else.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It appears that you are making false accusations. I never said or implied that science answers everything. This thread is about dad's false claim that religion is a science. It is not about science being the be all and end all. The scientific method is perhaps the strongest tool that we have for solving problems, but you are right that it does not solve all problems. It also clearly is not a religion. Sadly all dad has is a rather evil religion that he wishes to push on everyone else.

Here is an older post of yours:

You ignore the fact that applying the scientific method does have real world positive results. We could not be communicating right now if that was not the case. Hypocritically dad relies upon the science that he denies. The scientific method produces real world results that do not "prove" that it has an accurate representation of reality. Beliefs like dad's ultimately results in harming people, either on a small or a large scale. He has to rely upon that which he denies making him a hypocrite at best.

I never claimed "proof". I only claimed evidence and that is all we can rely.upon in this world of ours.

My bold and so on.
I rely on more than evidence and so do you. Just be honest and say it as it is: Some people do things, you don't like.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is an older post of yours:


My bold and so on.
I rely on more than evidence and so do you. Just be honest and say it as it is: Some people do things, you don't like.

Really? You rely on more than evidence? Not when you reason rationally you do not. But taking quotes out of context is always a losing technique.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Really? You rely on more than evidence? Not when you reason rationally you do not. But taking quotes out of context is always a losing technique.

You can't only live on reason, logic and evidence alone. You can't deny that it is so, but that is in effect no different that those people who deny that morality is subjective.

It appears that you are making false accusations. I never said or implied that science answers everything. This thread is about dad's false claim that religion is a science. It is not about science being the be all and end all. The scientific method is perhaps the strongest tool that we have for solving problems, but you are right that it does not solve all problems. It also clearly is not a religion. Sadly all dad has is a rather evil religion that he wishes to push on everyone else.

But you can't use science to give evidence for the fact of "evil". So how rational are you, if you claim something of the world, which is not you and then have no evidence for it? "Evil" is not a word for which, you can use science. You either believe in it without evidence or you don't believe in it, because you know it has no evidence.
Thought you got it right with "perhaps" in "The scientific method is perhaps the strongest tool..."

And you want to push on everybody that dad's religion is a rather evil religion without having evidence for that. Stop taking your own subjective and without evidence morality for granted and then try to push it on everybody else. That is not rational. To be rational is to understand the limit of logic, reason and evidence.
I don't like what dad does, but that has nothing to do with evidence, but it is a fact of how the world works, that he can do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can't only live on reason, logic and evidence alone. You can't deny that it is so, but that is in effect no different that those people who deny that morality is subjective.


But you can't use science to give evidence for the fact of "evil". So how rational are you, if you claim something of the world, which is not you and then have no evidence for it? "Evil" is not a word for which, you can use science. You either believe in it without evidence or you don't believe in it, because you know it has no evidence.
Thought you got it right with "perhaps" in "The scientific method is perhaps the strongest tool..."

And you want to push on everybody that dad's religion is a rather evil religion without having evidence for that. Stop taking your own subjective and without evidence morality for granted and then try to push it on everybody else. That is not rational. To be rational is to understand the limit of logic, reason and evidence.
I don't like what dad does, but that has nothing to do with evidence, but it is a fact of how the world works, that he can do so.

Why do you think that one cannot use science to explain the fact of "evil"?

And please, there is more than enough evidence that dad's religion is evil. He believes in an evil and incompetent God that makes arbitrary rules that ignore the worst of evils that existed in the times that the books were written.

Don't make false accusations. Ask questions. You will do much better if you do that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why do you think that one cannot use science to explain the fact of "evil"?

And please, there is more than enough evidence that dad's religion is evil. He believes in an evil and incompetent God that makes arbitrary rules that ignore the worst of evils that existed in the times that the books were written.

Don't make false accusations. Ask questions. You will do much better if you do that.

Evidence in science is based on observing. Either field observation or testing with instruments calibrated to measure in a scientifically defined unit. So let us start with an instrument and a measurement unit. Please provide a link to an instrument and the unit, which measures evil. If you can't and you can't, then please explain how you observe evil. You don't, you can't see it, it has not volume, mass, dimensions or property. You don't smell, can't touch, can't hold evil. Evil is not tangible. Indeed evil is a word, which is a placeholder word for morality and emotion. Further there is no scientific theory or law of evil. And to finish this;

Science doesn't make moral judgments
When is euthanasia the right thing to do? What universal rights should humans have? Should other animals have rights? Questions like these are important, but scientific research will not answer them. Science can help us learn about terminal illnesses and the history of human and animal rights — and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual people must make moral judgments. Science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Evil is connected to wrong and bad, but to state a particular worldview is evil, is not a statement of a fact. It is not based on objective observation or an objective assessment:
Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
Nor objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
Definition of OBJECTIVE

So now you provide actual scientific literature on how to observe or test for evil. You can't, because evil is not scientific and this site even state that it is not so. Again:

Science doesn't make moral judgments
When is euthanasia the right thing to do? What universal rights should humans have? Should other animals have rights? Questions like these are important, but scientific research will not answer them. Science can help us learn about terminal illnesses and the history of human and animal rights — and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual people must make moral judgments. Science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad.

I don't need to ask you a question, I ask how do you know that something is evil and then I use the methodology of science to check if science applies. It doesn't. I then check a site about, what science is and again.

Science doesn't make moral judgments
When is euthanasia the right thing to do? What universal rights should humans have? Should other animals have rights? Questions like these are important, but scientific research will not answer them. Science can help us learn about terminal illnesses and the history of human and animal rights — and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual people must make moral judgments. Science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad.

Evil is connected to wrong and bad and is a form of morality and emotion.

Further just for the fun of it: The "is" in these 3 sentences are not the same for how they work in a linguistic sense.

• The cat is black.
• 2 plus 2 is 11.
• It is wrong to kill a human.

It appears you treat the cat is black and dad's religion is rather evil as the same. They are not, the first is an observation, the second is a subjective personal feeling and interpretation.

So, no. I don't have to ask you. I get that you don't understand how science works in relation to morality.

And yes, you don't understand how the word evidence works.

And again, I don't like what dad does and that is a personal feeling and interpretation and has nothing to do with evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence in science is based on observing. Either field observation or testing with instruments calibrated to measure in a scientifically defined unit. So let us start with an instrument and a measurement unit. Please provide a link to an instrument and the unit, which measures evil. If you can't and you can't, then please explain how you observe evil. You don't, you can't see it, it has not volume, mass, dimensions or property. You don't smell, can't touch, can't hold evil. Evil is not tangible. Indeed evil is a word, which is a placeholder word for morality and emotion. Further there is no scientific theory or law of evil. And to finish this;

Sorry. you fail immediately when you do not approach the problem rationally. Ignoring the rest of the post since this was so epic.

Let me help you. First you must define your terms.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry. you fail immediately when you do not approach the problem rationally. Ignoring the rest of the post since this was so epic.

Let me help you. First you must define your terms.

Define evil and explain how to observe it. Define observe. Define evidence. Define a protocol in science and define replicate as relevant to a protocol. Define and explain science.
You use science and claim evil is a fact.
You have made the positive claim using science, you are the one to do it. I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking for evidence for a positive claim, evil is a fact.

Stop, please. You made the positive claim. And no, you saying, that evil is a fact, is not evidence. If that was so, I say God exists and then that is a fact. Well, no! And the same apply to you, just because you say, evil is a fact, doesn't make it so.
So you are now on.

BTW what does reason and logic have to do with something not it your brain. Are you an epistemological rationalist? Well, that is not science. Science is empirical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Define evil and explain how to observe it. Define observe. Define evidence. Define a protocol in science and define replicate as relevant to a protocol. Define and explain science.
You use science and claim evil is a fact.
You have made the positive claim using science, you are the one to do it. I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking for evidence for a positive claim, evil is a fact.

Stop, please. You made the positive claim. And no, you saying, that evil is a fact, is not evidence. If that was so, I say God exists and then that is a fact. Well, no! And the same apply to you, just because you say, evil is a fact, doesn't make it so.
So you are now on.

BTW what does reason and logic have to do with something not it your brain. Are you an epistemological rationalist? Well, that is not science. Science is empirical.

Actually you made a positive assertion first. When one says that something cannot be done one acquires a burden of proof.

But let's define "evil". Do you think that is an insurmountable problem?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually you made a positive assertion first. When one says that something cannot be done one acquires a burden of proof.

But let's define "evil". Do you think that is an insurmountable problem?

Someone: Everything requires reason, logic and evidence.
Someone else:Yes.
Me: No.

Now that "no" is without evidence and not with reason and logic, right? But I am still able to do it and I am still here. So there is a limit to reason, logic and evidence. So your turn.
You explain evil and explain how one establish that something is evil, using science. And please explain how I can claim that dad's religion is not evil?

Wait, I will do it.
How I can define objective:
Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers (as tied to observation).
Definition of OBJECTIVE

Sensible experience and perceptible by all observers means that it can be sensed externally from the brain and body.

This chapter discusses the role of material objects and sensible experience in the formation of judgement. It explains the notion of the concept-user's experience of the world and the experience that yield true judgments about the world. The main point of the discussion is that the concept-user's experience of the world is conceived both as something in the world, a part of world and its history, and as an experience of the world hence the source of objective judgments about it.

Sensible Experience and Material Objects - Oxford Scholarship
Notice the bold ones I made
Now perceptible: capable of being perceived especially by the senses
Definition of PERCEPTIBLE

So if evil is a material object, then state its weight, dimensions in space and so on.
If evil is a phenomenon/property of a material object, please state its characteristics in regards to observation.
If evil is a condition in the world independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers, please state the external sensations: Sight, touch as feeling, smell, sound and taste.

Well, here is my definition of evil:
morally reprehensible; arising from actual or imputed bad(feeling) character or conduct; causing discomfort or repulsion(feelings and thus not objective as expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations); causing harm(a feeling).
Definition of EVIL
All of the words central to evil are the results of feelings towards something and are not based on sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
I don't feel that that dad's religion is evil. I don't like(a feeling), what he does. dad properly like what he does.

Evil is about the feelings in a person towards the behavior in another person. While we can observe that, we can't observe evil itself using science, because evil is not observable itself. We recognize its meaning, if we have feelings. But not all humans have the same feelings toward a given behavior, thus it is not in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers. Not even as a feeling or emotion.

No, I don't define words and I don't explain what an observation in science is.
And I don't have to wait for you to explain evil. I know how to check words and understand how they work.

 

[dad]

Fables have to with stories of animals, dad.

The evo fable has to do with man coming from animals and animals coming from little worms or whatnots.

Your Bible has stories of talking serpent and talking donkey.

True accounts. God's science seems like magic to your 'science'!

Those are fables, dad. Genesis and Numbers are works of ancient myths, where they thought animals of all sort could talk in the human language. That’s not reality, not natural.

Very possible and natural actually in the time of Adam, and also in the future. You conflate the present world and nature with that of another time.

Then you have also ravens feeding Elijah during a drought. And they brought him bread. Not just meat, but bread also. Where in the bloody hell would ravens get bread?

Your belief system is in no position to question miracles.

Does ravens know how to make flour, make bread dough and bake the bread under a fire?

They can carry stuff.

The ravens don’t talk, but them bringing breads to Elijah in the middle of drought, is nothing more than fable.

Ridiculous. Jesus showed He controlled nature and the animal kingdom. The fish all gathered on cue as He willed it for Peter to catch. In another instance fish put a coin in it's mouth and came to a designated location to be caught to pay His taxes! In the old testament a mother cow left her baby to carry the ark to a specific location. Etc.

God is not limited by the nature we know, nor by the fishbowl philosophers and wise men who know nothing else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Someone: Everything requires reason, logic and evidence.
Someone else:Yes.
Me: No.

Now that "no" is without evidence and not with reason and logic, right? But I am still able to do it and I am still here. So there is a limit to reason, logic and evidence. So your turn.
You explain evil and explain how one establish that something is evil, using science. And please explain how I can claim that dad's religion is not evil?

Wait, I will do it.
How I can define objective:
Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers (as tied to observation).
Definition of OBJECTIVE

Sensible experience and perceptible by all observers means that it can be sensed externally from the brain and body.

Sensible Experience and Material Objects - Oxford Scholarship
Notice the bold ones I made
Now perceptible: capable of being perceived especially by the senses
Definition of PERCEPTIBLE

So if evil is a material object, then state its weight, dimensions in space and so on.
If evil is a phenomenon/property of a material object, please state its characteristics in regards to observation.
If evil is a condition in the world independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers, please state the external sensations: Sight, touch as feeling, smell, sound and taste.

Well, here is my definition of evil:
morally reprehensible; arising from actual or imputed bad(feeling) character or conduct; causing discomfort or repulsion(feelings and thus not objective as expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations); causing harm(a feeling).
Definition of EVIL
All of the words central to evil are the results of feelings towards something and are not based on sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
I don't feel that that dad's religion is evil. I don't like(a feeling), what he does. dad properly like what he does.

Evil is about the feelings in a person towards the behavior in another person. While we can observe that, we can't observe evil itself using science, because evil is not observable itself. We recognize its meaning, if we have feelings. But not all humans have the same feelings toward a given behavior, thus it is not in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers. Not even as a feeling or emotion.

No, I don't define words and I don't explain what an observation in science is.
And I don't have to wait for you to explain evil. I know how to check words and understand how they work.

TLDR. I see you have trouble responding to a simple post.

 

[gnostic]

True accounts. God's science seems like magic to your 'science'!

Magic isn’t science.

There are two meanings to the word “magic”.

One is that it is supernatural power, which defied the law of physics or law of nature, like the magic, witchcraft and sorcery of the Harry Potter’s series. This is fiction and often seen in modern novels or in TV shows or in cinema (genre like sci-fi, fantasy, paranormal, horror), or found in traditional stories, like myths, legends, fables, fairytales or folklore, such as the Bible and the Qur’an (eg talking ants).

The second is the one they referred to trick, sleight of hand, illusion; this trickery that fools a person or people into thinking it is real.

Neither definitions to magic are real.

All you are attempting to do is twist magic or miracles to be science, when you are weakly attempting to m make your stories come true.

There other myths out there where snakes, eagles, horses could talk (the eagle and snake in the Epic of Etana,, the fables of Aesop, the Irish or Scottish-Gaelic fairytales, the Grimm brothers’ fairytales, Mr Ed, Francis the talking mule, and the abundance of cartoon characters from Disney or Warner Bros’ Looney Tunes, etc) or that humans could understand the languages of animals (seers in Ancient Greek myths, or Doctor Dolittle in children books, or Harry Potter speaking Parseltongue). That's what Genesis and Numbers have in common with storytelling of various cultures, and none of them are real, including your talking serpent and donkey in the Bible - all fictional.

When you have talking animals (eg Genesis’ serpent or Numbers’ donkey) in stories or doing stuffs (eg ravens bring meat and bread to Elijah) that exhibit human behaviors, then you have fables inside the Bible.

 

[gnostic]

They can carry stuff.

Sure birds can carry stuff, but you are not paying attention, dad.

Where did the bread come from?

The story is that Elijah was hiding and living in remote area, where whole region suffered from drought, and drought often lead to shortage of flour, because there are not enough water to grow crops of wheat. And to make bread dough, you would still need some water.

How long did the drought last for? How much regions did the drought and famine covered? If there are food and water shortage in large region, then where did the ravens get the bread from?

So where did the bread come from, if farmers don’t have water for their crops or bakers don’t have water for their flour to make doughs?

Did the ravens farm the wheat crops, make flours, make doughs, and bake the bread?

Do you see where I am getting at?

The story about Elijah and the ravens and the drought, seemed to be fabricated for children stories, where it lack details, such as where did bread come from.

 

[gnostic]

Ridiculous. Jesus showed He controlled nature and the animal kingdom. The fish all gathered on cue as He willed it for Peter to catch. In another instance fish put a coin in it's mouth and came to a designated location to be caught to pay His taxes!

Again, this is another example of what fable is.

Thank you for that example about fishes, because you have just given me another reason why the gospels also contain fables.

Here is another example of fable, Revelation are filled with strange creatures, like the multiple headed dragon, or the Two Beasts. More fables.

In Ezekiel 1, Ezekiel has a vision of four angels or “four living creatures”:

5 In the middle of it was something like four living creatures. This was their appearance: they were of human form. 6 Each had four faces, and each of them had four wings. 7 Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a calf’s foot; and they sparkled like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. And the four had their faces and their wings thus: 9 their wings touched one another; each of them moved straight ahead, without turning as they moved. 10 As for the appearance of their faces: the four had the face of a human being, the face of a lion on the right side, the face of an ox on the left side, and the face of an eagle; 11 such were their faces. Their wings were spread out above; each creature had two wings, each of which touched the wing of another, while two covered their bodies.

So each angel have a body like human, but each with multiple wings (four wings), a head multiple with multiple faces (of a lion, ox, eagle and a man).

Christians in the past have often scoff off at Egyptian myths where the gods have bodies of human, but heads of some sort of animals, like that of a lion (or lioness, eg Sekhmet, Hathor), cat (Bastet), jackal (Anubis), falcon or hawk (Horus, Ra), cow (Nut, Hathor), etc, or they laugh at the Greek myths with the Minotaur, Typhon, etc.

In some of the imagery of Babylonian, Assyrian and Syrian-Canaanite myths, the gods and goddesses possessed wings, just like your Ezekiel’s vision of the four creatures. Again, that’s more fables in the Bible.

So where did Ezekiel get his imageries of angels with four faces and four wings from?

Oh, didn’t Ezekiel reside in Babylon with other hostages when Jerusalem had fallen in 6th century BCE? Marduk, Ninurta, Adam Ishtar were all winged gods.

Can you imagine that?

There is a link between the Old Testament story of winged angels and that of Babylon’s winged gods and goddesses.

In the Bronze Age Ugaritic story of Danel (epic of Danel), the goddess Anat could fly too, because she has wings.