Which way is simpler, to use the Bible as the foundation of truth, and notice that the universe fits what it says, or invent a plethora of undetectable, mathematical things like "empty space stretches the light passing though it" to protect our arche [foundational assumption about the nature of matter] that matter (atoms) cannot change-together - as a relationship?
32 comments
Just because mindless faith in religion is easier than scientific inquiry, doesn't make it correct.does not fit with what the Bible says. Read the Bible when you're sober sometime.
Just because you don't understand a plethora of mathematical things does not mean that they are not true. It may just mean that you are stupid or ignorant.
You do not (or at least should not) hold a flawed self contradicting book to be the ultimate truth about anything.
"Goddidit is always easier, but that doesn't make it right."
In reference to Occam's Razor, I would reply that Goddidit is NOT, in fact, simpler. I would instead argue that, however apparently complicated, a natural explanation is always, by definition, simpler than a supernatural one.
Hey, Ptolemy, I've been meaning to ask you what you think of this new "Heliocentricity" thing. I mean, it's silly, isn't it? You and Aristotle were right, weren't you?
@ptolemy
undetectable, mathematical things like "empty space stretches the light passing though it" mass stretches space , which results in the bending of light. Try and actually know what you are talking about.
b) Relativity is detectable. In fact, it has been detected. Light from stars behind the sun deviates from its expected position (measurable during a solar eclipse).
@Meth
Alex W. (#38798) asks Hey NotMe, whats up with this 'Pi=3' thing that I keep hearing? Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
Thereby making pi equal to three .
@Berny
To be fair, maybe he just didn't want to write '31.41592 cubits did compass it round about' in the Bible. It's close enough...
But yeah. The problem with the Bible, was that it was written thousands of years ago. If it had been written by a God, it would be absolute truth, and would still be relevant today. Since it was ACTUALLY written by people, the science in it contradicts observations which scientists have been making for the last century.
Frankly, all Christian arguments to the contrary end up becoming GodDidIt at some point, because there is no other way to explain discrepancies.
Frankly, science - which gives explanations for everything - has infinitely more credibility than a book of fairytales.
Science = Facts
Bible = Lies
You do the maths, ptolemy.
It's the noticing it's right part that's difficult. Help us out here, where are these pillars?
1 Samuel 2:8: “
for the pillars of the earth [are] the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.”
It's always easier to devolve, but accepting change, and adapting to it, is something we must all do... intellectually as well as physically.
Nobody has ever denied that the biblical version is simpler. After all, it was concocted many moons ago by people who were frankly "simple" by today's standards, and is still believed to this day by simpletons.
None of which makes it true. It is also simpler to let a man die of a cardiac problem than perform a triple by-pass, but that doesn't make it the right option.
This afternoon I had the great pleasure of hearing the physicist Jim al-Khalili speak to a packed house at the Cheltenham Festival of Science. He didn't cover anything particularly new, but he did recap ideas such as why we know the universe is expanding, why we know it has only existed for approximately 13.7 billion years, why it probably does not have borders and why the vacuum is not empty (in other words, that energy and matter are constantly springing into existence and vanishing back out again).
Naturally (unlike a preacher delivering a sermon) he took questions afterwards. Good ones were asked, and straightforward answers given.
The advantage of listening to a good communicator is that he can make somewhat difficult concepts understandable, and encourage anyone with any curiosity about the subject to go on from there to learn more on their own. What is more of a challenge is encouraging anyone with a fixed, simplistic worldview based on authoritarian ignorance to open their eyes even just a fraction.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
