There is nothing unscientific about beginning with known facts,
They're not known facts. If they are name them. Facts are verifiable, under objective scientific rules. What you really mean, is that you begin with a dogma. The bible is a fact, what's in it is claims. Two very different things.
And there wouldn't have been much in the way of empirical science at all in the West if it hadn't been for Christianity.
This is what's called a
vacuous truth/statement. It's a statement that only works because it
won't happen.
Like saying, "
If I were a millionaire, ofcourse I'd give all of my money to charity".
But what a cheek anyway! It was the Christians who came against people like Galileo!
The fact that we can't ever go back in time because there's only one history, allowing your statement to be vacuously consistent, doesn't mean much. You still have to prove the absurd assertion. I can't see any connection, so it just doesn't follow, rendering it a non-sequitur
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
