quote:
sidelined
It is the miracles that are the heart of debate for the veracity of biblical literalism. Since the description of Isaiah is incapable of being correct not just for the impossibility of its happening physically it is also unrecorded elsewhere and thus should be considered a exaggeration in the extreme by writers who had little knowledge of the actual workings of the world.
And there are 100s of 1000s of non-miracle historical, mathematical and scientific stats in the OT's verses and para's.
But the historical mathematical and scientific are events and things we can dispute or verify again based on their capability of being valid. My post was aimed at the question in the OP and I have shown a case for the scientific impossibility of the verse in Isaiah.
THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO CREATIONISM. AND THIS IS SCIENTIFICALLY SO!
CREATIONISM DEPENDS LESS ON MIRACLES THAN ITS ANTITHESIS!
It is not the OT but our current conclusions what constitutes science (in relation to the universe emergence and of life), that is most focused and dependent on miracles. The notion that one can illustrate (no proof exists) in some mode how matter can become life, as a counter-proof to Genesis, is absolute gibberish when better examined. There is no difference in how matter becomes life, with how matter emerged from nothing - these rest on the same paradigm. And when we look at any further reasonings here, we have an escapism from science to a poor emulation of genesis' 'something from nothing' premise: that matter always existed. This is escapism - suddenly, at the most critical juncture, we are told matter (particles?) has always existed, while still condoning this as a scientific explanation! This when we know that anything subject to 'change' cannot be infinite - that if the parts are finite, the whole is finite. And we don't have anything else in the bag! At this point it is noteworthy that the only true and correct definition of 'infinite/eternal' is that which is not subject to change ('I AM THE LRD I HAVE NOT CHANGED' - Ex/OT)
But even the notion of infinite matter (sic) is unscientific. When further examined, we arrive at the point where it is not the infinite aspect which is operational and applicable here: nothing happens with matter per se - we find that matter changes only by the impact/interaction of another force upon it. We find we need phenomenons such as energy, heat, light, vibrational forces, etc. This means that we must allocate more than just matter to be infinite and include the interacting forces also as infinite (else they don't exist together).
Take it further now. We are told that energy is matter in an altered state. As if this 'trick' escapist response answers the primal question! As if the phenomenon of 'ALTERED' (verb) does not itself require another impacting phenomenon to make 'ALTERED' happen! So where do we go from here? It does not make any difference purueing this path - it can only end in a never-ending array of brick wals, and all we will be doing is pushing back the original enigma; it is similar to the BBT - we end up with para- and multi-universe scenarios, with the same enigma hovering at the end of never-ending brick walls.
I put it to you that in every juncture described above, the reasonings available as a counter to Creationism is a foundation of 'MAGIC' & 'MIRACLES'! At the base of science, there is no science but MAGIC! And it is a poor magic, because it does not even have a Magician (causative factor/cause). The scientific truth is, there is no such thing as infinity, and such an escapist answer does not need science - it is escapsit anti-science, thus it is inferior to saying WE DON'T KNOW. And when we say WE DON'T KNOW - it may be honest, but it leaves us in a position facing only Creationism - with no alternative. This applies even to eastern, philophical premises as life began as a pool of souls, or that we are its cause accumulatively - because here too, we have the original enigma facing us. We have the same problem with other OT offshoot religions as well, which have nothing else to offer about the universe emergence other than preferred Messengers. In the end, we end up sluggishly and disdainfully walking back to genesis.
Re:
quote:
'But the historical mathematical and scientific are events and things we can dispute or verify again based on their capability of being valid.'
Nope! See above.
Re:
quote:
'As an aside, please present a mathematical or scientific verse that details a correct understanding of the world would you? '
Scientific validity:
1. 'SOMETHING FROM NOTHING'. I note that when creation is described in Genesis' creation chapter, it begins with the preamble of an infinte Creator ('In the beginning Gd), and no tools or products or forces are mentioned when Light, for example, is created. So yes, this ia 'snap of the finger' magic - but it is scientifically superior to the same snap finger magic which lies at the bottom of its antithesis: at least it has an academic, if non-provable, CAUSE for the EFFECT!
2. 'A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND'. This too is scientifically vindicated and validated. And this is in our midst: we can 'see' that repro and transmissions of all things occur via the seed.
3. 'MAN AND WOMEN CREATED HE THEM'. This says that everything began with a DUALITY. There is no SINGULARITY, and nothing can happen without a duality factor. It is not unscientific - its antithesis is!
4. 'LET THERE BE LIGHT'. That this is the first entity, even preceding the sun and stars, is very reasonably borne out with no alternative. The stars could produce no light if it were not already pre-existant in some essential form.
Maths validity:
That the OT contains literally 100s of 1000s of numbers (dates, distances, dobs & dod's) and all are 'intergrated' with no error - is not just astounding, but a showcase of unequalled math. That The Ten Commandments are declared as occuring on a 'SATURDAY', and this corresponds with every other number and date in the OT and its 3000 year diarised calendar, down to the 'DAY' - is a showcase of unequalled math. We could not perform this feat today for a 3000 year period.
Historical Validity.
We are disputing the OT historicity's accuracy with minutae examples, while disregarding that it is 99% correct - and that the error of some instances can be esewhere from the OT. The fact is, we have historical data here which is largely authentic and vindicated - and that most of this historical info is not available elsewhere - not for 3000 years of other, independent recordings, untill archeology arrived!
We reject or redicule the above factors from a zeal to negate all theologies - it is not a scientifically validated rejection, but an agenda based one. It is hardly based on any scientific reasonings, which has become the mainstay of disputation. And we do this by citing some miracles listed in the OT, while disregarding the miracles hiden in its antithesis! Better, we explain scientifically, how the universe could have emerged from a non-existing Singularity, and how that impossible Singularity could 'ALTER' itself without another impacting entity. There can be no science here - and this is fine, because science and math cannot apply pre-universe, where there is no matter to calculate against. Science and math are *THIS* side of creation (the universe), and cannot exist or apply without it. Its like your house keys cannot apply in another galaxy - because your house does not apply there.
I am not trying to dogmatically justify a theology or lessen the sacredness of science or math or logic. It is about what alternative there is, against an astonishing document which is eronously placed as just another religion. IMHO, there is no alternative to Creationism.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
