"God cannot create a square circle"

[Cheerful Charlie]

...certain beliefs that science shows to be counter-factual. All the rest of it is A-Okay with them.

What Biblical beliefs has science shown to be counter-factual?

All of it. Genesis is myth. Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other totally. No Noah's flood, no Tower of Babel. The entire history of Israeli has been demonstrated by archaeology to be a mythical lie. All of it, including Moses on the Mount. The prophecy of Jesus arising from the dead and the new kingdom of God in the NT was false and untrue. And much much more. The major claims about the nature of God, omnipotence, creation of all, omnibenevolence completely is false and is logically self contradictory, free will vs omniscience and God's omnibenevolence. Super-omnipotence, and other demonstrations of the self contradictions of the biblical God demonstrate God is impossible.

 

[Narapoia]

...certain beliefs that science shows to be counter-factual. All the rest of it is A-Okay with them.

What Biblical beliefs has science shown to be counter-factual?

Geocentricism is another one, but I think Charlie's post was comprehensive enough to cover this specific counter-factuality.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Gosh, i was hoping rhutchin would have started his spin by now. The mind boggles at the possibilities.

I mean, besides the first spin step of changing the original claim that creationist beliefs have been beaten by science to 'Biblical' beliefs. I assume that was to position himself to not have to defend the entire spectrum of creationist beliefs, rather to deal only with statements in The Books.
Which opens up the usual defenses of allegory, metaphor and 'you can't prove it didn't happen that way.' With sufficient loopholes, God can always be squeezed in there, somewhere.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Gosh, i was hoping rhutchin would have started his spin by now. The mind boggles at the possibilities.

I mean, besides the first spin step of changing the original claim that creationist beliefs have been beaten by science to 'Biblical' beliefs. I assume that was to position himself to not have to defend the entire spectrum of creationist beliefs, rather to deal only with statements in The Books.
Which opens up the usual defenses of allegory, metaphor and 'you can't prove it didn't happen that way.' With sufficient loopholes, God can always be squeezed in there, somewhere.

We haven't raised anything that hasn't be obfuscated against in the past by believers.

 

[arkirk]

Jesus supposedly can walk on water, resurrect people, and most importantly, feed a multitude of people with five loaves of bread and two fish. That's pretty much saying 2+2=5, which would pretty much be just like creating a "square circle". Yet, he cannot create a square circle? What would be so difficult about that?

god is like a engineer, a engineer can not create a car without wheel, so god cannot create a square circle

god cannot create a human without brain etc

You mean he is beholden to a "higher power?" Kind of a super God...that tells him "okay, that is permitted but this is not?"
Here is a "square circle" the words, not the referent. There is a green dragon and a god...still no referent. We can put a lot of words together that look like they mean things when they actually have no referent in the world and are merely the stringing together of words.. You actually created a "Human without brain." Because God is so reluctant to talk to us , he cannot even answer the question for us. It took YOU.

 

[rhutchin]

...certain beliefs that science shows to be counter-factual. All the rest of it is A-Okay with them.

What Biblical beliefs has science shown to be counter-factual?

All of it. Genesis is myth. Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other totally. No Noah's flood, no Tower of Babel. The entire history of Israeli has been demonstrated by archaeology to be a mythical lie. All of it, including Moses on the Mount. The prophecy of Jesus arising from the dead and the new kingdom of God in the NT was false and untrue. And much much more. The major claims about the nature of God, omnipotence, creation of all, omnibenevolence completely is false and is logically self contradictory, free will vs omniscience and God's omnibenevolence. Super-omnipotence, and other demonstrations of the self contradictions of the biblical God demonstrate God is impossible.

I think those are your opinions.

 

[rhutchin]

Gosh, i was hoping rhutchin would have started his spin by now. The mind boggles at the possibilities.

I mean, besides the first spin step of changing the original claim that creationist beliefs have been beaten by science to 'Biblical' beliefs. I assume that was to position himself to not have to defend the entire spectrum of creationist beliefs, rather to deal only with statements in The Books.
Which opens up the usual defenses of allegory, metaphor and 'you can't prove it didn't happen that way.' With sufficient loopholes, God can always be squeezed in there, somewhere.

Creationist beliefs are a subset of all Biblical beliefs. The original comment seemed to be broader in scope than just issues related to the creation.

 

[rhutchin]

...certain beliefs that science shows to be counter-factual. All the rest of it is A-Okay with them.

What Biblical beliefs has science shown to be counter-factual?

Geocentricism is another one, but I think Charlie's post was comprehensive enough to cover this specific counter-factuality.

I thought geocentrism was a Greek idea that ruled the academic world for a while.

Regardless, creationists and science are on the same page on this.

At the same time, creationists do conclude that the solar system in which the earth resides is near the center of the universe. I don't think science has sorted out where the solar system lies relative to the rest of the universe.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Creationist beliefs are a subset of all Biblical beliefs.

No, you've got that backwards. Creationists have many beliefs that are not covered by any scripture.
Their belief that the Big Bang is a 'something from nothing' event, for instance.
Their belief that there is no place on Earth where the entire Geologic Column is displayed.
Their belief that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has the slightest impact on biological evolution.

The original comment seemed to be broader in scope than just issues related to the creation.

Creationist beliefs are broader in scope than simply creation, or scripture. The Fludd, for example, is not part of the creation event, but crucial to most YEC apologies.
Though they will argue whether the world-drowning Fludd was the entire world (biblical) or just localized (non-biblical).

 

[Keith&Co.]

I thought geocentrism was a Greek idea that ruled the academic world for a while.

Whatever the source, it is the way the Books describes the cosmos, everything revolving around the Earth.

Regardless, creationists and science are on the same page on this.

But not science and The Books, which was your question.

At the same time, creationists do conclude that the solar system in which the earth resides is near the center of the universe.

Are you redefining 'geocentrism' to refer to the the solar system that Earth is a part of?
Geocentrism is biblical.
Geocentrism is wrong (according to science).
The solar system's location with respect to the universe's center, if such a thing can be said to exist, is not something anyone's claiming the Bible got wrong.

 

[Juma]

...certain beliefs that science shows to be counter-factual. All the rest of it is A-Okay with them.

What Biblical beliefs has science shown to be counter-factual?

All of it. Genesis is myth. Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other totally. No Noah's flood, no Tower of Babel. The entire history of Israeli has been demonstrated by archaeology to be a mythical lie. All of it, including Moses on the Mount. The prophecy of Jesus arising from the dead and the new kingdom of God in the NT was false and untrue. And much much more. The major claims about the nature of God, omnipotence, creation of all, omnibenevolence completely is false and is logically self contradictory, free will vs omniscience and God's omnibenevolence. Super-omnipotence, and other demonstrations of the self contradictions of the biblical God demonstrate God is impossible.

I think those are your opinions.

Yes, they are opinions BASED ON FACT!

What are your "facts" except iron age myths.

 

[rhutchin]

...certain beliefs that science shows to be counter-factual. All the rest of it is A-Okay with them.

What Biblical beliefs has science shown to be counter-factual?

All of it. Genesis is myth. Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other totally. No Noah's flood, no Tower of Babel. The entire history of Israeli has been demonstrated by archaeology to be a mythical lie. All of it, including Moses on the Mount. The prophecy of Jesus arising from the dead and the new kingdom of God in the NT was false and untrue. And much much more. The major claims about the nature of God, omnipotence, creation of all, omnibenevolence completely is false and is logically self contradictory, free will vs omniscience and God's omnibenevolence. Super-omnipotence, and other demonstrations of the self contradictions of the biblical God demonstrate God is impossible.

I think those are your opinions.

Yes, they are opinions BASED ON FACT!

What are your "facts" except iron age myths.

Cheerful Charlie's claim was that science has shown Biblical beliefs to be counter-factual. Then he presented his opinions as examples of this. Now you propose that they are opinions but that they are based on facts. We both know that these opinions are not based on what science has shown to be counter-factual. For example, science has not created any contradiction between Gen 1 and Gen 2 where there is only one issue and that is a translation issue that science cannot address. The bottom line is that science is not giving the support for the opinionss that Cheerful Charlie claimed.

 

[Keith&Co.]

For example, science has not created any contradiction between Gen 1 and Gen 2 where there is only one issue and that is a translation issue that science cannot address.

Well, scientific analysis of Genesis has identified four different authors. And their approach to creation and the nature of God and the events of history are dissimilar, thus contradictory.
Unless you want 'science' limited to things that involve colored fluids in bubbling beakers, like on the late-late show....?

 

[rhutchin]

Geocentricism is another one, but I think Charlie's post was comprehensive enough to cover this specific counter-factuality.

I thought geocentrism was a Greek idea that ruled the academic world for a while.

Whatever the source, it is the way the Books describes the cosmos, everything revolving around the Earth. .

The original source for this belief was not the Bible - it was Greek philosophy.

Regardless, creationists and science are on the same page on this.

But not science and The Books, which was your question.

In each case, no one advocates a geocentric system.

At the same time, creationists do conclude that the solar system in which the earth resides is near the center of the universe. I don't think science has sorted out where the solar system lies relative to the rest of the universe.

Are you redefining 'geocentrism' to refer to the the solar system that Earth is a part of?
Geocentrism is biblical.
Geocentrism is wrong (according to science).

Geocentrism is from Greek philosophy - not the Bible.

Geocentricism portrayed the universe revolving around the earth. Both science and Creationists agree that geocentricism is a wrong concept.

The solar system's location with respect to the universe's center, if such a thing can be said to exist, is not something anyone's claiming the Bible got wrong.

I agree.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The original source for this belief was not the Bible - it was Greek philosophy.

So what? It's still a belief that the Bible advocates. Whether they made it up themselves or got it from something else, it's still a thing that the Bible represents as factual.

Is your argument against people who say that the Bible lists the Flood as a historical event that it took the story from the Sumerians, so it's not wrong about history?

 

[rhutchin]

For example, science has not created any contradiction between Gen 1 and Gen 2 where there is only one issue and that is a translation issue that science cannot address.

Well, scientific analysis of Genesis has identified four different authors.

Not that I am aware. The idea was that there were different editors affecting changes to the original text at some later times. Some people had opinions about this that they were hyping - the Documentary Hypothesis. The last I heard, this idea had faded and is not taken seriously any more.

A summary of the issue is here: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/09/24/The-Documentary-Hypothesis.aspx

And their approach to creation and the nature of God and the events of history are dissimilar, thus contradictory.
Unless you want 'science' limited to things that involve colored fluids in bubbling beakers, like on the late-late show....?

There are those who have advanced the multiple author idea - God being the source of information in Genesis 1 and Adam giving a first hand account in Genesis 2. I have also seen the idea that Moses inserted clarifying information in Gene 2:5-7. However, this approach involves no contradictions.

 

[rhutchin]

The original source for this belief was not the Bible - it was Greek philosophy.

So what? It's still a belief that the Bible advocates. Whether they made it up themselves or got it from something else, it's still a thing that the Bible represents as factual.

Is your argument against people who say that the Bible lists the Flood as a historical event that it took the story from the Sumerians, so it's not wrong about history?

There were those within the church who accepted this because that was the prevailing opinion of the academic community - the same is observed today with some within the church accepting the idea that the unievrse was created billions of years ago and that Genesis is largely metaphorical. It happens.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Whatever the source, it is the way the Books describes the cosmos, everything revolving around the Earth. .

The original source for this belief was not the Bible - it was Greek philosophy.

An attempt at spin which does not remove geocentrism from the Books.

In each case, no one advocates a geocentric system..

Except for The Books.

Geocentrism is from Greek philosophy - not the Bible.

You ought to read it, then. Everything that moves, according to The Books, moves around Earth.

Geocentricism portrayed the universe revolving around the earth. Both science and Creationists agree that geocentricism is a wrong concept.

Well, yes, creationists agree on that. It would be one of the Biblical beliefs science has disproven and creationists are forced to accept because of the wealth of evidence.
The Books, however, describes the Sun as climbing up the sky from its starting point, on the inside of the solid sky, until it goes beneath the Earth once more. It has a little doggie house it stays in during the night, then gets up in the morning and rushes to the starting point to jump up across the sky once more.

The Books portrays a geocentric world model. Which even so called 'literalists' are forced to deny.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What exactly was your point in asking about biblical disproofs, rhutchin?

 

[rhutchin]

Not minor at all, and bothers me for very particular reasons, not the least of which is how monstrous it is to say that a man with unfounded jealousy has done nothing wrong when he publicly accuses his wife and makes her take a poisonous drink that will cause her to miscarry and it's all her fault that he was jealous in the first place so it serves her right even if she is innocent.


rhutchin and EricH- do you believe this passage and worship the god who wrote it? Are either of you one of those monsters?

Within the context of the chapter, it seems to be one resolution to the problem. Do you have a better method to resolve the problem?