My Reverse Entropy Challenge

[thaumaturgy]

but seeing as how most atheists love to jump in on my challenges and prove to me they don't have a clue what I'm asking,

Except we do know what your asking. We honestly do. You are asking us to help you gut science for your religious purposes. It ain't gonna happen.

This the the 31st post in this thread --- and that's 30 too many.

NOTE TO EVERYONE: The best answer to any of these challenges moving forward is:

"Yup, AV, you're correct! God did bend and destroy the laws of physics to help you maintain a hyper-literal explanation of the bible!"

or

"AV, I have never seen such piercing insight! You are, as always, right,right,right! Atheist suck! God is super-duper atomic great! Selah! Entropy can take a hike because it's easier to assume a miracle happened in reality than it is to assume someone just wrote that a miracle happened!"

 

[gaara4158]

Except we do know what your asking. We honestly do. You are asking us to help you gut science for your religious purposes. It ain't gonna happen.

End of stupid "challenges".



NOTE TO EVERYONE: The best answer to any of these challenges moving forward is:

"Yup, AV, you're correct! God did bend and destroy the laws of physics to help you maintain a hyper-literal explanation of the bible!"

or

"AV, I have never seen such piercing insight! You are, as always, right,right,right! Atheist suck! God is super-duper atomic great! Selah! Entropy can take a hike because it's easier to assume a miracle happened in reality than it is to assume someone just wrote that a miracle happened!"

You forgot to capitalize random mundane Words in order to create the illusion of Holiness or sacredness. That's always Necessary.

 

[chilehed]

Please explain this with cause-and-effect, without disrespecting the passage:

And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

Give me your best scientific explanation, please.

How about it's a colloquial phrase that doesn't mean what you think it means? Y'know, like "it rained cats and dogs" or "so mad he blew a gasket" or any one of the bazillion others we take for granted.

 

[ragarth]

How about it's a colloquial phrase that doesn't mean what you think it means? Y'know, like "it rained cats and dogs" or "so mad he blew a gasket" or any one of the bazillion others we take for granted.

--post removed

 

[AV1611VET]

AV is a bible literalist, everything that happened in the bible is absolute deadpan. If somewhere in the bible it said it rained cats and dogs, then AV interprets that to literally mean cats and dogs fell from the sky. For this reason, he expects 'respect the phrase' to mean 'take it as literally as I do' irregardless of potential for oratory exaggeration, observer bias, or cultural differences or colloquialisms.

No, it doesn't --- as I put it --- knowing the difference is what constitutes maturity.

Look at this passage:

He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

Is God a bird? Of course not.

Yes --- I interpret the Bible as literally as I would a phone book --- but that also means I interpret the metaphorical passages as metaphorical.

Those who accuse me of interpreting the Bible uber-literally are just fooling you guys --- not me.

 

[ragarth]

No, it doesn't --- as I put it --- knowing the difference is what constitutes maturity.

Look at this passage:Is God a bird? Of course not.

Yes --- I interpret the Bible as literally as I would a phone book --- but that also means I interpret the metaphorical passages as metaphorical.

Those who accuse me of interpreting the Bible uber-literally are just fooling you guys --- not me.

I stand corrected. Sorry to offend.

 

[AV1611VET]

I stand corrected. Sorry to offend.

I don't find you the least bit offensive ---

Thank you for letting me get this point across --- which I've only stated 10[sup]2[/sup] times to others.

(You weren't here then.)

 

[thaumaturgy]

...

 

[thaumaturgy]

No, it doesn't --- as I put it --- knowing the difference is what constitutes maturity.

I think I am understanding you a bit better. Can you tell us what metric you use to determine if something is metaphorical vs literal? Is it metaphorical or literal only in the context of the Bible itself? Or is it possible that something was written as metaphor but they forgot to tell you it was metaphor? Or is it possible for something to have been written by someone who thought it was literal, but when we learn more we realize that it is really just "metaphorical"?

For instance, is it possible that an uninformed person wrote Genesis thinking it was a literal story because they were an ignorant bronze-age scribe recording a previously "spoken word" story passed on for generations of goat hearders? And as we learn more information about the actual earth we see that Genesis really is, in the early parts, just an allegory?

Look at this passage:Is God a bird? Of course not.

It doesn't say that. It says God has feathers and wings. Why is that irrational to assume? Can't God have literal feathers if he wants them?

Yes --- I interpret the Bible as literally as I would a phone book --- but that also means I interpret the metaphorical passages as metaphorical.

What parts of the phone book are metaphor?

Those who accuse me of interpreting the Bible uber-literally are just fooling you guys --- not me.

Well, perhaps there is a difference between interpretting the Bible in part as possibly being a human construct containing human errors and interpretting all passages as perfectly true, but some being written by the author as metaphor is the real difference.

YOU read the bible as perfectly true, but perhaps not literal in every passage. Maybe there needs to be a better term: "Inerrantist" rather than literalist. You cannot brook the idea that the authors either were in error in parts (like Genesis 1 and the Noachian Flood for example) or that they wrote down allegories but failed to tell you that they were writing allegories (like Aesops Fables, they might be stories to teach a point, a universal truism, but use talking foxes that the author doesn't keep pointing out as 'literary devices'.)

I think I understand your point in this post. It is reasonable for you to read some of the words metaphorically but not others. But one wonders then, why Genesis 1 need be literal and the earth need be literally only existentially 6100 years old because of a literal read. Especially when you have to go to such lengths as proposing "Embedded Age" to explain the jarring disjunct between the age we see and measure in the rocks and the age the Bible literally states (based on calculations of literal readings).

 

[NailsII]

Whenever you boys and girls are done yakking at each other, feel free to answer the OP as I wrote it. I would have thought, since I invited you guys to answer from a scientific perspective, that you would have busted your keyboards to answer it --- but apparently asking you to respect the passage was asking too much.

In any event, feel free when you get some time on your fingers to type an answer.

Are Christians here the only ones who are capable of melding science with Scripture?

ETA: By the way, I asked the question wrong. I should have used the term suspended entropy, not reverse entropy; but I assume you "scientists" were too busy pouting about having to respect the Scripture to notice that the science was wrong.

You basically asked for disrespect by insisting on respect.
Had you not, you may have received some different answers.
Maybe you should read a little psychology AV, it is a truly beautiful science.

 

[AV1611VET]

You basically asked for disrespect by insisting on respect.
Had you not, you may have received some different answers.
Maybe you should read a little psychology AV, it is a truly beautiful science.

You're right --- I suppose asking for respect would be a little much, wouldn't it?

Why should I expect respect from people who routinely step on all --- (and I mean all) --- things sacred?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You're right --- I suppose asking for respect would be a little much, wouldn't it?

Why should I expect respect from people who routinely step on all --- (and I mean all) --- things sacred?

Meh, respect is overrated. If mere words can break something, it wasn't worth having in the first place.

What you really want, is something that can withstand exposure to the harsh truth of reality.

 

[NailsII]

You're right --- I suppose asking for respect would be a little much, wouldn't it?

No, but by insisting on it you have automatically set people not to show any respect whatsoever.
In case you didn't notice, I offered my respect by capitalising references to what you consider holy, but not to the passage itself as I consider it to be a non-factual account.

Why should I expect respect from people who routinely step on all --- (and I mean all) --- things sacred?

If it deserves respect, then most people will respect it regrdless of wordviews or however sacred it is (or is perceived to be).

 

[ragarth]

You're right --- I suppose asking for respect would be a little much, wouldn't it?

Why should I expect respect from people who routinely step on all --- (and I mean all) --- things sacred?

It's my opinion that one should respect people, not ideas or literature.

Criticism is critical to the learning and mental advancement process, and while people can still be criticized, one must use more tact in doing so than one should use criticizing ideas and literature.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You're right --- I suppose asking for respect would be a little much, wouldn't it?

Why should I expect respect from people who routinely step on all --- (and I mean all) --- things sacred?

That's the problem, AV -- you don't want "respect," you want worship.

 

[billwald]

Let's see . . . a million people plus family pets, say a million pounds of excrement a day. 500 tons of fertilizer a day along route. BIG piles when they camped more than one day. The results should still be visible from the air.

 

[AV1611VET]

What you really want, is something that can withstand exposure to the harsh truth of reality.

Either that, or an honest answer to an honest question every now and then.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, but by insisting on it you have automatically set people not to show any respect whatsoever.

Sounds to me like someone is running on reverse psychology.

Here's the OP again:

Please explain this with cause-and-effect, without disrespecting the passage:

Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.
​

Give me your best scientific explanation, please.

Highlight the insistence in red, please.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Either that, or an honest answer to an honest question every now and then.

Is that a general lament, or a wry jab? (Today is the day of obscure words)

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that a general lament, or a wry jab? (Today is the day of obscure words)

A general lament.