The Tower of Babel

[Radrook]

Bare assertions are not such tests. Using (badly) disguised ad hominims won't get you anywhere either.
You're essentially just repeating your claim, instead of supporting it.



"dishonest"? Says the guy who thinks bare assertions are enough...



I can only repeat my question....
You claimed that the "creator" isn't undetectable.

Please describe how this entity can be detected.

The scripture I provided clearly tells you how he is detected. Whereupon you claim the inability to understand plainly written English. In short, yu are cunningly deploying whatis called Invincible Ignorance.

Invincible Ignorance Fallacy

The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply pig-headedly refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to either make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they don't prove anything; all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy

BTW
Your accusation that I am merely providing assertions is strawman. Why? Simple. Because The use of logic in order to reach a logical conclusion is not the provision of mere assertions.
Your attempt to disqualify cogent reasoning as a means to reach logical conclusions is a very unscientific concept. In fact, it strikes at the very basis of what science is all about and raises serious questions about your knowledge concerning the exigencies of scientific methodology..

 

[DogmaHunter]

The scripture I provided clearly tells you how he is detected.

Really?

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse

I don't see a description here on how it can be detected. It merely declares it to be so.
Please EXPLAIN how I can detect it. How I can verify it, without first believing it.

Whereupon you claim the inability to understand plainly written English.

That sentence does not describe a way on how it can be detected / verified. It merely declares it to be so. It merely declares that it was "clearly seen". It doesn't explain AT ALL, how this was seen and how the conclusion was formed and how it can be verified.

Your accusation that I am merely providing assertions is strawman. Why? Simple. Because The use of logic in order to reach a logical conclusion is not the provision of mere assertions.

It is, if the premises are mere assertions without support.

Your argument amounts to no more or less then a series of declarations / assertions, followed by a conclusion that assumes these declarations / assertions to be true.

Ever heared of GIGO? It stands for "Garbage In, Garbage out".

Your attempt to disqualify cogent reasoning as a means to reach logical conclusions is a very unscientific concept.

Answering a question that asks for an explanation by quoting a single verse from a bronze-age religious book, is the very opposite of "reasoning" and being "scientific".

In fact, it strikes at the very basis of what science is all about and raises serious questions about your knowledge concerning the exigencies of scientific methodology..

Science is about providing models that make predictions which can be independently and objectively tested / verified.

That's what I asked for.
And you gave me a bible verse..........


But *I* am the one who's being "unscientific", huh?

 

[Radrook]

So

Really?

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse

I don't see a description here on how it can be detected. It merely declares it to be so.
Please EXPLAIN how I can detect it. How I can verify it, without first believing it.




That sentence does not describe a way on how it can be detected / verified. It merely declares it to be so. It merely declares that it was "clearly seen". It doesn't explain AT ALL, how this was seen and how the conclusion was formed and how it can be verified.



It is, if the premises are mere assertions without support.

Your argument amounts to no more or less then a series of declarations / assertions, followed by a conclusion that assumes these declarations / assertions to be true.

Ever heared of GIGO? It stands for "Garbage In, Garbage out".



Answering a question that asks for an explanation by quoting a single verse from a bronze-age religious book, is the very opposite of "reasoning" and being "scientific".



Science is about providing models that make predictions which can be independently and objectively tested / verified.

That's what I asked for.
And you gave me a bible verse..........


But *I* am the one who's being "unscientific", huh?

Yes you are being unscientific because the scientific method demands rational thought patterns involving indicative leaps leading to the formulation of a deductive premise and the derived conclusions and you are obviously averse to that whole process. The scripture is telling you, as a supposedly rational human being, that the evidence of design is so compelling that you have absolutely no excuse to be claiming inability to see it and not make that inductive leap.

BTW
The basic problem with your supposed rebuttal is that is demands an assumption of inconsistency of policy. Once you assume an inconsistency of policy you are using fallacious reasoning. Please note that fallacious reasoning is the antithesis of the scientific method which demands rationality. Discarding rationality constitutes the rejection of the scientific method and raises serious doubts on whether the person using it doesn't really know what the scientific method is really all about but is merely using it as a mantra. Or if the person really knows what the scientific method requires, then it raises questions about an intentional malicious effort at quackery.

The compelling truth is that you cannot be both a scientist and be a proponent of irrationality. They are mutually exclusive and anyone proposing such and absurdity opens himself up to the two suspicions I just described above.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes you are being unscientific because the scientific method demands rational thought patterns involving indicative leaps leading to the formulation of a deductive premise and the derived conclusions and you are obviously averse to that whole process.

In what kind of universe does copy pasting a bible verse fall under "rational thought patterns"?

The scripture is telling you, as a supposedly rational human being, that the evidence of design is so compelling that you have absolutely no excuse to be claiming inability to see it and not make that inductive leap.

I don't care what your religious scripture says and claims.

I don't care about claims, full stop.
You are basically saying "it is obvious" in response to my question.

Obviously, it is not obvious or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Also, if it is that obvious, it should be easy for you to show how it is correct, instead of merely declaring it to be so.

You are welcome to try again.

BTW
The basic problem with your supposed rebuttal

What "rebuttal"? There is nothing to refute....

I asked you to explain your claims, not to merely repeat them.

Discarding rationality constitutes the rejection of the scientific method

In which universe is it scientific to merely copy paste a bible quote and just declare "design is obvious!!!"?

Or if the person really knows what the scientific method requires, then it raises questions about an intentional malicious effort at quackery.

The scientific method requires models that make predictions which can be independently and objectively tested and verified.

Copy pasting a bible quote which merely declares "design is obvious!!!", is not such a model. I asked for this model. In response, you just repeated your claims using different words.

Try again.

The compelling truth is that you cannot be both a scientist and be a proponent of irrationality. They are mutually exclusive and anyone proposing such and absurdity opens himself up to the two suspicions I just described above.

Newsflash: bible quotes aren't scientific models.

 

[miknik5]

I always found the story of the Tower of Babel to be strange and I wanted to inquire what other thoughts about it might be. For quick reference, I'll post the whole little story right here:

Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.” And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech.” So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth.
​

First I'll ask if it is mentioned elsewhere in The Bible. Is there more about the tower elsewhere with any other information at all?

Is there anything that Christians or Jews learn from this story? Is it just a story to explain where all the languages came from?

It seems to have negative connotations though. Is this the start of racism? I know that sounds bad, but the story clearly says that people were working together as one people. Afterwords they were scattered around the world and speaking different languages. Is that not the beginning of other races in the world? It's certainly more significant than different nations. If so, then is God (at this point in history, perhaps he changes things later) advocating racism because he doesn't want us to all work together?

And what is there to be concerned about when thinking of us all working together? Why would God want to be divisive in this manner? Here comes the speculating, as without any other evidence at hand I can only guess.

What God states is bad in this story is that, "nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them". And in Luke 1:37 it states that "nothing will be impossible with God". I know this isn't going to go over well, but how do I interpret this story other than God being worried that we won't be dependent on Him? Does this mean that if God hadn't done what he did at the Tower of Babel we wouldn't need Him? Why not just let people work together? Isn't that we're supposed to do now?

Men forgot GOD and went out to make a name for themselves thinking that by the constructs of their own hands they could somehow build for themselves a tower(a way) into the PRESENCE of GOD

and GOD confused the language and scattered

Knowing full well that HE HIMSELF would gather and is, even now gathering in the BODY of HIS SON

For THE SON alone is building A HOUSE for GOD and is as a SON over HIS FATHER's HOISE and faithful in all HIS FATHER's possessions.


GOD is "marrying" to HIMSELF children through the BODY of HIS SON. And THE SON alone will present back to HIS FATHER...HIS BRIDE