Therefore its irrational to call the bible divine word and appeal to it as fact when rejecting Old Earth Creationism.
Not if you are Christian. Falsifiability goes both ways. If something is unfalsifiable, it can neither be proven nor disproven through empirical means.
As you already agreed, the bible is a translation of an oral history that cannot be reasonably called the divine word nor relied on as such in an argument.
You are trying to twist my words into somehow making you look less like an idiot but it is simply not possible. In fact, you just end up stating more things that are incorrect. Reread what I said, ‘it’s in fact the Church that created the bible, and as all things the Church creates, being made of humans, has the mark of human flaws.’ This means that the Church canonized the bible by compiling the most important works of Christianity into a single volume, including LXX, the four gospels, and a selection of apostolic epistles considered genuine. In that sense the bible, as it is known today, was created by the Church. The books of the bible existed long before canonization.
Never did I say that ‘the bible is a translation of oral history’. The bible was transmitted primarily orally in the early Church. The books were originally written. Some parts were songs, such as the psalms, and some were (possibly) common expressions, such as proverbs. But most of the books were crafted by authorship, with pen and scroll, unlike say the Iliad which was originally entirely in song. The point of oral transmission is important because it explains how churches used scripture before the printing press, but the scripture was always available in written form, albeit highly valued.
Secondly I never said it wasn’t divine in any sense. Such an assertion is unscientific. Various sects have their own theology regarding the divine nature of the bible and what exactly that means. If you want to discuss a particular theology, you must define that context first.
What I did say is that it has flaws. There are flaws in three senses: flaws by the original author, flaws in transcription, and flaws in canonization. The second I’ve already addressed.
The first supposes that an author made some error, whether it be an incorrect date or reference, some inconsistency in thesis, or poor use of the language. These are all highly subjective and unscientific qualities, but we can still study them. We just have to be careful not to be dogmatic about it. There is hard science, there is soft science, and then there is history. While the historiography of the OT is all over the place, the historiography of the NT is quite consistent, with no obvious errors pointing to anachronistic authorship. Part of this is because we have much better knowledge of the post-Alexandrian world than we do of the pre-Alexandrian world.
The third is perhaps the most interesting, as many books were very closely canonized and ultimately rejected (1 Enoch, 1 Clement, etc.), some are canonized in the Orthodox Church but were removed by Martin Luther (Apocrypha), and some have had their canonicity disputed (by Protestants) (Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Antilegomena). Note that books that are not canon are not necessarily degraded, particularly in the Orthodox Church. The purpose of the canonization of the bible was to ensure that the most important liturgical texts were preserved.
So indeed, one cannot say that the earth is young because the bible says so, but you cannot say something is scientifically proven simply because a book says so. Everything must be tested by falsifiable means. If I say ‘the universe is six years old,’ then I can falsify that by finding a creature that is seven years old. Thus the age of the universe is falsifiable to the extent that we can observe age. On the flip side, the statement that the universe was created at some point to look old is not falsifiable, and thus can neither be proven nor disproven. It is now outside the realm of empiricism and must be solved through some other method.
Not if you are Christian. Falsifiability goes both ways. If something is unfalsifiable, it can neither be proven nor disproven through empirical means.
Which is exactly why you can't rely on it as an empirical disproof, which is exactly what the person I was rebutting was doing.
You are trying to twist my words into somehow making you look less like an idiot but it is simply not possible.
This is a really weird thing for someone who literally proved my point correct with such detailed sources.
but you cannot say something is scientifically proven simply because a book says so
Yeah exactly.
Everything must be tested by falsifiable means.
Yeah exactly.
I even explicitly appealed to radiological dating.
On the flip side, the statement that the universe was created at some point to look old is not falsifiable, and thus can neither be proven nor disproven.
Except we can prove the age of the universe. You can learn the methods and double check for yourself. You even explicitly mentioned peer review and tried to sneak the fact that age is falsifiable in with some handwavyness right here
Thus the age of the universe is falsifiable to the extent that we can observe age
The extent we can observe age is constantly improving, and there has yet to be any detectable evidence to lend any credence to Created Young to Look Old Earth.
Either way, a CYtLO Earth is a god of the gaps argument. I would never be satisfied with such a weak god.
Suppose in 1000 years we discover a way to measure the age of the universe directly from the fabric of reality and can verify undeniably wasn't created young to look old as telltale signs are absent. That would force god to an even smaller gap.
You’re free to reject the Omphalos hypothesis based on your own philosophical grounds (there are plenty of excellent philosophical arguments against it), but you can’t prove that it isn’t true because it is unfalsifiable. We can prove the age of the universe so long as we assume the hypothesis is false. This is completely fine for many problems, since physical models depend on physics being stable.
Also, I don’t mean to present the Omphalos hypothesis as the correct solution; it is just one example of a solution to a problem that cannot be solved empirically.
We can reject the omphalos out of hand, because nothing unfalsifiable will have compelling physical evidence for it's existence.
By that definition you cannot accept anything exists without empirical evidence. That makes you a positivist. In that sense why bother attempting to make a poor argument against the divinity of the bible via ‘translation’ errors? Why not just state that God’s Word cannot exist because God cannot exist? And God cannot exist because there is no physical evidence for Him. That is the philosophical argument you are basing your own beliefs in. Shouldn’t that be enough to convince someone else?
Not if you are Christian. Falsifiability goes both ways. If something is unfalsifiable, it can neither be proven nor disproven through empirical means.
You are trying to twist my words into somehow making you look less like an idiot but it is simply not possible. In fact, you just end up stating more things that are incorrect. Reread what I said, ‘it’s in fact the Church that created the bible, and as all things the Church creates, being made of humans, has the mark of human flaws.’ This means that the Church canonized the bible by compiling the most important works of Christianity into a single volume, including LXX, the four gospels, and a selection of apostolic epistles considered genuine. In that sense the bible, as it is known today, was created by the Church. The books of the bible existed long before canonization.
Never did I say that ‘the bible is a translation of oral history’. The bible was transmitted primarily orally in the early Church. The books were originally written. Some parts were songs, such as the psalms, and some were (possibly) common expressions, such as proverbs. But most of the books were crafted by authorship, with pen and scroll, unlike say the Iliad which was originally entirely in song. The point of oral transmission is important because it explains how churches used scripture before the printing press, but the scripture was always available in written form, albeit highly valued.
Secondly I never said it wasn’t divine in any sense. Such an assertion is unscientific. Various sects have their own theology regarding the divine nature of the bible and what exactly that means. If you want to discuss a particular theology, you must define that context first.
What I did say is that it has flaws. There are flaws in three senses: flaws by the original author, flaws in transcription, and flaws in canonization. The second I’ve already addressed.
The first supposes that an author made some error, whether it be an incorrect date or reference, some inconsistency in thesis, or poor use of the language. These are all highly subjective and unscientific qualities, but we can still study them. We just have to be careful not to be dogmatic about it. There is hard science, there is soft science, and then there is history. While the historiography of the OT is all over the place, the historiography of the NT is quite consistent, with no obvious errors pointing to anachronistic authorship. Part of this is because we have much better knowledge of the post-Alexandrian world than we do of the pre-Alexandrian world.
The third is perhaps the most interesting, as many books were very closely canonized and ultimately rejected (1 Enoch, 1 Clement, etc.), some are canonized in the Orthodox Church but were removed by Martin Luther (Apocrypha), and some have had their canonicity disputed (by Protestants) (Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Antilegomena). Note that books that are not canon are not necessarily degraded, particularly in the Orthodox Church. The purpose of the canonization of the bible was to ensure that the most important liturgical texts were preserved.
So indeed, one cannot say that the earth is young because the bible says so, but you cannot say something is scientifically proven simply because a book says so. Everything must be tested by falsifiable means. If I say ‘the universe is six years old,’ then I can falsify that by finding a creature that is seven years old. Thus the age of the universe is falsifiable to the extent that we can observe age. On the flip side, the statement that the universe was created at some point to look old is not falsifiable, and thus can neither be proven nor disproven. It is now outside the realm of empiricism and must be solved through some other method.
Which is exactly why you can't rely on it as an empirical disproof, which is exactly what the person I was rebutting was doing.
This is a really weird thing for someone who literally proved my point correct with such detailed sources.
Yeah exactly.
Yeah exactly.
I even explicitly appealed to radiological dating.
Except we can prove the age of the universe. You can learn the methods and double check for yourself. You even explicitly mentioned peer review and tried to sneak the fact that age is falsifiable in with some handwavyness right here
The extent we can observe age is constantly improving, and there has yet to be any detectable evidence to lend any credence to Created Young to Look Old Earth.
Either way, a CYtLO Earth is a god of the gaps argument. I would never be satisfied with such a weak god.
Suppose in 1000 years we discover a way to measure the age of the universe directly from the fabric of reality and can verify undeniably wasn't created young to look old as telltale signs are absent. That would force god to an even smaller gap.
I reject a notion of such a weak god.
You’re free to reject the Omphalos hypothesis based on your own philosophical grounds (there are plenty of excellent philosophical arguments against it), but you can’t prove that it isn’t true because it is unfalsifiable. We can prove the age of the universe so long as we assume the hypothesis is false. This is completely fine for many problems, since physical models depend on physics being stable.
Also, I don’t mean to present the Omphalos hypothesis as the correct solution; it is just one example of a solution to a problem that cannot be solved empirically.
You also can't prove it false or have merit in its discussion.
That's what unfalsifiable means.
You are leaning on it like some kind of shield, but the only way it defends you is by entirely detaching your point from facts.
You are the one that openly said you care about facts.
We don't have to assume an unfalsifiable is false, we can just ignore it because it's unfalsifiable.
We can reject the omphalos out of hand, because nothing unfalsifiable will have compelling physical evidence for it's existence.
To rely on the omphalos necessarily being proven false is a blatant Russel's teapot, not a rational position.
"You can't prove it false so..." Is invalid because, as you have so kindly pointed out, it's completely unfalsifiable.
With the omphalos being unfalsifible, the statement above should read:
By that definition you cannot accept anything exists without empirical evidence. That makes you a positivist. In that sense why bother attempting to make a poor argument against the divinity of the bible via ‘translation’ errors? Why not just state that God’s Word cannot exist because God cannot exist? And God cannot exist because there is no physical evidence for Him. That is the philosophical argument you are basing your own beliefs in. Shouldn’t that be enough to convince someone else?