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?
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?
Yes.
This is what separates facts from faith based belief.
Facts have observable empirical evidence that supports them.
This is what makes them falsifiable.
Did you bother reading the thread at all?
Because the other person was relying on the bible as fact
Its not, its as you directly admit a human creation with human translation errors and human issues.
Because this is unfalsifiable and not fact based?
This is not my argument.
I haven't made a philosophical argument about my own beliefs. I've made an argument about facts.