If it isn't a good argument, then by default, it cannot be logically valid. Actually, no. For that to be a true statement, there would need to be more atoms in the human brain than there is in the rest of the universe, which is clearly not the case. Additionally, it also relies on the assumption that there is no other life in the universe. If, for example, there were aquatic creatures swimming in the oceans which are likely to exist below the icy crust of Europa that had the brain power of a cat, or even of a cockroach, that still requires the rest of the universe to have greater complexity than the Earth. I, for one, am not prepared to rule out the possibility of such creatures. I'm also not willing to rule out the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. For your scenario to be plausible, life would have to be limited to the Earth, and to only certain forms. I am not willing to do either of those. So, you're saying you've got evidence? Hard, physical evidence which can be brought into the lab? Because the folks who agree with me, actually do. Can you prove the existence of the flood? That the Jews were slaves in Egypt and spent wandering 40 years in the desert? Except that modern science isn't predicated in theism. Tell me, where's the mention of the Americas in the Bible? Or germ theory? Relativity? Observational science? Or hell, proper hand washing? Heck, in the book of Revelation, it describes stars "falling from the sky." How's that supposed to work when even the smallest star is vastly larger than the Earth? No, no you're not. So, if you don't care about the flood, why should you care about the rest of the Bible? So, IOW, you don't have the answers, and rather than trying to find them, you prefer to just ignore the questions.
Foolish argument. One that you've made before IIRC. Besides which there are parts of the Bible not meant to be taken literally. and come on "falling stars"? You know that has been a reference to meteors from ancient times until even today.
That doesn't answer the question as to why it would refer to things as "days" even though they have radically different lengths. By that logic, The Amazing Spider-Man demonstrates that being bitten by a radioactive spider gives you superpowers. Or that there's a guy by the name of Atlas who's holding up the world.
And how does one know which parts aren't to be taken literally? Then why not say "meteors" or at least "rocks from space"? IIRC, it wasn't until the 19th Century that people believed such things could happen (and yup, that's right), if people hadn't interpreted the Bible as referring to the Heavens as "perfect," its possible that accounts of rocks falling from the sky might have been taken seriously, sooner. So, either the Bible was limiting itself to inaccurate descriptions, or it was written by people who had no idea of what they were talking about. You know, like how the Bible says that the mustard seed is the smallest, when in fact, that honor goes to the orchid seed.
Lots of people have, and they all have differing opinions. If one's immortal soul is on the line, one would think that shit would be obvious beyond a shadow of a doubt. There's any number of devout Catholics who've been able to put more study into the Bible than either you or I, what makes you so certain that you've got it figured out and they don't? And why would a god allow them to go to hell after they put in so much sincere effort?
You don't go to heaven just because you tried really hard. Any more than you win a ball game just because you tried really hard. Or won an election because you tried really hard.
You realize you are arguing against your own interests, right? I'm not the one who made the valid but unsound argument regarding omnipotence in the first place. An ant is comprised of far fewer atoms than a mountain, yet I would venture to guess that most, if not all, scientists would agree that an ant is vastly more complex than a mountain. It is not the quantity of matter an object contains that determines its complexity. It's how that matter is arranged and how it behaves that determines complexity. You're just generating a false dilemma. Perhaps God created the relatively simple mass of the inorganic universe in but a day, but spent dayS generating organic forms not only on Earth but throughout the recently-formed cosmos. What I'm saying is you shouldn't rely on numbers of believers to justify your position. After all, theists vastly outnumber atheists. Physics is the basis of all the sciences. The laws of physics, which Newton discovered, are based on the idea of momentum, an extension of the first mover construct. So yes, all science is based upon theistic implications. Is this jealousy? OK, enough with the quote pyramids. Hopefully, I've slapped you down enough.
You calling it an unsound argument doesn't make it so. Basically, all you've done is the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance. A mountain is comprised of many things. What those things are depends upon a number of factors, such as the location of the mountain, the minerals found there, and its biota, to name but a few. So, for example, part of a mountain could include things like ant hills. Great. Call me when you find a version of the Bible which actually says that. By your logic, the folks who're interpreting the "wheel" which scooped Ezekiel up and took him to Heaven as being an alien spacecraft are right. I don't. I rely on the fact that the evidence directly contradicts the Bible. We can prove, for example, that the pyramids weren't built by slave labor. And the workers even got state sponsored health care. But enough of your deflection, try answering my questions. And algebra was invented by a Muslim, so by your logic, it and the other forms of mathematics derived from it (which is all the advanced maths) are Islamic. And Newton wasn't the first to discover many of the principles of physics, in some cases he "merely" rediscovered them. Some of them, it turns out, were known by the Greeks, Chinese, and Indians. By the way, the Indians have myths which accurately predict the age of the universe according to science, and they also invented the zero, upon which most advanced math requires in some place or another in order to work, so by your logic, the Hindus are the ones who's ideas underpin much of science, not Newton (who couldn't have done his work without the concept of zero). Nope. All you've done is swat air, because you've no idea what you're talking about.
Diacanu REALLY hates the bible...! Personally, I love the Sermon of the Mountain. Very powerful language. A piece of art IMO! And in parts, the moral is fine, too. Universal wisdom.
I like Paul's monologue before Agrippa and his wife (and Porcius Festus as well). A nice tight recitation regarding what has brought him to this point and what motivates him.
In all the stuff the Bible says about Heaven. Those were clear references to the United States (except for Connecticut which sucks due to tax laws).
My favorite old Christian text is the Gospel of Thomas, although it's not included in the Bible and probably not as old as some people want to believe. Short, thought-inducing wisdom based on Jesus' speeches, probably written by a member of a Christian gnostic sect a few centuries after Jesus. Doesn't matter to me, it's beautiful!
I watched this last night, pretty cool. I can see Sony picking up on this idea and expanding the Ghostbusters franchise. It would be like CSI. Ghostbusters: Ancient Mesopotamia. I also watched his lecture about the ark. It’s amazing how accurate the tablet is. Could it be that aliens instructed ancient man on how to survive a global flood?
There's no geological record of a global flood. And there would be. There certainly have been large scale localized floods, and that's why so many ancient mythologies have flood stories. The Biblical flood is almost certainly taken directly from the Babylonian flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh - which itself was inspired by the Akkadian myth of Atra-Hasis, ~2000 BC.
I'm sure I read somewhere that part of the area between Norway, Denmark, and Netherlands (not as far as Britain) was once land and has been swallowed up by the North Sea.
Also, I'm always suspect of geeks who refer to the Gilgamesh without bringing up the Eridu, Atra-Hasis, or Manvantara. Pretty sure they only heard about it through Picard.
Doggerland. It connected what are now the British Isles to the mainland as recently as 6000BC, and fishing vessels are constantly trawling up artefacts which suggest it was extremely well populated by humans.
The Epic of Gilgamesh was for decades considered the first great epic (that was known) - it's far, far more famous than those preceding works in literature.
Yes, but generally when one learns of Gilgamesh, it's almost always accompanied by the other two. If only diving deeper into the Noah account, the the Sumerian account is generally also referred to. No one ever learns of Gilgamesh, without learning of the other two - except for one place.
