:) No problem.
Let me state the conditions that i was alluding to: Second, the resulting function is asympotic from "infinite" speed to "infinite" time. Third, we are currently on the "flat" end of the time (x-axis) asympote, where the dirivative of the function (rate of change) is getting smaller. First, a speed of light that is graphed on a time ("x"-axis), speed ("y"-axis) scale.
Got it - I see what you mean. Interesting idea, certainly...
...small decreases in the speed of light, measured by the same techniques (so as to eliminate or reduce measurement error) have been observed.
I was not aware of that. Can I have the reference? :)
i stress again, a linear rate of change is not postulated.
If I go back to your initial point, which is valid, we only know the value of the speed of light (with any degree of accuracy) over a very, very short period of time. Therefore, even if this measurement was performed accurately and what are presumably very small changes are actually occurring, and not due to measurement error, that still doesn't tell us anything about times outside the measurement period. Therefore, we cannot make the leap to saying that it proves the asymptotic nature of the speed of light vs. time that you refer to - That would be an unsupported postulate, and one of many possible explanations for these observations.
Again, it's an interesting idea, and I do not deny the possibility, but I need more information before I can reach any conclusions.
It is hardly neccessary to explain astrophysics to anyone! It does not follow that one must use metaphor in order to explain phenomena.
If God wanted to explain the origins of the universe to people living thousands of years before us, and if those origins were consistent with our current scientific theories, he still would not do so using the language of 20th century scientific inquiry, or he would confuse the hell out of everyone. He would make basically the same description, then, whether or not what science currently tells us is truly the case. This means that we cannot conclude which of these two situations took place, from the description in the Bible, because in the end the description would not change. See what I mean? In short, we cannot assume that the Bible was meant to be taken literally. In certain specific instances, we must explicitly take a non-literal intrepretation, or risk denying what we observe (i.e. the earth is round, it goes around the sun, for instance). This shows that we cannot take a 100% literal view of the entire Bible. Is there a way around this logic that I am not seeing?
After all, we were able to adequately (for our purposes) explain the motion of the heavenlies long before relativity were we not?
Depends on what you mean by "adequately", "long before", and "for our purposes" :) In general, though, if you mean pre-Galileo, then the answer seems to be "no".
Did we then have to rely on metaphor? No, we simply acknowleged inconsistencies until such a time as they could be explained.
Sure, we must keep working on our best explanation 'til a better one comes along, explaining more than the old one. We're now in the process of acknowledging inconsistencies - In this case, between a literal reading of Biblical Creation and what is accepted based on scientific inquiry combined with physical evidence. I am attempting to explain these inconsistencies by postulating that the Bible was not meant to be taken completely literally, and I am offering evidence of this (cases where it cannot be taken litearlly and still have relevance to physical observables). While I don't expect that everyone will agree with me, I hope the logic I use, at least, is clear.
Here is the problem:
First, as you have said, God is perfect.
Second, it does not follow that He is the perfect scientist, or a scientist at all!
(a)Being by definition omniscient, He has no need to seek knowlege.
True. He should, however, be able to apply the scientific method, if He so chooses, better than any scientist ever could. This is what I mean when I describe him as being the perfect scientist. This does not mean he is actively practicing science - But if He felt the need to illustrate his ability to reason objectively based on evidence, I'm sure He could do so :)
...right, so expecting that he has done so for us, and in a very literalist sense, too, would be foolish.
(c)Finitus Non Caprux Infinitum, exhaustively explaining processes of creation by an Infinite Being to a finite creation is a fool's errand!
Absolutely! Which is an excellent argument against the supposition that He has done so, in the Bible or anywhere else. Therefore, we are relegated to relying on what we can divine from the descriptions in the Bible - Which, by your logic, will not be at all clear or precise, as we cannot know the mind of God, nor expect him to explain everything. Therefore we must combine this with what we can learn about the natural world, based on the scientific method (as it is the best way we've found so far to figure things out) and using our God-given talents in doing so.
Third, if the "metaphor" that God uses is contradicted by "scientific inquiry", it then makes the entirety of God's special revelation to us unreliable, therby calling into question the character of God, therby presenting a contradiction with the defined attributes of deity, therby disproving God's existence.
I'm certainly not questioning God's existence, and anyway that can't be disproven. Since, as you say, God has never explained to us the full details of his Creation, and we have only accounts written and edited by men to understand it by, if we find that our interpretation of those accounts does not jibe with scientific inquiry, that hardly means that we need doubt God's special revelation to us - That is not what's unreliable. It's the people who wrote down and edited what we read, and our own interpretations, that must clearly be at fault, since we agree that God is perfect, and we are not. The metaphors we refer to are man-made.
Finally, you are making a comparrison in motivation and attribute between God and Dr. Dini that i am certain that Dr. Dini would not make, namely the idea of application of the scientific method in all cases.
As I have been told before: "With all due respect, there is no way you could possibly know that."
i rather hope that you can see that there are difficulties between science and biblical revelation.
All is not simple in life, no, but we should strive to find solutions to such difficulties, not deny their existence by being inflexible with respect to alternate interpretations, no matter what we believe or our level of scientific training and knowledge.
I am willing to entertain the idea that the speed of light has changed, and I will accept it if it is properly supported.
I must therefore count on you to entertain the idea of biblical metaphor, and at least address my argument, especially with respect to known discrepancies between literaly-interpreted descriptions in the Bible and what we have observed of the world.
I'm not asking anyone here to agree with me - By all means, make up your own minds - But if I am wrong, show me how I am wrong, so that we both may learn something.
If pushed to Reducto Ad Absurdum we end up questioning epistomology, and have no basis for any knowlege. i do agree that those tensions must be recconcilled, and that cannot happen by mutually exclusive claims, no matter how "reasonable" they may seem.
My argument has two major tenets:
I'm offering such a description - I don't claim it's the only one, but if you agree with the tenets of this argument, and I think you do, I think we have some common ground here, and I certainly welcome alternatives.
Thanks for reading,
DFS
I was not aware of that. Can I have the reference? :)
As noted, the first link is creationist (as are you if i have read your posts correctly) but note that the postulation is heavily debated even within that community.
On the hermes link, you will simply have to right click, select "properties" and follow the link as written, as i was not able to find a direct path. At any rate, it is a repetition of another link (assumed due to the fact that the link took me to Adelaide University in Austrailia.
i will be formulating a response to the rest of your post, but may not get it finished this evening...excuse me, morning
regards,
CDL
First, if God had used 21st Century Scientific inquiry language, it would be confusing and inadequate. There is still far too much that science cannot explain, i doubt that anyone has seriously disputed that, having learned their lesson the year before Einstein published his paper on the theory of General Relativity. If the descriptions are the same (and the grammar structure is such that they are simple declarative statements), then there is no reason to resort to a metaphorical interpretation...By "these two situations" i assume that you mean evolution or special creation, yes?
See what I mean? In short, we cannot assume that the Bible was meant to be taken literally.
You have made too many a-priori assumptions to make this statement.
1) You assume that our "current scientific theories" are correct.There are other assumptions that i could add to this list, but these will do for now.
2) You assume that our "current scientific theories" have always been correct, when even current scientific theory disputes that matter. (big bang physics as expired time approaches zero, remember?)
3) You assume that all of our science is universally true.
4) You assume that an omnipotent God could not act in a supernatural manner.
5) You assume that even if an omnipotent God could act in a supernatural manner, that He would not do so.
In certain specific instances, we must explicitly take a non-literal intrepretation, or risk denying what we observe (i.e. the earth is round, it goes around the sun, for instance). This shows that we cannot take a 100% literal view of the entire Bible. Is there a way around this logic that I am not seeing?
There is an entire "science" of interpretation. It is called hermenutics, and it applies to all literature, not just the bible. In this particular case, the author is doing what is called Historical narrative. That is to say, he is relating an event alleged to happen in past time. God's statements are in a structure called "indirect discourse". There is no reason in the context of the passage to consider this narrative as metaphor or allegory.
True, there are passages that are allegory, even with the narrative element. An example would be the parables that Jesus told. While the passage is a literal account of Jesus' stories, it is clear that what Jesus was saying was an allegoryical story.
Were you to read other literature such as The Oddesy, The Illiad, and The Epic of Gilgamesh with the same restrictions that you have placed on the text of the bible, it would be giberish and nonsense to you.
Bible interpretation is quite a separate question in light of the a-prioris listed above. It seems that human scientific inquiry being admittedly fallible, needs to prove it's case before it presumes to tell the Almighty, and the world He created what He did, and How He did it.
i will respond to the rest of this post in a subsequent post. Please forgive my delay, i was unaviodably detained, and wanted to phrase my arguments as coherently as i am able. i hope that i have been sufficiently conherent.
Regards,
CDL
Depends on what you mean by "adequately", "long before", and "for our purposes" :) In general, though, if you mean pre-Galileo, then the answer seems to be "no".
Come now sir, consider your statement. The Potolemiac model of the universe was admitedly, flawed. However, it did make predictions that were accurate enough for man's use. Merchant sailors were able to navigate by stellar "motion". In that it was a model in which useful predications could be made, and useful data could be obtained. The science was wrong, as was the Copernician model, but it was hardly necessary to refer to allegory in the scriptures in either case. In point of fact, a flawed hermenutic was used by the church to support a flawed "scientific" model!
Sure, we must keep working on our best explanation 'til a better one comes along, explaining more than the old one. We're now in the process of acknowledging inconsistencies -
It should be observed that many of those inconsistencies are erronious science, not a flawed biblical hermenutic. An example of this would be the phenomena that produced the Gould/Eldridge "punctuated equilibria" theory of evolution. This had nothing to do with creationism or the bible, yet the Darwinian evolutionists are just as vehemently opposed to Gould as they are to Henry Morris or Duane Gish!
In this case, between a literal reading of Biblical Creation and what is accepted based on scientific inquiry combined with physical evidence. I am attempting to explain these inconsistencies by postulating that the Bible was not meant to be taken completely literally, and I am offering evidence of this (cases where it cannot be taken litearlly and still have relevance to physical observables). While I don't expect that everyone will agree with me, I hope the logic I use, at least, is clear.
i am happy that you acknowlege that not everyone will agree with you, it should frighten you if they did, because it would demonstrate that some people are not thinking!
i get very worried when i have no opposition.
i have already addressed the question of interpretation in my previous post and will not rehash it here in order to prevent confusion.
My next (and hopefully last) post will adderss the remnant of the argument presented on your last post...Living a life does complicate things, doesn't it?
Absolutely! Which is an excellent argument against the supposition that He has done so, in the Bible or anywhere else. Therefore, we are relegated to relying on what we can divine from the descriptions in the Bible - Which, by your logic, will not be at all clear or precise, as we cannot know the mind of God, nor expect him to explain everything. Therefore we must combine this with what we can learn about the natural world, based on the scientific method (as it is the best way we've found so far to figure things out) and using our God-given talents in doing so.
The operative word in my statement was exhasusively. God does and has explained His workings, that is not in dispute. None of those workings can be exhaustively explained. What we do not have liscense to do is attempt to explain away something based on questionable literary techniques, when we are by definition, the ones who are limited!
Third, if the "metaphor" that God uses is contradicted by "scientific inquiry", it then makes the entirety of God's special revelation to us unreliable, therby calling into question the character of God, therby presenting a contradiction with the defined attributes of deity, therby disproving God's existence.
I'm certainly not questioning God's existence, and anyway that can't be disproven.
Let me ease your mind on this point, and reduce the scope of the argument at the same time. It has always been bad logic to attempt to prove a negative (i.e., that God does not exist). That is the reason that our Judicial system (as opposed to the Napolenic system) places burdon of proof on the accuser.
Since, as you say, God has never explained to us the full details of his Creation, and we have only accounts written and edited by men to understand it by, if we find that our interpretation of those accounts does not jibe with scientific inquiry, that hardly means that we need doubt God's special revelation to us - That is not what's unreliable. It's the people who wrote down and edited what we read, and our own interpretations, that must clearly be at fault, since we agree that God is perfect, and we are not. The metaphors we refer to are man-made.
Finally, we have reached the majour area of disagreement. i will spare you the standard defense of the bible, as time and space constraints would make it rather difficult and clumsy at best. That is a subject that is best left for another thread. At any rate, i do not need to go into a defense of the reliability of scripture to make my point. You have, inadvertently, confirmed the itiliacised portion of my comments above.
Forgive me, but i find your statement to be contradictory. Let us examine it in detail.
we have only accounts written and edited by men to understand it by,The statment implies (by use of the words "only accounts") that God's revelation is either partial, erronious, within "added" material, made up out of whole cloth, or complete and accurate as written.
if we find that our interpretation of those accounts does not jibe with scientific inquiry, that hardly means that we need doubt God's special revelation to us - That is not what's unreliable.
Based on the account given above, it is in fact, a possibility to be considered! We are lead to the possibility that either scientific inquiry is incorrect, our interpretation is incorrect, or the record of scripture is incorrect. This is a contradiction of your premise that we need not doubt God's special revelation.
It's the people who wrote down and edited what we read, and our own interpretations, that must clearly be at fault, since we agree that God is perfect, and we are not. The metaphors we refer to are man-made.
In other words, you eliminate the possibility that scientific inquiry might be erronious!, it becomes "transmission of special revelation", or our interpretive process. It seems that you are actually begging the question here, as well as offering a limited alternative falacy.
i see no need to respond to the rest of the arguments on this post, since we have, in my humble opinion, found the central area of disagreement, and all else is just fluff.
i have no basis what-so-ever to question your sincerity, and do not so do. i would urge you to look into your position and address these aforementioned inconsistencies in it, and come up with a better model. This seems a rational course. Thank you for you kindness, time and patience.
Regards,
CDL