/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3493552
Nothing can necessarily disprove the existence of a diving being. The issue is whether or not it disproves the god as conceived of by Christians.

>>3493554
So my second question would be to Christians who do believe in evolution. How does it make sense to you? I have recently made friends with a couple who do not believe in evolution for religious reasons. I'm trying to bridge the gap, I guess.

>>3493552
Not exactly. It does disprove popular divine beings though
doesn't disprove Matrix Lords (universe simulators who might have an interest in you). It also doesn't disprove contradictory omnipotent beings because their believers assume their being is capable of making 0=1, which to me is absolutely impossible, thus I do not assume such deities exist.

It should disprove deities of certain fundamentalist believers as they take their truth as being what's written literally in their holy book.

>evolution
>natural selection
Pick one.

>>3493579
Would the idea of natural selection be more suited to the Christian mind? I feel that if someone can accept that concept the leap to evolution isn't so far.

>>3493565
You have to abandon a literal interpretation of the bible. However, not as much as you'd think, most of the bible is just history, geneology and law. The extensions to the whys and wherefores are relatively rare throughout the book. Come to understand God as acting through natural law, natural law being the direct expression of a divine being. Understand that for an omnipotent transcendental being conception and action are fundamentally the same. Thought IS creation, consequence can predate cause for him as he creates the world whole.

At least as I see it, but I'm just an atheist who likes to construct systems of justification for things.

>>3493554
> The issue is whether or not it disproves the god as conceived of by Christians.

why?

>>3493565
it can be argued that the early accounts in genesis are allegorical, with god explaining how he created the big bang and his first dealings with humanity before we rebelled, with picturesque language - much as jesus used parables to describe who god is

>>3493587
How can we distinguish between an universe where life arises naturally out of all possibilities and one where a deity "guides" it?
Strongly reminds me of this http://lesswrong.com/lw/uk/beyond_the_reach_of_god/

Depends on the particular sect of Christianity .

Fundamentalists who believe in the Young Earth theory or take Genesis to be a literal account of the creation of earth have problems with evolution because evolution occurs over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years which disallows an earth that has only existed for 6000.

There are however Christians who do "believe" in evolution. For example, the Catholic Church has a doctine of theistic evolution where they believe that evolution is a rational process that is also guided by God.

>The Church does not forbid that ... research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - source : http://tinyurl[dot]com/tloj

And here are a list of denominations that reconcile their faith with evolution : http://www.answersincreation [dot]org/denominationlist.htm

Pretty much depends on a belief in the Young Earth theory I think.

>>3493603
>why?
because no one cares about some nebulous concept of a "divine being" the interesting thing is for the established religions and most relevantly Christianity.

>>3493586
Evolution is usually the concept the religious can come to terms with. It can be reconciled with a belief that species were created and evolved through divine intervention.

Natural selection is more damning because it provides a natural mechanism which drives evolution, eliminating the need for a diving being. Most religious slink back to divine abiogenesis because it's one of the few dark refuges which science has not yet illuminated.

>>3493587
This is pretty much how I see it. I was raised in a Christian family and was never taught to take the Bible literally, maybe that's why I never saw evolution as a challenge to any god. My friend on the other hand does seem to take things word for word. It's a bit frustrating and I really want to understand her. I just feel that she is refusing to see the facts.

>>3493614
k...so whatta you think; does it?

>>3493603
How do you feel about this? Your opinion is actually the most meaningful to me.

>>3493631
Not necessarily, but it certainly informs the way we interpret him, and causes him to be cast in a rather more impersonal manner.

>>3493586

All the creation myths of all peoples have long been known to be false. However, to a certain type of literal-minded person, they would rather adhere to the beliefs mandated by their holy texts than accept any other explanation, no matter how well-supported it is. I suspect these make up the majority of Creationism's rank-and-file.

The leaders of the Creationism movement will admit themselves, if you get them alone, that this has never been a debate about science or even necessarily the truth. Their greatest objection is that evolution is a cornerstone of scientific materialism, which they believe is damaging to society and leads ineluctably to nihilism. As the opening of the Discovery Institute's infamous Wedge Document affirms, their goal is to "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

>>3493643
i'm cool with saying that the bible is literally the word of god, but that not everything in it is to be taken literally - some of the early writings are obviously poetic forms, so i have no worries fellowshipping with young-earth creationist christians or evolutionist-creationist christians, because in the end: it's not 'how' god put us here that matters, it's what he wants for his children now they're here

>>3493667
>it's what he wants for his children now they're here
Conjecture.

>>3493646
which of the two understandings do you think makes god moar impersonal, young-earth creationist christfags or evolutionist-creationist christians?

>>3493671
> not really

the bible is pretty specific about what god wants for his followers

>>3493679
whups, wrong avi

>>3493679
Anyone that obeys an organized religion.

>>3493679
evolutionist, its the understanding of god as acting through natural laws, seems to render him more impersonal, impassive and unmoved by momentary temporal concerns.

>>3493686
ah boy, i am too tired for this - meant to quote anon saying "Conjecture"

>>3493686
>the bible is pretty specific about what god wants for his followers

His followers don't obey most everything in the bible.

>>3493657
I see, this seems to be where my friend (or at least her husband) is coming from. He gave me the book "The Wedge of Truth". I have been having trouble with it because I disagree with its philosophy on morality. I don't feel god is necessary for morality. They obviously feel very differently. If the main argument is over philosophy, the actual existence of a god doesn't really matter, just belief in its moral guidelines. At least that's what I'm getting from it. Pretty grim view of Christianity.

>>3493694
oh yeah, i kinda see your point

but then that discounts god saying he held early humanity in eden 'the centre of his delight' before we rebelled - the planet only coming under his wrath as punishment for our crime

>>3493667
But what do you believe? Are you undecided on the issue? You do seem open minded about it at least.

>>3493697
well yeah...hoomons are poopyheads

that's why we need jesus so much

>>3493716
You know who is responsible for 9/10 of the God-related destruction visited on all of mankind in the old testament?

Jewish people.

>>3493718
Jesus didn't need an "after-life" or a soul.

For that matter, none of his actual disciples could have written a testament. They were -ILLITERATE-.

>>3493716
But as we said, we're assuming non-literal genesis and evolution. So we take the central feature of the eden myth as being the fall, as in man coming to know sin being significant above all animals, which is the significant element to understanding it allegorically really.

>>3493724
No they weren't Paul most certainly was literate.

>>3493717
what i believe is not important - what i 'know' is

and what i know is, SCIENCE is answering a number of questions about the origins of the universe - and when it realises a theory was wrong, it revises it and keeps on looking

another thing i know is, jesus is very much alive and active in both my life and the lives of many people i am personally acquainted with, with actual miracles happening around us every day - so i have no problem with jesus creating the miracle of a universe out of a big bang when he said "let there be light"


i know some other stuff too - but this box wouldn't be big enough

A "metaphor": What your old religious practices become when they are empirically disproven.

Evolution makes some headway towards disproving the Christian god, since it shows that the Adam & Eve story is false. However, it does not disprove the existence of god in general.

Nor is it intended to.

>>3493735
>another thing i know is,

The same way I know you are delusional, and probably insane.

>>3493735
Although I disagree with you on religion, I'm happy you acknowledge the strengths inherent in science. However, I don't see how you can "know" that Jesus is god, miracles happen, etc. You simply have to base it on faith, no?

>>3493719
lol, gb2/ne-OH WAIT

you should probobally take it to 4chOn

>>3493724
> For that matter, none of his actual disciples could have written a testament. They were -ILLITERATE-.

i'm sorry, but that's a common misconception amongst folk

jewish men of that time studied the scripture from boyhood

as for needing an 'after-life and soul'

jesus spoke quite deliberately and at length about both these things

>>3493725
> But as we said, we're assuming non-literal genesis and evolution.

no, we are yet to be in accord on anything so great as that

i am saying that while much of the bible is allegorical, those parables are being used to convey 'a truth' of some sort

and when i say 'truth' i mean one in the absolute sense, in that; while neither you nor i may understand what god means by saying he held early humanity in "the centre of his delight*", god is still saying that he did it

he nurtured humanity, represented by 'adam and eve' in some sacred place, safe from the fear of death and destruction - until, of course; we betrayed him and were cast out

that says, his interest in us was never so impersonal and distant as we might assume
~


*literal meaning of eden

>>but I don't see why the two ideas can't be reconciled.

not all religions, just mainly christianity, because of the fall of man, original sin, prophesy conflict

>>3493757
but what is faith, other than an old word the KJV translators used to convey a hebrew concept of 'trust based on evidence'

i trust jesus, because i know him - i know him because he has directly intervened in my lief on numerous occasions

and not just my lief, but in the lives of so many other people i know

>>3493786
allegorical is necessarily non-literal

>>3493796
furthermore, as I said the key point in the allegory as I see it is the fall, not necessarily the garden of delights aspect. You read the story different than I, but since we've abandoned the literal we have little way to resolve the disagreement.

>>3493794
thisiswhatchristiansactuallybelieve.jpg

>>3493796
the wind moves through the mountains as a gypsy dances through her suitors; while symbolic, is true

>>3493786
A: Typical atheist emofaggot. Resorts to insults. Oh, wait,..

B. Believes that what was created by Rome 200 years after the death of Christ was what Jesus actually said.

>>3493805
but not literal. Literal doesn't mean true, it means literal.

you take that creation story away, and you basically decapitated the new testament. very few moderate christians realize this and still go around saying evolution sits well with the bible.

>>3493805
What, gypsies blow everything?

>>3493802
you think that in throwing out the literal, we have thrown out the truth - the baby with the bath-water eh?

>>3493811
Suck it, bitches.

>>3493815
No i think that in throwing out literal, we have thrown out the literal, and as such we are tasked with interpreting.

>>3493811
you are quite correct anon - if a christian discounts the creation story or anything else in the OT, then he's invalidating christ's sacrifice, or even the need for it

>>3493821
what's wrong with interpretation?

<-- My favorite part of the Bible

>>3493832
Nothing, however being an interpretation there is more than one. I disagree with yours. That is all.

>>3493832
Did that really not click in your mind? Are you that afraid of cognitive dissonance? By accepting evolution as valid, you invalidate the creation story, and by doing that you affirm that Jesus died for nothing.

>>3493832
>what's wrong with interpretation?
It's not truth.

>>3493833
Really, that's your problem with creation? Something that could even scientifically be explained away in terms of background photons beings created with the grand vacuum of space itself. Seriously that? You don't have a problem with the omnipotent sky-father? its the order of events?

>>3493840
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

>>3493826
There's more than this. Just the other day I've seen someone in here which had to resort to basically claiming that ``God'' should be able to CHANGE truth of mathematical propositions (ex: make 0=1 true). I find this an absolutely abandonment of reasoning faculties, but the debater was required to claim this to defend omnipotence or to defend against more serious philosophical positions that literally make deities highly unlikely (or merely completly not divine) due to sheer "math" (such as if one takes a mathematical platonist/monist position).

>>3493842
Nah, I knows what I'm talking about quite well thank you. There are plenty of photons flying about, virtual and otherwise.

>>3493552
Evolution or even science as a whole does not directly disprove the possibility that there may be some form phenomenon corresponding to what is commonly known as "the divine" or even some form of a "god".

However, that said, it does absolutely disprove any kind of god like the one described in the bible or the koran.

>>3493854
Not enough to light up the entire world, you dolt.

>>3493552
No, and you have to define what you mean by evolution. I am a creationist and believe in evolution in the sense of the evolutionary mechanisms. I do not believe life evolved from a a single common ancestor however, but from many "kinds".

Evolutionary origins are not incompatible with all forms of theism. A deistic god would fit this idea fine.

>>3493834
are you sure you know what my interpretation is?

tell y'what, i'll lay it out

1. god created the universe and everything in it
2. god created humanity, nurturing them in 'the centre of his delight' (eden)
3. humanity rebelled and were cast out as punishment
4. god promised a rescuer to bring us back in to the same relationship we had with him in eden
5. ???
6. JESUS!!

>>3493836
sir, i have been aware of this since i became a christfag - if you will look at my biblical understanding of our need for a rescuer above, you will see i've given it some little thought i think

>>3493839
the interpretation of data is false?


...always?

>>3493860
Why not?

>>3493864
I know you already said that, but I disagree about your reading of the eden story.

>>3493864
>some little thought
Clearly a VERY little amount of thought.

Can I ask an honest question?
How old do you think the universe is?
How old do you think the Earth is?

>>3493864
>the interpretation of data is false?
Interpretation is not truth. It can be, but the terms are not exchangeable.
And the Bible does not count as valid data. Billions of people have look at the same 'data' and using the same methods of interpretation come to billions of different conclusions, each one mutually exclusive. This means the 'data' is flawed.

>>3493867
Because if the sun disappeared from the sky, the world would be pretty fucking dark. There's not enough background radiation to simulate daylight.

>>3493873
ah well fair enough - if you'd care to elaborate, i'm all ears

i'm constantly having to revise my understanding of whom god is, so i need to have an open mind

Evolution doesn't keep people from being stupid.

/thread

>>3493885
To the eyes of god? The earth and the heavens didn't exist yet. The only thing was god amidst the void, god who can conceive of every mote of existence, can separate light from dark on the level of a single photon. So why not?

is it too difficult for a creationist to admit he just believes because it's socially acceptable? i mean, using math and science to prove a deity, come on...

>>3493894
...Why do I even try.

Enjoy living in ignorance.

>>3493899
Yeah, Norway is SOOOO fucking peaceful

god = magician

>>3493906

So if god is a magician that made hiself not exist, who did he make exist to make him not exist?

>>3493904
Dude, I'm an atheist, as I mentioned earlier in this thread. I just don't see why you say, accepting the premise of an all-powerful creator god the whole "six days" thing is a problem. That just seems like pedantic and pointless shit to me.

>>3493905
yep, as much as america is a secular nation

>>3493844
I have pointed this out many times, but that "objection" is a straw-man to the God I believe in, the God of the bible.

Logic is God's nature itself, how God thinks. Logic is neither external to God or subjugated by Him. It is His very nature.

The same thing is true for morality. Morality is not external to God whereby God is forced to follow it, nor does God arbitrarily make up what is or is not moral. Morality is God's very nature. An example of arbitrary morality concept: There was no point in time where God did not know what is moral in order for Him to have a need to create it. As this is the case it is impossible to separate morality from God's nature.

This is called presuppositional apologetics btw. It is the necessary presupposition in order to ground our thinking.

christfag, please answer these: >>3493879

I'm curious.

>>3493879
sure, i'll answer - if you'll return the favour

tell me, is this how you endear folk to yourself and get them to open up?

>>3493880
> And the Bible does not count as valid data. Billions of people have look at the same 'data' and using the same methods of interpretation come to billions of different conclusions, each one mutually exclusive.

i disagree - the consensus amongst christians is that everyone needs a rescuer, and that rescuer is jesus

if so many folk can interpret the scripture to say that one solid thing, wouldn't that imply there is some basis for their findings

now i'm not arguing this as a basis for the bible being 'true'

but it does seem to say that there is some central tenet that is discernible

Psychology disproves god. Looking at why you would believe in a deity in the first place makes its actual existence overwhelmingly improbable.

Now consider that organized religion has filled the same role that democratic election, television, cigarettes, newspapers, pornography, MMOs and cheap food and atheism does now.

>>3493930
Asking a question does not require buttering you up. All you have to do is answer, rather than dodge the questions.

>>3493924
You got it bro.

>>3493930
>tell me, is this how you endear folk to yourself and get them to open up?
I'll answer this for him and say nobody cares about getting random people on the Internet to open up to them.
Artful dodge though.
>i disagree - the consensus amongst christians is that everyone needs a rescuer, and that rescuer is jesus
I know that if I tried, I could find some obscure sect of Christianity that disagrees. Like, you know, gnostics.

>>3493934
Genetic fallacy.
Also when talking about the Christian God the means are inseparable from the sovereign decree of God in the first place. How God reveals Himself is up to Him and there is nothing not under His sovereign control.

>>3493924
Aren't you also assuming that the deity would be conscious and all-knowing? Which would also mean you're assuming math to be the conscious or not (not just very few select mathematical (sub)structures)?
The problem with 0=1 is a bit deeper. I treat it the same as ``God'' using omnipotence to define itself out of existence. Wouldn't this be paradoxal?

>>3493939

>the greatest lie ever told - voiced by Morgan Freeman

VS

>the truth of the universe - voiced by Ann Widdecombe

>>3493930
Likewise how we write now the same language and agree by and large on the definition of the words that we use.

Christianity is the biggest polytheist religion ever. Everyone has a different image and understanding of "their personal God."

>>3493954
I know I'm probably being trolled, buy polytheism is the belief in multiple Gods, not the situation where many people believe in one God, in which everyone has a unique understanding of what God is.

>>3493939
but it does necessitate you being a big meany?

fair enough, but i won't answer in kind


iirc the cosmos is 14 billion y/o and the earth's about 5?

>>3493954
I think what you are looking for is Ignosticism.

>>3493967
You cannot prove that all "personal gods" are the same god.

It is easier to prove that people do not worship the same God by the magic of asking them how their God wants them to treat "group X".

It doesn't disprove a divine being, but it does disprove a big part of Christianity, including Jesus.

>>3493978
I'm not looking for anything. I am pointing out the problem with having a "personal God."

>>3493983
You can prove they are the same. If they all describe the sole infinite creator of the universe, then they are the same, as there cannot be multiple sole infinite creators of the universe.

>>3493984
Jesus is a historical figure. The New Testament is a historical text by the standards of the time.

>>3493984
Wat? Evolution disproves Jesus? That's funny since some of the earliest Christian monks were among the first evolutionists, long before Darwin.

>>3494007
I didn't mean that as Jesus didn't exist, but it screws with his entire purpose and divinity. The purpose of Jesus was for him to sacrifice himself for our sins(being original sin), which with evolution never happened. So he sacrificed himself for nothing.

That's a huge part of Christianity.

>>3494006

Bah. Totally ignores the point, and locks his mouth on the definition for a proof. Typical.

>>3493976
Correct, essentially.

Now, as for the Earth being 4.5 billion years old, this should really conflict with your religious belief. In the Bible, there is a very clear genealogy from Adam on down his line, much of the time including the ages when they died, etc. Christians have reconstructed the biblical "family tree", and it shows that IF the creation story is correct, then humans have only existed for roughly 6,000 years.

Some Christians claim this implies that the Earth itself is 6,000 years old, some claim the universe is 6,000 years old. But the very LEAST you have to accept is that man has only existed on this planet for 6,000 years.

How do you reconcile the overwhelming evidence that humanity, as a distinct species, has existed for 100,000 - 150,000 years? The Bible directly contradicts this fact, and it's not something you can dismiss as allegorical. The genealogy outline by your holy book is clearly meant to be taken literally.

>>3493579
How can you pick one of these?

>>3494006

>Christian god is sole creator according to Christians
>FSM is sole creator according to pastafarians
>Christian god=FSM

Sorry I couldn't find a more legitimate example, but I remember more polytheist religions than I do monotheist, especially since one could argue that the Jewish god equals the Christian equals the Muslim.

>>3494014
"Original sin" is a Catholic doctrine. Jesus never mentioned it, as the concept didn't exist in his time. Someone might even say that Jesus came to make it possible for us to continue to spiritually evolved.

>>3494021
well one argument is; that just as 'adam and eve' are figureheads representative of an age of humanity, so are these antediluvian names or 'ages'

how does that swim?

>>3494056
I don't quite follow you. Could you elaborate on that point so I can accurately respond to it?

>>3494014
He didn't exactly sacrifice anything either. He died for us? But he didn't die! That's the most bullshit rationalization asshat-backwards apologist theological dogma ever conceived.

/rage

>>3494021
It is called the world wide flood of Noah. Given such an event our dating methods are flawed as they do not account for the effects of such an event.

You are right that the genesis account does not close the door on the earth or universe being 6-10 thousand years old, but only of mankind however.

>>3494031
The Jewish God DOES equal the Christian God equals the Muslim God. It is absurd to me to call them different Gods, rather than to say that those groups have (slightly) different understanding... not even of the nature of God, because they don't necessarily... but rather have different "accessory" beliefs surrounding God.

As for FSM, he's not infinite, as he's made of spaghetti, which is a finite substance.... so...

>>3494061
well, if adam and eve are representative of an age wherein humanity was at peace with god before these same peoples rebelled, couldn't some of these other names of their descendants equally be representative of eras in human civilisation?

>>3494073

So you argue that two concepts of the sole creator of the universe can refer to two different entities if their characteristics differ?

>>3494064
The first 7-12 chapters of Genesis are written in the style of mythology. I think it's a mistake to try to interpret them as literal events rather than metaphors, for the spiritual history of mankind.

This is the thinking that goes back to the earliest Christians, for example Augustine of Hippo, who wrote a book called "On The Literal Interpretation of Genesis".

>>3494073
The Islamic god is not the Christian God. "Allah is the greatest of all deceivers" (Surah 3-54), where as the Christian God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18, Titus 1:2, Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29).

>>3494074
So, hey, just joining the thread. Since when are adam and eve, somehow, representatives of a large time span?

Is this an interpretation of the bible? Honestly, it just seems like a big assumption.

>>3494074
But it's a genealogy, and as such, it's meant literally. This man begat that man, and so on. I see how you're trying to wiggle out of it by being metaphorical, but by doing that you make the claim that many important Biblical figures weren't actual people at all.

>>3494084
The bible also contradicts itself on the nature of god.

>>3494090
There are however gaps in the genealogy, as such the genealogy is a symbolic one. What is mentioned is true, however not all is mentioned.

>>3494099
Validate your assertion.

>>3494100
There are gaps, yes, but the genealogy itself is still whole. If you look at the picture I supplied, the dotted lines are where no line of descent is specified. However, it's possible to follow the bold lines (direct descent) all the way from Adam to the end of the genealogy.

>>3494086
hai hai

yeah, it's one argument that's bouncing around the ivory towers atm

>>3494090
okay, so we have to take adam and eve as singular folks then - so where does cain suddenly get a wife from then?

>>3494101
http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf

Not that guy, but I found some here. Regardless of philosophical outlook of the nature of god, this is interesting.

>>3494084
How can man describe what omnipotent Gods are, anyway. If God were to be described as omnipotent (created the universe, etc.) man could certainly not describe said God's divine powers and motives with simple judgments like "honest" or "deceptive."

>>3494114
The only possible conclusion is incest. I'm not trying to be funny. That's actually another problem with the Bible - it's incestuous.

>>3494122
The reason why incest is wrong is because it allows bad recessive genes to surface. It was not wrong initially because the DNA of man was much purer.

>>3494122
yeah, well that's be win - sure

thing is, the bible doesn't mention adam and eve having any daughters

whereas if we take A&E as representative of an age that begats two great nations, one of who destroys another and runs off with some hawt chicks, then we're doing allegory like a boss

>>3494081
If multiple people agree that there is a sole creator of the universe, then any disagreement about the characteristics of the sole creator is just that. It doesn't imply there are actually multiple creators.

>>3494128
Genesis 5:4
After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.

>>3494084
Actually, Surah 3-54 says that "God is above all lies."

Most Muslim theology is indistinguishable from Christian theology.

>>3494086
It's the natural interpretation. "Adam" is just the Hebrew word for "mankind". It is a strained interpretation to take "Mankind" as a literal individual, rather than representative of early mankind.

ITT: I could justify everything in the Harry Potter series as allegorical if I was tax exempt too.

>>3494139
yeah, but cain runs off with his honey before seth is born

but if we see him as a figurehead for a tribe, then we could see adam's sons and daughters after seth as the same yeah?

>>3494090
A geneology can be meant metaphorically if the geneology has meaning. Clearly, the first 10 people in the geneology (Adam to Noah) each have specific meanings and representations. I would be stunned if any of them was a literal person. People in later books are obviously literal people, even though they join them together into a continuous geneology.

>>3494122
How is that a problem? It's a historic fact that incest was common around the dawn of civilization.

>>3494139

At least 4200 sons and daughters - minimum viable population. That's more than 5 children every year. All of them siblings.

Bool story, cro.

>>3494147
>>3494152
Adam: "man, humanity, humankind"
Seth: "possessed, appointed"
Enosh: "mortal, feeble, frail"
Cainan: "sorrow"
Mahalalel: "The blessed God"
Jared: "shall come down, a descent"
Enoch: "teaching, to instruct, to initiate or discipline, dedicate, train up"
Methuselah: "his death shall bring"
Lamech: "the despairing"
Noah: "comfort, rest"

okays, i've gotsta go and get b/fast nao

one last thing; there's no-one who can convince you of god except god himself - if you realy wanna know if he's around you should speak to him yourself, because if he is to be believed, he says "all who seek me shall find me"


cya

>>3494156
>At least 4200 sons and daughters
WHY?

>>3494128
So we're left with two conclusions:

-Cain had sex with his own mother or some unnamed woman in the Bible. Either way, the genealogy remains intact.
OR
-Every single person mentioned in this genealogy is representative of something larger. If this is true, Adam wasn't a real person. So when God created "him", he was really creating a nation of sorts. The problem with this is how descriptive the Bible is about Adam being HUMAN. It says he was fashioned from dust and had life breathed into him through his nostrils. It says Eve was created from Adam's rib bone. Basically, it refers to Adam and Eve as singular humans. There is not a single reference to them or their descendants being representative of entire nations/ages.

The 2nd option, the one you favor, is a completely bogus interpretation. The only serious conclusion is that the genealogy is simply a family tree. And even if it WAS representative of nations, it specifies when these "nations" died. Essentially, that wouldn't discredit the 6,000 year age of humanity.

>>3494160
Incest is best.

> Adam wasn't a real person. So when God created "him", he was really creating a nation of sorts.
I wish I had so much creativity to twist stuff to make it fit my beliefs.
What's so troublesome about incest anyways? Isn't it more or less inevitable in the model presented in genesis? Not to mention the taboos against it are rather recent, keep in mind the sheer amount of inbreeding that went on with wealthy families in the past.

>>3494159
>there's no-one who can convince you of god except god himself

All I want is evidence. Legitimate evidence that god exists, which isn't interpreted into existence. Is that too much?

>>3494164
The 2nd one is the only interpretation that is consistent with the text, imo. It's not "bogus". The ages given the those 10 people are purely representative.

Each of the 10 gets three numbers, the age when he begot his son, the years lived after that, and the total years lived. It's all there for the purpose of representative numerology, which has been analyzed over the ages. Like Enoch who ascended to heaven after 365 years, Lamech who died after 777 years, as two with very obviously significant numbers.

>>3494172
He's just trying to avert the "6,000 year old Earth" conclusion, because he knows it to be false. It's in direct contradiction to scientific evidence, but he believes in his god so strongly that he refuses to accept the literal genealogy.

>>3494173
It's not too much to ask unless you're looking for that evidence to be empirical, in which case it is.

>>3494174
As I said, even if the nation interpretation is correct, the ages that accompanies the genealogy are still correct. Thus, this still results in a 6,000 year old Earth - an empirically false claim.

>>3494173
Yes, because all evidence has to be interpreted. I would say literally everything is evidence of God.
John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

>>3494182
Did you read what I wrote? The numbers are representative. They are not actual time spans.

>>3494176
This idea far predates the knowledge that the earth is much older than 6,000 years,

>>3494173
Why do you think God owes that to you? Because He doesn't.

hey anon, i had to bounce back because...well there's always a need for one moar f5

y'wanna know something - i have real trouble with this stuff, because as much as it pains me to admit it, the early acounts of creation just do not match up with SCIENCE in any real sense

and that's a real bugger, because i really believe i know jesus and have seen him active in my life

in fact, the only reason i value the scripture is because i believe in him first

but mental dissonance?

lemme tell ya, i breathe that shizzle - i swim in dat poop - i frikkin eat it for breakfast and wash it down with a big ol'cup of zomgwtfbbq

if it wasn't for jesus, i really wouldn't bother my arse being christian

it's too much work

~

anyways, love u very much - sorry for frazzling your head

>>3494190
There is no logical reason to claim that the NUMBERS themselves are metaphorical. That is one of most asinine claims I've ever heard a religious person make, and that's saying something. I try my best to reason with you guys, and this is what I get.

Honestly, I don't know why I try. If you can look at any part of the Bible and claim "this is allegorical" while simultaneously claiming that other parts of the Bible are literal truths, then there is no possible way to reason with you. You're just cherry-picking to avoid the logical conclusion that the Bible is wrong.

>>3494198
So you accept the fact that your two worldviews are diametrically opposite one another? You acknowledge the fact that by simultaneously believing in the biblical creation story AND evolution, you're contradicting yourself on a massive scale? If you realize that you're experiencing cognitive dissonance, why don't you admit that ONE of your beliefs HAS to be wrong?

If Adam is metaphorical, then God is a metaphor too. And Jesus and his resurrection. Everything is a metaphor and nothing in the Bible ever happened.

>>3494181
Why?

>>3494184
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. I wish for evidence that is not anecdotal, as these things tend to be, and isn't strained an ungodly amount to justify belief in god, which several apologists in this thread seem to be doing with the Bible.

>>3494192
If he wishes to give his son to us, it seems that he'd do anything to save us from damnation; why, then, would he hold out on the final thing to save one of his creations from the fire and brimstone, especially when so humbly asked?

>>3493967
>I know I'm probably being trolled, buy polytheism is the belief in multiple Gods, not the situation where many people believe in one God, in which everyone has a unique understanding of what God is.
In related news, the Trinity, and all of the Catholic saints.

>>3494227
Pretty much, yeah. That's essentially what I've been trying to tell them..

>>3494204
Numbers have been used representative since the earliest mythology. They are very obviously used representative in the Bible, with all its 7's and 12's. Denying it is just ignorance of the subject.

>>3494227
No, that doesn't follow. Representative writing is a way to tell a spiritual story in natural terms.

>>3494252
So what does "Adam lived 930 years" translate to?
"Adam lived for an indeterminate amount of time?"

I call bullshit.

>>3494235
I agree that anyone who thinks of the trinity as three distinct people is a polytheist.

>>3494064
You have two options
- believe that god intervened after the flood to basically remake the whole Earth, because that's what it would take to hide all the evidence of it happening, and there is none today, or
- there never was a global flood as depicted in Noah's story.

Two:
Why did Noah take 2 or 7 of each animal on the boat? That is insufficient to guarantee the survival of the species, inbreeding and all. Also, if that happened, if all species on the Earth were reduced down to 2 or 7 individuals at some point in the recent past, we would be able to detect this. All animals would have an amazing lack of genetic diversity. They do not.

As an example, the cheetah was once reduced down to maybe a dozen breeding pairs in the last few ten thousand years or so, and it shows. Any cheetah on the planet can take a skin graft without it being rejected from any other cheetah. Because of this lack of genetic diversity, the species is not looking good. It's having problems.

So, god apparently intervened after the flood to create a few thousand extra individuals of each species to increase the genetic diversity, except for the cheetah. God hates the cheetah.

>>3494254
Theologians told you so? Did they tell that before there was evidence of otherwise, pretty much everything was taken as literal?
But as time passes, number of "metaphorical" passages in Bible grows.

>>3494258
http://newearth.org/frontier/arcana/ac05.htm
Start reading at AC 492

>>3494268
Eventually it will all be interpreted as metaphorical. Luckily for Christians, they'll forget all about the times when it was taken literally. And they won't have any qualms over that fact.

>>3494276
>angelic wisdom

gb2/x/

>>3494280
The trend is actually to interpret it more and more literally, which started in the reformation.

The source I give above for the representative understanding of Genesis is from 250 years ago. For believing in this fundies call me a false profit and whatnot.

I'll sum up the rational position now, for all those who care.

There are basically two kinds of gods - the falsified and the unfalsifiable. All known gods are some mix of both, some more falsified than others, from deism on one side as completely unfalsifiable, and certain kinds of christian gods as completely falsified.

You are an idiot if you belief in falsified claims, and you are an idiot if you believe in unfalsifiable factual claims. In other words, I'm either an atheist or a militant agnostic - I don't know and you don't know either.

--

Another way of looking at it is to remove the respect for religion that we've all been indoctrinated with. One can do this by replacing "god" with any other silly fantasy, like a dragon in my garage. Once you do that, it is much clearer that there never was a dragon in anyone's garage.

The Dragon In My Garage, by Carl Sagan
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

>>3494313
That's not a rational position. It is made up bullshit. No gods have been falsified.

>>3494324
Any god which is claimed to have made the Earth ~6,000 years ago has been falsified. It's called dendrochronology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

>>3494324
>That's not a rational position. It is made up bullshit.

I lol'd

Scientist, I bow to you. At least some people are rational in this world.

>>3494313
I personally have seen miracles. I have never seen the dragon in your garage. So for me God is simply true and I don't have faith in that, I know it.

The problem with your theory is you assume miracles do not exist and those who have seen them, even me, are wrong. It doesn't work like that when you yourself have personally witnessed them.

Don't give me any bullshit that I don't know what I'm talking about, that I'm only seeing what I want to see, or that I'm lying.

>>3494331
The claim that the earth was made 6,000 years ago is not a god.

>>3494337
Some kinds of gods include the claim that the Earth was made 6,000 years ago.

>>3494331
>>3494332
This passes for rational?

>>3494336
>mfw personal experience isn't evidence

>>3494336
>Don't give me any bullshit that I don't know what I'm talking about, that I'm only seeing what I want to see, or that I'm lying.

Sure, we'll just skip to the part of the argument where Carl Sagan says:

>Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

>>3494353
What other kind of experience is there?

>>3494345
no... no they don't.

Some people who believe in some kinds of gods also believe that the earth is 6,000 years old.

>>3494336
Lots of people have seen Allah perform miracles as well. Many, many people have had experiences relating to their religion, and most of these people are NOT Christian.

By your logic, since these people had experiences with their gods, those gods must be real as well. And then you see why personal experience isn't accepted as valid evidence for the supernatural.

>>3494362
>>3494353
The term he's looking for is third party verifiable.

To be fair, non third party verifiable evidence is evidence. However, in science, falsification is all about determining which model or axiom or theory is the most improbable when confronted with contradictory evidence. If you witnessed a miracle yourself, what is more likely? That there is something wrong with your brain, or confirmation bias, or observation bias, coincidence, - or that there actually is a god who works in mysterious ways which are just detectable enough for you but not for anyone else and is as if it was purposefully to avoid detection? Even if I witnessed a single miracle, the evidence would still be far more supportive of a temporary hallucination and a no-god world view.

>>3494367
Of course they're also real.

>>3494364
If your definition of god is a creator god who made the Earth 6,000 years ago, then we've proved that god does not exist with dendrochronology.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

-Stephen F. Roberts

>>3494373
It all depends on the experience, many of which ARE third party verifiable.

Also, it's much easier to dismiss someone else's experience than one's own.

Also, all evidence comes from personal experience, including evidence of the existence of third parties.

>>3494387
Yes, but you don't hear anyone claiming, "I've personally experienced two plus two equaling four, so it must be four." There are alternative ways to prove such claims.

>>3494387
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

Here, thousands of people in a prayer ceremony all saw the Sun swerve around in the sky, and eventually come crashing down into the Earth. Don't get me wrong, it's absurd to consider the possibility that everyone just happened to have a hallucination at the same time, or that there's a vast conspiracy that formed spontaneously amongst the people there. However, it's even more absurd to consider the possibility that the Sun actually crashed into the Earth at Portugal - Portugal isn't that far away dude. Someone else would have noticed.

Those who have actually researched how people think, human cognition, are amazed at just how bad it is. That's why we have measuring machines and science. "The machine doesn't care which side of the bed it woke up this morning. It doesn't care if it had its morning coffee." - Niel deGrasse Tyson.

(Required for everyone on /sci/) Neil Tyson talks about UFOs and the argument from ignorance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k

>>3494380
Nobody defines god that way. And your premise requires EVERYONE to define gods that way. You're twisting yourself in knots trying to find some appearance of a falsification of a definition of God. That is as far from rational as you can get.

>>3494400
Clearly, they witnessed something real. The trick is to reconsile all available information into a consistent model of reality.

>>3494426
>Nobody defines god that way.
Lots of people define god that way.

>And your premise requires EVERYONE to define gods that way.
I said all known gods are some mix of unfalsifiable and falsified. I had no need of everyone to define god that way. I included freaking deism as an example of a god, which is pure unfalsifiable. You seem to be arguing in bad faith.

>You're twisting yourself in knots trying to find some appearance of a falsification of a definition of God. That is as far from rational as you can get.
You're merely arguing a straw man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

>>3494435
>Clearly, they witnessed something real. The trick is to reconsile all available information into a consistent model of reality.
Clearly no. It is not clear at all that they witnessed something real. It possible - to use the now cliche "swamp gas" line, but this is so extreme other unlikely possibilities are also possible.

>>3494426
The definition doesn't need to be so simple: If they define god as having some set of characteristics, which includes creating the earth >10,000 years ago, then that god is falsified.

>>3494449
But nobody does. That's why this is an intellectually dishonest exercise.

>>3494458
But lots of people do. I don't know what sheltered world you live in, but there are millions of Americans which believe in the literal truth of the bible, and that existence is ~6,000 years old. They believe in a literal Adam and Eve, a literal flood, and so on. This is demonstrable fact.

>>3494458
Young Earth creationism. It might not be an especially large division, but that is an example of a falsified god. And the Institute for Creation Research is still around, for what that's worth.

>>3494479
Young Earth creationism is not a god.

Seriously, are you retarded?

>>3494469
> there are millions of Americans which believe in the literal truth of the bible, and that existence is ~6,000 years old.
So the fuck what? That does not mean that the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old is a god!!!

>>3494498
They believe that god made the world 6,000 years ago. This cannot be. Thus their god cannot be.

You're arguing semantics. I'm arguing that if a thing is described as performing a falsified act, then the thing itself has been falsified. You argue that the thing hasn't been falsified. This is a silly argument.

>>3494501
To be very explicitly clear, this doesn't disprove all versions of the christian god, just their version.

>>3494501
Wow. Seriously? Why don't you think about that for a minute and try again.

>>3494469
Which can be metaphysically true.
You reject metaphysical possibilities. You cant expect anyone else to.

>>3494510
I think we're arguing over semantics. Let me be clearer.

Suppose someone claims that I can fly. Obviously I cannot fly. That act has been falsified. Thus the version of me which flies has been falsified. However, other variants of me, such as the nonflying variants, have no been falsified.

I presume that this is the semantic quibble we're in?

>>3494501
North Koreans believe that Kim Jong_Il invented the hamburger.

This cannot be.

Thus Kim Jong Il cannot be.

>>3494516
I don't know what metaphysically true means.

I know what empirically true means. A 6,000 year old Earth is not empirically true. These people believe that it is empirically true. Thus they are wrong.

>>3494522
>Thus Kim Jong Il, inventor of hamburger, cannot be.

Fixed that for you. This particular version of Kim Jong Il is not real.

>>3494519
If the earth were created 5 minutes ago with an appearance of age. This would be a metaphysical truth. It is beyond observation.
By this means the earth could literally be 6000 years old and give the impression of being much older.
I dont expect you to believe this but you can't say its impossible.
In our dreams we do this all the time.

>>3494554
Yep. And we could also be in The Matrix. That's why I prefer to work with empirical truths - we can actually discover those. Metaphysical truths are just mental masturbation.

>>3494554
Sorry if I misunderstand things, but didn't someone earlier say that the Bible says that god is above deceit?

Hello /sci/, I have a philosophical question for you. Do you believe meteorology and electromagnetism necessarily disproves the existence of Zeus? I am an atheist, but I don't see why the two ideas can't be reconciled. What are your thoughts ?

protip: nothing can disprove divine beings. They are, by definiton, ununderstandable for tiny human mind. We can't say was it a God who banged big or not, because our mind just not working outside of Big Bang

>>3494556
As long as you understand that argument is not enough to cause doubt in faith.
>>3494559
How do you find it deceitful. Is it deceitful to dream.

>>3494577
If divine beings are observable, then they are disprovable. Equivalently, if dragons are observable, then dragons are disprovable.

"Divine" in this context is just another word for "magic". You are fiating that we can't disprove it. I disagree with your naked fiat, and I disagree with your needless invocation of magic.

>>3494580
>As long as you understand that argument is not enough to cause doubt in faith.
No, it is. If "faith" is about empirical truths, then it is more than enough to doubt faith. Faith is a retarded means of thinking. I say again - it is retarded to believe in falsified propositions, and it is retarded to believe in unfalsifiable factual propositions.

>>3494580

Dreaming is a mechanism of your mind to do...something. Since you aren't conscious at the time and, presumaby, nobody is controlling your dreams, there isn't a person to be deceiving you. However, god would be misrepresenting the universe if he created the universe with the "appearance of age" to specifically mislead us concerning various aspects of the universe.

>>3494588
Faith is about truth. You cant limit it to what you want in order to help your argument.

The empirical truth and metaphysical truth are not mutually exclusive.

>>3493552
Of course they can be reconciled because everything we know about God is fiction and stories can be changed.

>>3494606
I am not going to respond to whatever maneuvering you're attempting. I say again - it is retarded to believe in falsified propositions, and it is retarded to believe in unfalsifiable factual propositions.

>>3494597
By your standards you are deceiving the people in the dream.
I disagree. Giving something a past is no different then giving something a color.

>>3494615
Its not falsified if its true.
>unfalsifiable factual propositions
Called faith. You say unfalsifiable. How so.

>>3494626

de·ceive   /dɪˈsiv/ Show Spelled
[dih-seev] Show IPA
verb, -ceived, -ceiv·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to mislead by a false appearance or statement

Idle query: What purpose would it have anyway, creating the universe so that it's "metaphysical age" does not line up with its observed age? Excluding deceit, naturally.

And the "people" in our dreams are not "real" as such; they do not have sapience(?) as we know it, unless you also count sock puppets as sapient.

>>3494630
Unfalsifiable in that there is no condition which, when met, would demonstrate it to be false. Unfalsifiable hypotheses are bad because you can't gather evidence which supports them, which means you can't decide if they are true or false.

Well, you can claim that it's true if you wish, but you'd have no evidence.

>>3494615
> it is retarded to believe in unfalsifiable factual propositions.
Unlike "God" which cannot be falsified in any form given the right definition, I propose that there are nearly unfalsifiable beliefs that are not retarded per se.
Here's a few examples:
You believe you exist. you believe you experience consciousness/qualia. To any first-person observer, this is self-evident, while to any third-person observer observing the system that makes up the first-person observer, they cannot ever posit the existence of 'qualia' or 'consciousnes', except merely as the behavior of neural correlates, but this says nothing of wether someone experienced qualia or not. We inductively assume everyone does because we do. Even if we don't and it's a really strange illusion, we cannot believe otherwise (merely by the fact that we have internal state that is half communicable).
Now let's try another case: MWI, MUH, CUH, whatever, are all hypotheses which can be verified from the first-person view through some experiment (for MWI, it would be quantum suicide), but in the crudest form, the experiment can only be performed on oneself and thus only affects one's subjective reality (while also selecting which objective reality one finds himself in), but since they cause a "move"/"flow" between objective realities, it is not falsifiable from the perspective of other observers not part of the experiment.
Both consciousness and multiverse theories can be shown probable or evidently true from the first-person observer view, and thus are testable enough for an observer to form a rational belief in them after testing (before testing, he can only assume that it's likely by induction, information theoretical occam razor generalizations).
Both cases are somewhat controversial, but basically there are entire classes of hypotheses which can be elevated to theories from first person view experiments, but results cannot be communicated to anyone not part of the experiment.

>>3494648
Its not misleading when its already stated. You only find it misleading because you lack faith. Is there a particular reason why the universes metaphysical age should line up. Why do something unnecessary and waste a couple more thousand fruitless years.

Are you saying that its deceit if the people in the dream were real. This is foolish.

>>3494665
This is bad. You should feel bad. Do you not know what and axiom is. Evidence is unfalsifiable. Is it retarded to believe in evidence.

>>3494670
>Why do something unnecessary and waste a couple more thousand fruitless years.

Supposing that god is eternal, he existed for an infinite amount of time before the universe began; please allow me the luxury of skepticism that he'd be impatient over a few thousand more years.

And about the dream people: Even if they were sapient, you still do not have conscious control over the dream. Therefore, you are not responsible for what happens in it.

>>3494696
So lucid dreaming is deceitful. Your imagination in general is deceitful.
It has nothing to do with patience. Why waste time. Doing something for the sake of doing it. This is childish.

>>3494554
What is more likely? That a consistent history exists that results in yourself and everything that you observe and this stretched back to the beginning of time, or one where the universe started with time t=-10min from now and the state from that time, identical to the universe where it evolved naturally. What is more likely?
1) Block time, includes everything
2) Block time, excludes t<-10min
2 is more complex, thus occam's razor prefers 1.
If we allow MUH or basically mathematical existence for the sake of mathematical existence, only 1 is consistent, 2 is essentially a subset of 1 and from an observer's point of view irrelevant - the observer actually experienced the past.
What really confuses me about non-mathematical ontologies is that they assume that existence is something that somehow be magically removed and the moment 'now' for the observer is special and imbdues mathematical stuff with physical existence. Except, we can't really say that anything even exists in that case, or if we do, we appeal to some random complex process which doesn't really make sense, it seems mystical by definition, and requires either making some math special for no reason or being able to make some math 'not exist' for absolutely no reason. I find such ontologies incoherent, but it seems some people can somehow live with them no matter the unjustifiable strangeness.

I suppose if you believe that there's a powerful man in the sky who cares what you do, it's also perfectly reasonable that he could have set up the giant domino display that we would come to recognize as evolution. But then you're making a pretty large assumption, and you might as well be asking yourself how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, for all of the scientific validity your BELIEF system would have.

>>3494707
Occam's razor says the world is my imagination.

>>3493552
No it doesn't disprove a divine being, nor does it disprove pixies or the flying spaghetti monster.
Doesn't mean they are likely to have (or are)existed.

Sage for pointless question get this shit out of /sci/

>>3494686

Unfortunate; I forgot about axioms in this argument. Well, the usefulness of an axiom depends on how much "stuff" you can do with it, how many doors it opens, et cetera, I think similar to the way mathematical axioms are used. Saying that, to be rough, "evidence is legit" is an axiom sent us to the moon and gave us the neat toys that we are currently using to communicate with each other. What can using the axiom "god exists" do for us, that can be demonstrated to us now?

>>3494731
Depends on what you mean by imagination. Try breaking down what imagination means.
What you might want to say more precisely is that if qualia exists, we can only speak of a large set (potentially infinite, if not uncountable) of observer moments exists, and you are one of those moments right now (for a very small interval of time). We will observe the illusion of continuity, and the arrow of time because there is nothing else that we can actually observe given the internal workings of an observer embedded in time (and observers outside of time cannot exist; time itself exists merely as a virtue of the observer, although in certain views, it might make sense to speak of spacetime or block time when speaking of the WHOLE object).

>>3494704

Lucid dreaming would be deceitful, if the people in your dreams were sapient. And imagination does deceive you, if you let yourself be mislead by it.

And for your other argument, why didn't god take it a step further and skip to the end of times, sending the good people to heaven and the bad people to hell? It would save a few thousand years of time, which are apparently precious to him.

>imagination does deceive you

As far as you second argument you are implying god created the universe for people to go to heaven.
Why would you believe this?

>>3494803
>Implying imagination can't deceive you

Note that I haven't said that deceit is necessarily bad. It depends on the circumstance.

As for the other bit, don't forget the sending-people-to-hell part. And if that isn't why the universe was created, could you please tell me what its purpose actually is?

>>3494747
Faith.
1) People believe it will benefit them when they die. And you will die.
2) As far as demonstrations now. It would be metaphysical. Miracles. What you call the result of coincidences is believed to be the work of a divine being.

ITT: People believe math is science

of course, another possibility is that the creationists who say the earth is <10k y/o may be on to something - and it is in fact SCIENCE which has interpreted the data wrong

>>3494919
The funny thing is that its usefulness can't be demonstrated to us, since the dead can't speak, and don't forget to take miracles with a heaping helping of salt due to the Miracle of the Sun.

>>3495255
Doubtful, to say the least.