Who wrote the Bible?

[Neo Rome Republic]

Sorry my bad? so what is evidence to you?

Evidence is anything that gives credence to an idea, it can range from physical evidence, to anecdotes to subjective personal experience. You meant the former unless I was mistaken?

I meant physical, empirical, and logical. I don't trust in the reliability of anecdotes or subjective experience alone.Because, subjective and anecdotal are likely to have THIS: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

[The Realm of God]

Evidence is anything that gives credence to an idea, it can range from physical evidence, to anecdotes to subjective personal experience. You meant the former unless I was mistaken?

I meant physical, empirical, and logical. I don't trust in the reliability of anecdotes or subjective experience alone.Because, subjective and anecdotal are likely to have THIS: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

Then our axioms are different thus it is impossible for us to argue effectively so let's agree to disagree.

[Neo Rome Republic]

I meant physical, empirical, and logical. I don't trust in the reliability of anecdotes or subjective experience alone.Because, subjective and anecdotal are likely to have THIS: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

Then our axioms are different thus it is impossible for us to argue effectively so let's agree to disagree.

Alright, I agree to disagree. Still, I commend your efforts.

[The Realm of God]

Then our axioms are different thus it is impossible for us to argue effectively so let's agree to disagree.

Alright, I agree to disagree. Still, I commend your efforts.

Well it's only possible to prove something like empiricism or idealism without assuming the truthfulness of the premise of that philosophy are correct.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Alright, I agree to disagree. Still, I commend your efforts.

Well it's only possible to prove something like empiricism or idealism without assuming the truthfulness of the premise of that philosophy are correct.

I believe empiricism works because of the results, medicine, technology and, understanding of our world Science has given us. So I feel that it's done more than enough to earn my trust.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Alright, I agree to disagree. Still, I commend your efforts.

Well it's only possible to prove something like empiricism or idealism without assuming the truthfulness of the premise of that philosophy are correct.

The thing is, empiricism works.
If you use empirical methods to make an airplane, it flies. If you use empirical methods to create medicine, you cure people. If you use empirical methods to make rockets, you send people to the moon.

[The Realm of God]

Well it's only possible to prove something like empiricism or idealism without assuming the truthfulness of the premise of that philosophy are correct.

The thing is, empiricism works.
If you use empirical methods to make an airplane, it flies. If you use empirical methods to create medicine, you cure people. If you use empirical methods to make rockets, you send people to the moon.

Correct and its the foundation of the scientific method, its just not too irrational to believe that there are somethings that we can't possibly hope to detect or understand because we posses limited intelligence.

[Neo Rome Republic]

The thing is, empiricism works.
If you use empirical methods to make an airplane, it flies. If you use empirical methods to create medicine, you cure people. If you use empirical methods to make rockets, you send people to the moon.

Correct and its the foundation of the scientific method, its just not too irrational to believe that there are somethings that we can't possibly hope to detect or understand because we posses limited intelligence.

Well, when it comes to things Science doesn't know, why can't we just say ''I don't know'' and wait for the evidence. Why must we make assumptions?

[The Realm of God]

Correct and its the foundation of the scientific method, its just not too irrational to believe that there are somethings that we can't possibly hope to detect or understand because we posses limited intelligence.

Well, when it comes to things Science doesn't know, why can't we just say ''I don't know'' and wait for the evidence. Why must we make assumptions?

Because I don't believe science is the only way to acquire knowledge and the claim that it is can only be proved by a priori reasoning with axioms I don't accept.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Well, when it comes to things Science doesn't know, why can't we just say ''I don't know'' and wait for the evidence. Why must we make assumptions?

Because I don't believe science is the only way to acquire knowledge and the claim that it is can only be proved by a priori reasoning with axioms I don't accept.

Soooooo, what's the alternative?

[The Realm of God]

Because I don't believe science is the only way to acquire knowledge and the claim that it is can only be proved by a priori reasoning with axioms I don't accept.

Soooooo, what's the alternative?

What alternative, you don't have to pick one or the other, science works. I'm just saying philosophy and subjective experience are also ways of acquiring knowledge

[Neo Rome Republic]

Soooooo, what's the alternative?

What alternative, you don't have to pick one or the other, science works. I'm just saying philosophy and subjective experience are also ways of acquiring knowledge

Philosophy yes subjective experience no, at least imo
Well then I guess I'm sticking with Science and you stick with whatever you believe.
Wait, weren't we done having this discussion.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

A question to Christians and Jews alike: which creation account do you follow? Genesis 1, or the one beginning in Genesis 2?

[The Realm of God]

What alternative, you don't have to pick one or the other, science works. I'm just saying philosophy and subjective experience are also ways of acquiring knowledge

Philosophy yes subjective experience no, at least imo
Well then I guess I'm sticking with Science and you stick with whatever you believe.
Wait, weren't we done having this discussion.

I use science for natural knowledge however metaphysics isn't a scientific field.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Philosophy yes subjective experience no, at least imo
Well then I guess I'm sticking with Science and you stick with whatever you believe.
Wait, weren't we done having this discussion.

I use science for natural knowledge however metaphysics isn't a scientific field.

How does subjective experience play into this?

[Menassa]

Though how many Jews accept that as literal truth is another matter.

Sounds like a good question for Menassa.

The Bible is both literal and Metaphorical all depending upon how we are dictated in learning it via the Oral Law.

To your Moses death point a few options have been presented:
Moses wrote it... sadly of course.
Joshua wrote it after Moses's death.

[Menassa]

Sounds like a good question for Menassa.

I'd be surprised if anybody knows, since in my anecdotal experience, acceptance of literal authorship ranges from "yes, it's d'var hashem 'b'yad Moshe -- the word of God, by the hand of Moses -- except for various typos which have crept in over the years" to "well, parts of it are d'var hashem, but I'm not sure which parts"... and that was just among the Orthodox. So, I think poll results may simply reflect the choices offered.

I remember once walking in to a synagogue for afternoon prayers and I saw two men yelling at each other, and I mean yelling.

They were debating whether it was appropriate to put a Talmud on top of a Tanach and/or vice versa.

"You can't understand the Tanach without the Talmud" one said.
"You can't have a Talmud without a Tanach." The other repeated.

Why I mean by that is we believe the Bible is living, both in Law and in Ethics.

[Menassa]

A question to Christians and Jews alike: which creation account do you follow? Genesis 1, or the one beginning in Genesis 2?

God created the earth with trees, created humans and prompted humans to pray for rain for the trees, perhaps to teach them about prayer... perhaps to teach them about his power.... who can tell?

When in doubt, Rashi out.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Well, when it comes to things Science doesn't know, why can't we just say ''I don't know'' and wait for the evidence. Why must we make assumptions?

Because I don't believe science is the only way to acquire knowledge and the claim that it is can only be proved by a priori reasoning with axioms I don't accept.

If science isn't the only way to acquire knowledge, then fucking show it.
Science has been what's advancing civilization, not archaic little books with poor plot development.
Science is how our ancestors realized that putting rocks inside little pouches and swinging them around could kill animals easily. They experimented to find the most effective ways to do things, and used what worked best.
Science is how our ancestors figured out how to throw a spear even farther with even less effort - the spear thrower/atlatl.
Science is how our ancestors figured out that by putting seeds in the ground, they could make their own food.
Science is how our ancestors figured out that by breeding the best animals, you would get more like them rather than like the worse ones.
Science is how our ancestors figured out that by digging deep into the ground, you could have a constant source of water.
Science is how. Advancement is how, not stagnation, not "personal revelation" or whatever bullshit method you mean by "subjective experience".

[St George]

I did.

[Lolomz]

A short time ago, not so far away... I got bored. And so, I wrote some books to fuck with the world.

little fix : i wrote some books was fucked the world

[The Realm of God]

I'd be surprised if anybody knows, since in my anecdotal experience, acceptance of literal authorship ranges from "yes, it's d'var hashem 'b'yad Moshe -- the word of God, by the hand of Moses -- except for various typos which have crept in over the years" to "well, parts of it are d'var hashem, but I'm not sure which parts"... and that was just among the Orthodox. So, I think poll results may simply reflect the choices offered.

I remember once walking in to a synagogue for afternoon prayers and I saw two men yelling at each other, and I mean yelling.

They were debating whether it was appropriate to put a Talmud on top of a Tanach and/or vice versa.

"You can't understand the Tanach without the Talmud" one said.
"You can't have a Talmud without a Tanach." The other repeated.

Why I mean by that is we believe the Bible is living, both in Law and in Ethics.

The Torah is your law code, the Talmud is your dictionary of cases and precedents to use a common law analogy.

[The Realm of God]

Because I don't believe science is the only way to acquire knowledge and the claim that it is can only be proved by a priori reasoning with axioms I don't accept.

If science isn't the only way to acquire knowledge, then fucking show it.
Science has been what's advancing civilization, not archaic little books with poor plot development.
Science is how our ancestors realized that putting rocks inside little pouches and swinging them around could kill animals easily. They experimented to find the most effective ways to do things, and used what worked best.
Science is how our ancestors figured out how to throw a spear even farther with even less effort - the spear thrower/atlatl.
Science is how our ancestors figured out that by putting seeds in the ground, they could make their own food.
Science is how our ancestors figured out that by breeding the best animals, you would get more like them rather than like the worse ones.
Science is how our ancestors figured out that by digging deep into the ground, you could have a constant source of water.
Science is how. Advancement is how, not stagnation, not "personal revelation" or whatever bullshit method you mean by "subjective experience".

Philosophy created the scientific method.
Philosophy create ethics.
Philosophy created the government systems and law codes under which we live .
Philosophy created positivism the arguement that you use.

The thing is, that you don't understand what I'm saying, I'm argueing that you can discern knowledge by methods other than science. Oh and by subjective experience I mean subjective experience not personal revelation I'm not an.evangelical. Stop making up bollocks to put words into my moth and come of your positivitic high horse.

[The Parkus Empire]

Ernest Hemingway?

[Blasveck]

If science isn't the only way to acquire knowledge, then fucking show it.
Science has been what's advancing civilization, not archaic little books with poor plot development.
Science is how our ancestors realized that putting rocks inside little pouches and swinging them around could kill animals easily. They experimented to find the most effective ways to do things, and used what worked best.
Science is how our ancestors figured out how to throw a spear even farther with even less effort - the spear thrower/atlatl.
Science is how our ancestors figured out that by putting seeds in the ground, they could make their own food.
Science is how our ancestors figured out that by breeding the best animals, you would get more like them rather than like the worse ones.
Science is how our ancestors figured out that by digging deep into the ground, you could have a constant source of water.
Science is how. Advancement is how, not stagnation, not "personal revelation" or whatever bullshit method you mean by "subjective experience".

Philosophy created the scientific method.
Philosophy create ethics.
Philosophy created the government systems and law codes under which we live .
Philosophy created positivism the arguement that you use.

The thing is, that you don't understand what I'm saying, I'm argueing that you can discern knowledge by methods other than science. Oh and by subjective experience I mean subjective experience not personal revelation I'm not an.evangelical. Stop making up bollocks to put words into my moth and come of your positivitic high horse.

Yes, that is true. There are other ways the discern knowledge about the non-physical world. Regarding the physical world, that's science's job. Regarding things like morality, law, etc, those things can be discerned without needing religion or God, just to clarify.If you have any other ways, I'd be glad to learn.