Biblical contradictions.

[Baruch]

How much can Kant cant, if Kant can't Kant?

Can "a priori" be dialectically compared to "a posteriori" ... so that Hegel can pull Marx out of his own ass?

[Mousetrap]

Mousetrap.   We've already established that your book doesn't mean the things that are written in it.

If you can interpret those words to mean whatever you want them to mean, then who's to say they mean anything at all?

Ok, who are WE?
All the atheists who made up a lot of Straw Puppets?
Nice argument indeed.
Well, we all established that Atheists are totally incapable to read the Bible, and they never did!
Yet, they will criticize it!
Nice argument indeed!

[Mousetrap]

There was a real psychological change in the Mediterranean cultures at that time (well at least to get it to 10% of the population by the time of Constantine).  And it was initiated by Jews.  The pseudo-intellectualism of the Sophists are still going strong also ... alive today.  There were early "Christians" but they weren't Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox.  They were Jewish messianics.  And only Paul let Gentiles into his congregations.  At that time, Peter/James/Barnabas won the argument.  All Jews.  Most of the Gentiles that came into Paul's congregations were already associated with synagogues.  See "In Search of Paul".  If you want to see what an early congregation was like read "The Didache".  It isn't like church today, and it was mostly Jewish, mostly charismatic.  Early Hasidic.

You get my trophy for the best informed post so far.
Now I wonder, Why on earth would Paul have said what he did?
First hand information about Jesus perhaps?

[Mousetrap]

...........

You should not have searched so far and in-between, a simple search on Google on "Universal theory of the heavens PDF would have saved you a lot of time.
You would have reached sites as these.
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/spaceshotsairheads/Kantuniversalnaturalhistory.pdf

And Yes, I also do not agree with Kant that there is life on other planets.
however, Even if he was wrong with the densities of planets, it does not have anything to do with his theory of the Nebular development of our solar system.
Even if we look at what Laplace and Swedenborg wrote, we will find huge assumptions that was incorrect.

The fact remains that on the nebular theory, Kant was correct, and every scientist that argues against this fact, does so because they know that the Nebular theory correlates with the Biblical description.

But why dont we further this argument to its fullest?
I showed how the Bible describes the Nebular theory, whereby its description denotes gravity, Time, matter and space.
If you say Kant did not describe the Nebular theory, and he did not get it from the Bible, then...

I was able to do so!

Therefore, I read something from the Bible that science now knows is fact!

Mousetrap, the philosopher who could prove science from the Bible!

This is just great!

[Baruch]

You get my trophy for the best informed post so far.
Now I wonder, Why on earth would Paul have said what he did?
First hand information about Jesus perhaps?

Paul never met the living Jesus, he had an epiphany on the way to Damascus.  The Pillars in Jerusalem didn't approve of him evangelizing Jews.  They promised not to fight him, if he only evangelized the Gentiles.  Peter, James and Barnabas supported the Jewish mission.  Paul was going into synagogues and calling out Gentiles who were associate members (not full members, because not circumcised yet).  Ancient people (other than Semites and Africans) objected strongly to circumcision.  These were G-d Fearers (Jews didn't need to fear G-d, they were saved by virtue of Abraham etc).  So how do you get a Jewish salvation, without getting circumcised and observing kosher?  Easy grace ... get saved in the spirit, not in the flesh.

[Jason78]

Ok, who are WE?
All the atheists who made up a lot of Straw Puppets?
Nice argument indeed.

You and I are "We".     

Well, we all established that Atheists are totally incapable to read the Bible, and they never did!
Yet, they will criticize it!
Nice argument indeed!

I've read it more than once.   I've even read more than one edition.  Including the King James version which I swear was 10 times longer with all the archaic wording.

You should actually try reading it from cover to cover.   Some bits of it make for a really good read.

[Hakurei Reimu]

You should not have searched so far and in-between, a simple search on Google on "Universal theory of the heavens PDF would have saved you a lot of time.
You would have reached sites as these.
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/spaceshotsairheads/Kantuniversalnaturalhistory.pdf

Well, la-dee-dah. I found my translation easily on Google, too, although I had to wade through some pages to find one that looked like I could actually read â€" searching with the German name was probably a mistake. Oh well.

And Yes, I also do not agree with Kant that there is life on other planets.
however, Even if he was wrong with the densities of planets, it does not have anything to do with his theory of the Nebular development of our solar system.

Actually, it does:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIxvQMhttq4

If Kant's model doesn't match up with experiment or observation, it's wrong, needing revision or abandonment.

Even if we look at what Laplace and Swedenborg wrote, we will find huge assumptions that was incorrect.

So? They were wrong, too. It's not as if one or the other must be right. They can all be wrong.

The fact remains that on the nebular theory, Kant was correct, and every scientist that argues against this fact, does so because they know that the Nebular theory correlates with the Biblical description.

Funny you should say that. I've now read through the entirity of the Allgemeine Naturgeschichte and I have found but one single, brief reference to the biblical scripture (that in using a hypothetical Earth ring to legislate one out of the waters above the firmament problem), even though Kant references such luminaries as Decartes, Lucretius, Thomas Wright, Tycho Brahe, and of course Isaac Newton himself. There are many references to the divine therein, but not to the scripture. For a source that you claim Kant drew such inspiration from, Kant himself is curiously stingy with that particular source.

I'm beginning to think that you are the one who's never read Kant.

But why dont we further this argument to its fullest?
I showed how the Bible describes the Nebular theory, whereby its description denotes gravity, Time, matter and space.

Uh, no you haven't. Even Kant himself doesn't say that scripture is where his description of his nebular theory came from. He, in fact, references Thomas Wright. And lots of other people, but only one brief mention of the actual bible and that's in reference to the waters above the firmament, and how a ring around Earth could resolve that problem. He, however, arrived at his nebular theory by his own work and building on the work of others.

If you say Kant did not describe the Nebular theory, and he did not get it from the Bible, then...

I was able to do so!

Oh, I never said that Kant didn't describe A nebular theory, I said that he doesn't describe MODERN nebular theory. There is a difference. What I'm claiming is that you don't even have the wherewithall to convey Kant's nebular theory correctly. This is symptomatic of stealing the authority of another person and using it as a ventriloquist dummy.

Therefore,

Therefore nothing. You've proven nothing, and demonstrated that you know nothing. I'm still waiting on those calculations that show that Kant's nebular theory even conserves energy, which are strangely absent from your posts. Heck, I have found nothing in Kant's nebular theory that shows that he even thought that the Earth ended up as a cold wet ball rather than as a hot ball that cooled off.

Mousetrap, the philosopher who could prove science from the Bible!

This is just great!

Moustrap, the guy who crows victory prematurely. You are no philosopher and you have not proven science using the Bible, because your use doesn't produce anything that looks like the science of the origin of the universe as we currently understand it. You think we're playing baseball, when we're actually playing soccer.

Quite frankly, your use of blue, bold and large is quite annoying, as it makes you read like a prancing fop. I think you should have your markup privilages removed.

[Baruch]

Atheists agree ... Kant is god ;-)  He was a philosopher, not a scientist.

[Mike Cl]

Atheists agree ... Kant is god ;-)  He was a philosopher, not a scientist.

You  Kant say that.

[Mousetrap]

You and I are "We".     

I've read it more than once.   I've even read more than one edition.  Including the King James version which I swear was 10 times longer with all the archaic wording.

You should actually try reading it from cover to cover.   Some bits of it make for a really good read.

Not only did I read it, I read it more than a dosen times.

But lets see if you can top this, I summarized it and printed it in book form.
Unfortunately in my mother tongue. Afrikaans.

You should actually read the Bible in the easiest language on Earth.
Afrikaans!

Then you will go to heaven.

If you dont learn Afrikaans, you will not understand what we say to each other in heaven.

[Hydra009]

Mousetrap, the philosopher who could prove science from the Bible!

Sometimes, a...y'know, sometimes, a story's just a story. You try to read into every little thing, and find meaning in everything anyone says, you'll just drive yourself crazy. Had a friend do it once. Wasn't pretty. We talked about it for years. And then not only that, but...you'll likely end up believing something you shouldn't believe, thinking something you shouldn't think, or assuming something you shouldn't assume.

He proceeded to pour me a glass of just...ice cold lemonade. Ooh, you ever mix it with iced tea? Ya do, like...half lemonade ha...ooh, you should try it soâ€"well, you can't...

[Baruch]

Sometimes, a...y'know, sometimes, a story's just a story. You try to read into every little thing, and find meaning in everything anyone says, you'll just drive yourself crazy. Had a friend do it once. Wasn't pretty. We talked about it for years. And then not only that, but...you'll likely end up believing something you shouldn't believe, thinking something you shouldn't think, or assuming something you shouldn't assume.

He proceeded to pour me a glass of just...ice cold lemonade. Ooh, you ever mix it with iced tea? Ya do, like...half lemonade ha...ooh, you should try it soâ€"well, you can't...

Arnold Palmer's favorite.

[Blackleaf]

Sometimes, a...y'know, sometimes, a story's just a story. You try to read into every little thing, and find meaning in everything anyone says, you'll just drive yourself crazy. Had a friend do it once. Wasn't pretty. We talked about it for years. And then not only that, but...you'll likely end up believing something you shouldn't believe, thinking something you shouldn't think, or assuming something you shouldn't assume.

He proceeded to pour me a glass of just...ice cold lemonade. Ooh, you ever mix it with iced tea? Ya do, like...half lemonade ha...ooh, you should try it soâ€"well, you can't...

Reminds me of a time I was having a good conversation with my friend Orville. We were sitting by the river, watching the fish leap over the falls, and I said to Orville, "Sometimes I feel like a fish leaping over and over again, trying to get somewhere, only to find myself in the jaws of a beast."

He, of course, looked at me surprised, you know? "Have you been in the jaws of a beast, friend?"

To which I said, "No, of course not, Orville." I said, "No, no, no, no. I simply meant that life can seem like a relentless endeavor to overcome meaningless obstacles, only to meet an equally meaningless fate, regardless of your efforts. Regardless of the obstacles you've passed."

And Orville, he stood and proceeded to drape me with a picnic cloth, to which I asked him, I said, "Friend, what - what are you doing?"

He looked at me, very concerned really, "I feel like you've gotten too much sun."

Indeed. Indeed I had. He proceeded to pour me a glass of just ice cold lemonade. But anyways, so you may be asking yourself, "How did I go from sitting by the falls and drinking lemonade, to typing in this forum with an entire assortment of fruity friends?"

Well, there's really no good answer to that, but perhaps I've met a demise of my own at some point and this is my afterlife or my dream. Whatever it might be, I honestly don't know. Or maybe it doesn't mean anything at all. Maybe it doesn't mean anything at all.

[Baruch]

OK, good story, but I don't believe you ever even met Mr Redenbacher ;-)

That fish has a purpose ... to spawn.  If you aren't going upstream to spawn then you are meant to be bear food.

[ferdmonger]

Not only did I read it, I read it more than a dosen times.

But lets see if you can top this, I summarized it and printed it in book form.
Unfortunately in my mother tongue. Afrikaans.

You should actually read the Bible in the easiest language on Earth.
Afrikaans!

Then you will go to heaven.

If you dont learn Afrikaans, you will not understand what we say to each other in heaven.

If you dont learn Afrikaans, you will not understand what we say to each other in heaven.

There is nothing I could care less about than your after-death fiction.

I mean, really.