tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823028754153829159.post7983090252222795692..comments2024-01-19T20:36:22.060+10:00Comments on soli deo gloria: Do ancient religious texts contain modern scientific knowledge?Ross H. McKenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09950455939572097456noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823028754153829159.post-84608610478307643322014-11-22T18:29:15.786+10:002014-11-22T18:29:15.786+10:00Thanks for your comment.
I think I over-stated th...Thanks for your comment.<br /><br />I think I over-stated the atheist response. Perhaps I should have said something more like, "Atheists point out the flaws in these arguments and sometimes cite them as examples of the silliness and irrationality of religion".Ross H. McKenziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09950455939572097456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8823028754153829159.post-18839903892437682014-11-18T01:59:58.388+10:002014-11-18T01:59:58.388+10:00A very good and useful piece -- many thanks for it...A very good and useful piece -- many thanks for it! -- but:<br /><br /><i>On the other hand, some atheists point out the failure of these arguments and claim that justifies atheism.</i><br /><br />I don't think I've ever come across an atheist making this claim.<br /><br />I suppose the argument could be made that, if (a) you're claiming that your holy text is the inerrant word of your deity and (b) said holy text is demonstrably not inerrant, then (c) your own logic implies that the status of your deity is problematic, but I'd say that's more of a Socratic argument than an attempt to justify atheism through recognition that the arguments of those claiming holy texts predict science are bogus.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com