I fully agree with you that science is often wrong and inaccurate, even though its one of our most rigorous forms of investigation and learning. I disagree with the next move, which is to say something like ,"Well, if science is so rigorous yet filled with disagreement and misunderstanding, how could we expect something like the Bible, which is really a piece of literature after all, to be any better"?
Well, I think we should expect it to be better because it is allegedly divine revelation from a being who loves and values truth, and wants us to know and understand that truth as best as we possibly can. He's supposed to be all powerful to boot, so even if humans have trouble communicating clear, unambiguous beliefs to one another, it doesn't seem like a divine being should have similar issues.
See. You switched terms between the two paragraphs.
In your first paragraph you (correctly) note that the observer is flawed despite the flawlessness of the phenomenon observed.
In your second paragraph you claim the phenomenon being observed (Deity and its revelation) is flawed but it is the observer who seems to be incapable of error he's merely received bad copy.
The sky is blue. Whether or not it is so because the gods painted the ceiling of the world that color or because electromagnetic waves passing through the gasses of the atmosphere refract fall to either truth or falsehood but at no point was there ever a miscommunication that the sky appears blue to a healthy human eye.
And this appeal to omnipotence is silly. By asking, "Why doesn't God just make perfect humans?" you get the answer, "supposedly he once did."
If you then ask, "Well then why not make humans who are incapable of falling from grace" the retort is forced to become, "Why not ask Him to make 4-side triangles?" (HINT: they would no longer be triangles) or "Why bother asking a woman to marry you when you can take her by exertion of desire and will?"
This whole, "it's God's fault we're so screwed-up" smacks of the same "t'was the woman that you gave me that did cause me to eat of the fruit of the tree".
At least in that regard observed phenomenon have led to a theorem that seems to hold predictive ability.
Now, at the expense of seeming rude, this conversation has nothing to do the OP and the fact of the matter is: this is your stock in trade. The same debate is repeated in every thread you join in this forum. Your desire to not believe or hold open for consideration or even to simply enjoy the conversation is duly noted. In this your skills are impeccable.
But I was asking for opinions on a wholly different subject matter and I was soliticiting opinions from the various doctrinal schools represented by the forums membership. I want to see how different schools see the topic at hand. I am not one of them so I am dependent upon their voices for instruction. The same romantic's eye that drives some to telescopes drives me to these sorts of conversations and you're dulling the thrill.
I will have plenty of other mundane topics such as, "What was Jesus scrawling in the sand when the adulteress was brought to him" and you will once again have your opportunity to somehow convolute the discussion into why you think religion is so evil, man is so pristine and even if there was a God it's probably his fault anyway.
So be a good fellow, will you?
