On the Necessity of Proving Things

[itinerant1]

continuation…

I have never denied that therea re truths in the bible, but what I question is the reality of it and therfore the reality of God.

Now I am confused. You list yourself as “Catholic” but you are questioning the reality of God. You might want to elaborate on that.

You do not deny that there are truths in the Bible, but you question the reality of it. That sounds to me like a contradictory statement. Explain yourself further. I am not sure we speak the same language, yet.

I understand this, but you have missed the “truth” of what I was asking.

Ok, I’ll restate it:

What in the bible is a statement about Reality and what eveidence do you have to support that conclusion (and remember evidence is data or argument that diferentiates one position from the other - in this case it is differentiation the parts of the bible that are reality and the parts that are not).

Sorry, but I don’t understand your question. What do you mean by “reality” in the Bible, and that which is not “reality”? You will need to elaborate.

 

[sinnerdexter]

You do not deny that there are truths in the Bible, but you question the reality of it. That sounds to me like a contradictory statement. Explain yourself further. I am not sure we speak the same language, yet.

As you said yourself: “Hence, Plato taught very profound truths using myths. “Myth” in this sense does not mean something that is not true, as we often use the word today when we might say “That is just a myth”.”

Even though Plato taught using myths, and those myths were not seen as being reality, they did hold lessons that could be learnt, and that the values and ideas behind those lessons were true.

As another example: In Asops fables (and for example: specifically the Ant and the grasshopper), they often featured talking animals and such, but we know that ants, or grasshoppers can’t talk. So these fables (and fable is a bit indication that they aren’t real) were fiction, but the lessons learnt by them (eg: it is a good idea to work in times of plenty so you will have resources for when there is not) are true (would you deny the truth that it is a good idea to work and save for lean times?)

Sorry, but I don’t understand your question. What do you mean by “reality” in the Bible, and that which is not “reality”? You will need to elaborate.

You were talking about how you understood the word “litterally” to mean “written” (or at least pertaining to being written). I was trying to avoid using “litterally”, and so I used a different term: “Reality”.

For example: In Exodus, the Egytians were supposed to have kept massive amounts of slaves, in fact a whole country (the Isralites). However Archeologists have not found any records in egypt that confirm this.

Yes, the egyptians did keep slaves, but this was for hostage reasons (to keep tribute kingdoms in line) or as house hold servents. They never kept large number of general slaves (not enough to constitute an entire culture). In bible studdies I have had, the pyramids were explained as being built buy such slaves as evidence that these bible stories were real, but to build the pyramids requiered skilled labour and no slave constitutes as skilled labour, plus they have very good records that the pyramids were built by egyptian citizens. They have their work huts, payment records, medical records (no slave would have complex and costly surgery performed on them), they even know the names of some of these people and can tract them through other various records availabel from that time.

So, no, at not time did enough slaves exist in Egypt to constitute an entire culture of people. This means that the story of Exodus is fiction and not real. It might have some lessons to be learnt that can be considdered “true”, but it is most conclusivly not real.

If the story is not real, then it is a fable, or analogy. But God exists in this fable, and that means that God might just be a fiction too.

 

[itinerant1]

As you said yourself: “Hence, Plato taught very profound truths using myths. “Myth” in this sense does not mean something that is not true, as we often use the word today when we might say “That is just a myth”.”

Even though Plato taught using myths, and those myths were not seen as being reality, they did hold lessons that could be learnt, and that the values and ideas behind those lessons were true.

As another example: In Asops fables (and for example: specifically the Ant and the grasshopper), they often featured talking animals and such, but we know that ants, or grasshoppers can’t talk. So these fables (and fable is a bit indication that they aren’t real) were fiction, but the lessons learnt by them (eg: it is a good idea to work in times of plenty so you will have resources for when there is not) are true (would you deny the truth that it is a good idea to work and save for lean times?)

You were talking about how you understood the word “litterally” to mean “written” (or at least pertaining to being written). I was trying to avoid using “litterally”, and so I used a different term: “Reality”.

For example: In Exodus, the Egytians were supposed to have kept massive amounts of slaves, in fact a whole country (the Isralites). However Archeologists have not found any records in egypt that confirm this.

Yes, the egyptians did keep slaves, but this was for hostage reasons (to keep tribute kingdoms in line) or as house hold servents. They never kept large number of general slaves (not enough to constitute an entire culture). In bible studdies I have had, the pyramids were explained as being built buy such slaves as evidence that these bible stories were real, but to build the pyramids requiered skilled labour and no slave constitutes as skilled labour, plus they have very good records that the pyramids were built by egyptian citizens. They have their work huts, payment records, medical records (no slave would have complex and costly surgery performed on them), they even know the names of some of these people and can tract them through other various records availabel from that time.

So, no, at not time did enough slaves exist in Egypt to constitute an entire culture of people. This means that the story of Exodus is fiction and not real. It might have some lessons to be learnt that can be considdered “true”, but it is most conclusivly not real.

If the story is not real, then it is a fable, or analogy. But God exists in this fable, and that means that God might just be a fiction too.

I think one reads a text more literally the more he understands and appreciates the particular literary genre of the text, how it functions to convey the author’s message.

The answer to the discrepancies about the number of Hebrew slaves in Egypt is found in understanding how primitive cultures told their own history. Stories of an event, person, or situation were passed down orally from generation to generation. As the stories are told they get embellished and modified in various ways common to the phenomenon of story telling. The Hebrews like any other ancient culture have their tribal stories which were traditions. Oftentimes, there is more than one account or tradition about the same thing.

Eventually, these oral traditions were committed to writing. The writer oftentimes combined the different traditions. The oral traditions were sacred traditions, so the redactor worked to preserve each one.

We look at the written account of Hebrews rescued from slavery by Moses. The account has been embellished over the generations of oral story telling. Hence, Moses is described as rescuing a great number of Hebrews from slavery. Most likely, it was a small band of runaway slaves. And there are other embellishments that make for a great story.

But we must ask ourselves what is the message the author is conveying in this account of Moses. The message is that God is being faithful to the promise He made to Abraham, and that He is truly the God of the Hebrew people.

The scientific accuracy of the details is inconsequential to the primary message of the story, a message that is absolutely true.

Scripture is both human and Divine. As human it has all the characteristics of the literature of the cultural milieu in which it arose, except that its religious message is inerrant or necessarily true.

This is a good example of my previous statements that the ancient Hebrews did not write history in a scientific manner. We can wish that they would have written their stories differently, but that would be an unrealistic expectation for the cultural milieu of the Ancient Near East.

Plato can convey philosophical truths using myths. Aesop can teach moral lessons using fables. And the writers of Genesis can convey religious truths by using a “religious” history of the Hebrews that relies on the customary methods of story telling and oral traditions.

 

[anthony022071]

If you think said statements are not philosophical, just how then would you classify them? And what makes you think they are not philosophical statements? Most certainly, they are not scientific statements. I’m quite sure you have painted yourself into a corner.

It isn’t as if statements about the world that are not scientific must be philosophical. If someone claims that nature is all that exists,it is no more philosophical by itself that if he said reality sucks. By itself,it is just a statement proposed as fact. People can believe that nature is all that exists even without having been influenced by naturalistic philosophy like that of Spinoza. That claim is the flip-side of the claim that there is no God. It does not show any love of wisdom or pursuit of truth.

 

[anthony022071]

To the contrary, people every day make philosophical statements though they may not be familiar with any philosophical system or methods of philosophical reasoning.

That’s true. Philosophical thought is not limited to systems or methods. But the claim that nature is all that exists is not,by itself,philosophical because it does not show any pursuit of wisdom or love of truth. It is just a claim without context of thought or elaboration of moral implications.

Moral truths or ethics is only one branch of philosophy. A philosopher need not treat of moral truths. He may specialize in other areas such as epistemology or ontology.

Philosophical thought always has moral inferences,because wisdom always has to do with morality,or has moral implications.

 

[anthony022071]

Cardinal Newman, in his series of lectures entitled “On the Idea of a University” explains the relation between the natural sciences and theology. Cardinal Newman correctly explains the proper limit of the natural sciences. Newman articulates the very same position I have been arguing in this thread against the inherently flawed and false view advocated by “anthony022071”.

Cardinal Newman did not consider the fact that the “proper limit” of the natural sciences (that is,the naturalistic view) leads to explanations of the phyical world in which the powers of God are given to natural causes alone. Theologians and scientists may agree that science cannot speak of final causes,but the fact is that the naturalistc view of science makes natural causes alone the final causes. So if you go along with evolution theory,which gives to nature itself the power to do what only God can do in natire,you are accepting an explanation that cannot be reconciled with the doctrine of creation and divine providence.

 

[sinnerdexter]

I think one reads a text more literally the more he understands and appreciates the particular literary genre of the text, how it functions to convey the author’s message.

The answer to the discrepancies about the number of Hebrew slaves in Egypt is found in understanding how primitive cultures told their own history. Stories of an event, person, or situation were passed down orally from generation to generation. As the stories are told they get embellished and modified in various ways common to the phenomenon of story telling. The Hebrews like any other ancient culture have their tribal stories which were traditions. Oftentimes, there is more than one account or tradition about the same thing.

Eventually, these oral traditions were committed to writing. The writer oftentimes combined the different traditions. The oral traditions were sacred traditions, so the redactor worked to preserve each one.

We look at the written account of Hebrews rescued from slavery by Moses. The account has been embellished over the generations of oral story telling. Hence, Moses is described as rescuing a great number of Hebrews from slavery. Most likely, it was a small band of runaway slaves. And there are other embellishments that make for a great story.

But we must ask ourselves what is the message the author is conveying in this account of Moses. The message is that God is being faithful to the promise He made to Abraham, and that He is truly the God of the Hebrew people.

The scientific accuracy of the details is inconsequential to the primary message of the story, a message that is absolutely true.

Scripture is both human and Divine. As human it has all the characteristics of the literature of the cultural milieu in which it arose, except that its religious message is inerrant or necessarily true.

This is a good example of my previous statements that the ancient Hebrews did not write history in a scientific manner. We can wish that they would have written their stories differently, but that would be an unrealistic expectation for the cultural milieu of the Ancient Near East.

Plato can convey philosophical truths using myths. Aesop can teach moral lessons using fables. And the writers of Genesis can convey religious truths by using a “religious” history of the Hebrews that relies on the customary methods of story telling and oral traditions.

Ok, so it seems that you are not disagreeing with my premise that what is in the bible is not necesarily something that is real. That of course includes God.

But is God is not real, then why should I believe in Him rather than in some other God that is not real (like Aphrodie is Zeus or Thor)?

There are truths in the religious works of the Asgardian Gods, should I consider them just as valid a God as your God? So if all it takes is “truth” in religious writeings to convinve you to believe in a God, then why do you reject Thor (He is the God of lighting, and I notice that even christian churchs put lightning rods on their steeples, are they afraid that Thor will take offense that they don’t worship Him?). We even have a day of the week named after Him, does this count as evidence that Thor is the God we should be worshiping?

I bet you don’t think all that. Why, because you don’t think Thor is REAL.

And that is the point. This is not about whetther there is truth, or utility in a religious text, it is about whether or not a particular God is real (or any Gods for that matter). You would be willing to admit that Thor is not real because there is no evidence (see my other posts concerning evidence) for His existance. But this is exactly the same case as with the christian God.

The stories of the Norse Gods have litterary merit, they have truths to them and even good story telling (The Opera: Ring of the Nibelungen : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Ring_des_Nibelungen - lord of the rings was loosely based on this too). These are the criteria you have identified as being the reasonons that you believe in the christian God, but these apply equally well to the Norse Gods, the Greek God, the Roman Gods or any single religion ever followed.

As I said about evidence: The purpose of evidence is to distinguish between claims. So at the very least it has to do that. And, as your criteria don’t do that, either become a Thor worshiper, or admit that we need to have the “necessity of proving things” (as per the topic of this discusion).

But, if we have a necesity to prove thing, then you need to provide proof of Gods existance (and that requiers evidence that distinguishes firstly that God or Gods exist as compared to their non existance, and then that your God is the one that exists rather than any other God).

 

[itinerant1]

Ok, so it seems that you are not disagreeing with my premise that what is in the bible is not necesarily something that is real. That of course includes God.

No, that is not a correct characterization of what I said… And I certainly did not say that God is not real.

I spoke of what is infallibly true in the Bible: the author’s message, what the author is teaching. We do not need to include all the details that provide the setting of a story, as being the author’s message.

I also said Scripture is both “human and Divine”. This is a clear affirmation of the reality of God. And how else can you account for the fact I said the author’s message is infallibly true? It is because the author work’s under the influence of Divine Inspiration. Divine Inspiration means Yahweh is real. He is more real than the universe, which He created ex nihilo.

I am concerned that you come up with these kinds of profound misinterpretations of my posts. Maybe I will try keeping them short, perchance that will help some.

 

[anthony022071]

The fact that what occurred a fraction of a second after the big bang is beyond your knowledge does not mean that it is beyond the knowledge of humanity at large. The big bang theory predicts omni directional galactic redshift. Physical experience agrees with that prediction. The big band theory predicts a microwave background. Physical experience agrees with that prediction.

It isn’t just beyond my knowledge,it is beyond anyone’s knowledge,because nobody was there when it happened there is no means by which it could be apprehended or measured.
The Big Bang theory cannot predict what happened at the beginning of the universe,and that is the real issue,not the consistency of the model.

The reference we use to measure time is called Planck’s time, the time it takes a photon in a vacuum to travel Planck’s length, and the bench mark we use to measure time is called a Caesium Clock, which is billions of times more accurate than the revolutions of celestial bodies.

Then why do you claim that science can account for the universe within a fraction of a second after its beginning? A second is a unit of time within the context of hours and days,which are based upon the revolutions of the earth,sun and moon.

There are a number of well written books on this subject. I suggest you consult one or more of them before you make any more factual errors.

You haven’t shown any factual errors on my part. You’re just going along uncritically with scientific theories about things that have not been witnessed.

The microwave echo of the big bang was seen by Penzias and Wilson and since then the COBE probe has seen the microwave background in great detail. Galactic Red Shifts have been seen. The only context in which these phenomena can be understood is the inflationary model of the big bang.

Microwave echoes and galactic shifts do not say anything about the beginning of the universe,unless you have already come to the conclusion that that there must have been a Big Bang.

Partical Colliders like the LHC can recreate the conditions that would have existed a fraction of a second after the big bang.

Actually,it would be the conditions that are assumed to have existed after the hypothetical Big Bang is assumed to have happened.

 

[itinerant1]

It isn’t just beyond my knowledge,it is beyond anyone’s knowledge,because nobody was there when it happened there is no means by which it could be apprehended or measured.
The Big Bang theory cannot predict what happened at the beginning of the universe,and that is the real issue,not the consistency of the model.

Then why do you claim that science can account for the universe within a fraction of a second after its beginning? A second is a unit of time within the context of hours and days,which are based upon the revolutions of the earth,sun and moon.

You haven’t shown any factual errors on my part. You’re just going along uncritically with scientific theories about things that have not been witnessed.

Microwave echoes and galactic shifts do not say anything about the beginning of the universe,unless you have already come to the conclusion that that there must have been a Big Bang.

Actually,it would be the conditions that are assumed to have existed after the hypothetical Big Bang is assumed to have happened.

Why are you criticizing Big Bang theory, when, as your post reveals, you have not studied cosmology or physics?

Pope Pius XII, was enthusiastic about the theory. The current pope likes the theory also. I suspect you have some ideological grounds for opposing the theory, because your objections are not good scientific objections. In fact, they are not scientific at all.

 

[Moonstruck888]

It isn’t just beyond my knowledge,it is beyond anyone’s knowledge,because nobody was there when it happened there is no means by which it could be apprehended or measured.
The Big Bang theory cannot predict what happened at the beginning of the universe,and that is the real issue,not the consistency of the model.

What absolute twaddle. Why don’t you actually try reading about the theory, which is consistent with observation?

Then why do you claim that science can account for the universe within a fraction of a second after its beginning? A second is a unit of time within the context of hours and days,which are based upon the revolutions of the earth,sun and moon.

A second is not based on any of these things, and has not been for a very long time.

You haven’t shown any factual errors on my part. You’re just going along uncritically with scientific theories about things that have not been witnessed.

You’re doing a far better job of demonstrating your complete dearth of any knowledge and proclivity for factual errors on your part than I ever could. You know nothing about this subject. Less than nothing.

Microwave echoes and galactic shifts do not say anything about the beginning of the universe,unless you have already come to the conclusion that that there must have been a Big Bang.

They do when they appear at precisely the wavelength predicted by the big bang theory.

Actually,it would be the conditions that are assumed to have existed after the hypothetical Big Bang is assumed to have happened.

Balls.

 

[itinerant1]

“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is
that it is comprehensible.” ~ Albert Einstein

 

[Geremia]

Why do some believe that things must be proven (rationally) in order be true?

The short answer is original sin, although even if Adam had not sinned, his children would still have to acquire knowledge discursively. We humans have to obtain knowledge discursively—i.e., by reasoning from sense-knowledge to conclusions rather than solely by intuition—partially also because we are bound to time, whereas the angels, e.g., can understand something “all at once.”

 

[Moonstruck888]

The short answer is original sin, although even if Adam had not sinned, his children would still have to acquire knowledge discursively. We humans have to obtain knowledge discursively—i.e., by reasoning from sense-knowledge to conclusions rather than solely by intuition—partially also because we are bound to time, whereas the angels, e.g., can understand something “all at once.”

Another short answer would be that drawing conclusions without portioning belief to evidence is the sole provenance of the educationally sub normal.

 

[sinnerdexter]

No, that is not a correct characterization of what I said… And I certainly did not say that God is not real.

No but you have said that any god but yours is not real… with no proof what so ever…

I spoke of what is infallibly true in the Bible: the author’s message, what the author is teaching. We do not need to include all the details that provide the setting of a story, as being the author’s message.

Do you have anything to back up that assertion?

I also said Scripture is both “human and Divine”. This is a clear affirmation of the reality of God. And how else can you account for the fact I said the author’s message is infallibly true? It is because the author work’s under the influence of Divine Inspiration. Divine Inspiration means Yahweh is real. He is more real than the universe, which He created ex nihilo.

This is in no way proof of anything other than you believe it to be true and there are others who are just as sure your belief system is not true…

I am concerned that you come up with these kinds of profound misinterpretations of my posts. Maybe I will try keeping them short, perchance that will help some.

Try going back and showing some evidence of your assertions that any other religion is nothing but superstition and old timey beliefs by gullible persons…

 

[sinnerdexter]

No, that is not a correct characterization of what I said… And I certainly did not say that God is not real.

oppsss I think you are, again, misunderstanding what I mean by “Real” and “True” (the way I am using it “Reality” is a subset of “Truth” - for something to be real it must first be true, but not everything that is true is necesarily real).

In Aspo’s fable about the Grasshopper and the Ant, the Authors message is undeniably true (that it is better to work had and prepare for hard times than it is to sit idle and then suffer through the hard times), but the story is not real. Grasshopper and Ants do not talk (to each other or us) and as we can agree on that, the story of the Grasshoper and the Ant is clearly a work of fiction. But this does not degrade the message within it.

So, as far as I am concerened, the bible could be a complete work of fiction, but that does not mean that there is no message (and that there might be truth to it or not - that is an entirely different discussion).

You are prepared to agree with my that other Gods, like Zeus or Aphrodite are not real (or am I mistaken here and you really do believe that the Greek Gods are real - whic would be a problem if you also believed that the Christian God is real).

All I have asked of you is to show why you think these other Gods are not real and yours is, when they have an equal amount of evidence that fits your requielrment for validity.

The reason I was asking all this was to encourage you to question the assumptions you have made.

You assumed that the Christian God is real and the Greek Gods are not. then you applied a reasoning based on that assumption to prove that your God is real. But, the exact same reasoning you applied proves the Greek Gods as real if you start with the assumption that the Greek Gods are real and the Christian God is not.

This is an answer to your opening post and theme for this thread: On the Necesity of Proving Things.

See, you do recognise the necesity to prove thing because otherwise you would have to accept that the Greek Gods are real. As you don’t (because you say that you are a christian and the two beliefs are mutually exclusive), I can therefore conclude that you recognise the necesity to prove things.

However the purpose of proving things is to determine what is real and not real (remember I have differentiated between the words real and truth), and the only way to do that is with evidence (where evidence is data that will differentiate between which claim is real or not).

This conclusion that you ahve come to is based on the assuption that the Christian God is real. But you have not established this yet, or that it is specifically the Christian God rather than the thousands of other Gods that have thought to have existed.

For example, the Australian Aboriginies believe that the Rainbow serpent created the world. You have not established that this is not real. How then can you say that your God is real when you don’t have any evidence that the Rainbow Serpent did not create the world?

You have a story, which you have already agreed does not ahve to be real to have a true message in it. I can write or produce any number of stories saying that they are true and that the world was created in such and such a way by such and such an entity. But, you will be willing to admit that each of them is just a work of fiction (and I would too). But you have not differentiated between why you think your “story” is the real way the world was made any any of these other ways.

Until you do that you can not make the calim or hold the assuption that you way is the real way it happened.

Can you see the necesity to prove things?

I am concerned that you come up with these kinds of profound misinterpretations of my posts. Maybe I will try keeping them short, perchance that will help some.

You equated the Myths and Fables (both words used to describe fiction, that is stories that are not real) to the Bible, that is why I thought you agreed with me that what is in the bible does not ahve to be real to be true. You washed your hands of the necesity for the bible’s stories to be based on reality.

This means, that without proof to distinguish them from each other, how do you know what is real or fiction within the bible? I )(and other here) asked for proof that God is real, and you failed to produce it. Either you don’t have proof that God is real (and must therefore accept that “God is not real” is of equal validity as “God is real”) or you do and are witholding it.

I can not see you doing the latter as you seem quite genuine in your beliefs. However, if you step back from your beliefs, you will have to agree that you have presented as much “evidence” for your God as has been presented for the existance of Aphrodite or the other Greek Gods.

Without the necesit yto prove thing, any one can make any claim and assume it is true. Without this necesity to prove things, I can make the claim that you owe me $1,000,000. I would not then ahve to prove it is real and so you would ahve to owe me that money.

If I believed that Zeus created the world with a Thunderbolt, what meaningful conversation could we then have if we didn’t have to prove our “story” is true.

Unless you are willing to accept that there is a necesity to prove an assuption is true, then you HAVE to accept that there is no proof that your God is real. IF thereis no proof that your God is real, and you are willing to accept that the stories in the bible don’t have to be real (but the can be true), then you also have to accept that God might be a work of fiction.

 

[anthony022071]

Why are you criticizing Big Bang theory, when, as your post reveals, you have not studied cosmology or physics?

I object to it because it is a theory of the coming into existence of the universe that proceeds from the naturalistic perspective. We ought to know by reason that the universe was created by God,and we ought not to accept a theory that ignores God where it is necessary to acknowedge his power. Nor should we accept a theory that purports to explain an event that cannot be witnessed or measured by any means.

Pope Pius XII, was enthusiastic about the theory. The current pope likes the theory also.

The popes are skeptical of naturalistic theories that cannot be verified.

I suspect you have some ideological grounds for opposing the theory, because your objections are not good scientific objections. In fact, they are not scientific at all.

I oppose the theory on the grounds that it does not make sense – it uses bad logic,non sequiturs,dubious causal relations.

See posts 897,898,899.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I object to it because it is a theory of the coming into existence of the universe that proceeds from the naturalistic perspective. We ought to know by reason that the universe was created by God,and we ought not to accept a theory that ignores God where it is necessary to acknowedge his power. Nor should we accept a theory that purports to explain an event that cannot be witnessed or measured by any means.

That is precisely where you demonstrate your ignorance. The Big Bang can be measured, has been measured and the measurements conform to theoretical predicitons. Fred Hoyle was even able to use the Big Bang Theory to predict the structure of certain Carbon Isotopes.

You have never read anything about the Big Bang Theory, or you would know that you’re making a fool of yourself with this rubbish that the Big Bang cannot be tested by measurements of it’s properties. The Big Bang isn’t over. We’re still in it. It’s happening right now, and it can be measured.

The popes are skeptical of naturalistic theories that cannot be verified.

The Vatican endorses the Big Bang theory and the thoery that dare not speak it’s name.

 

[anthony022071]

What absolute twaddle. Why don’t you actually try reading about the theory, which is consistent with observation?

The predictions that proceed from the theory,and the observations that are consistent with them,do not make for a verification that the Big Bang happened. It is not logically necessary for an explosion to have happened at the beginning of the universe for microwaves and galactic shifts to exist. The internal movements of the universe do not logically suggest an explosion at its beginning.

A second is not based on any of these things, and has not been for a very long time.

A second is a division of a minute,a minute is a division of an hour,an hour is a division of a day,and days were originally measured by the revolutions of the earth,sun and moon.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The predictions that proceed from the theory,and the observations that are consistent with them,do not make for a verification that the Big Bang happened.

Actually, a verification is precisely what they make for. That is verification, that is science and the very computer you’re typing on is a manifestation of the success and validity of that process.

A second is a division of a minute,a minute is a division of an hour,an hour is a division of a day,and days were originally measured by the revolutions of the earth,sun and moon.

Yeah, when Moses was in diapers. Now, the second is based on vibrations of Caesium atoms. Humans can keep time with exponentially greater precision than celestial orbits.