Does anything presented in the Tanakh or Old Testament violate logic so intensely that there is no logical or rational explanation for it, other than mistake?
The Tanakh has about 930 chapters and include events that sound like myths, yet it is accepted in Judaism and Christianity. In all those pages is there nothing that so obviously has no rational explanation that with 100% certainty it must be a mistake?
I don't mean purely physical, scientific impossibilities, because advocates of inerrancy could always say that it was a miracle. For example, advocates of the idea that land animals populated the world in several thousand years after Creation or the flood could propose that the continents miraculously and extremely quickly broke apart and spread across the globe in that time.
Logical impossibilities seem harder to prove than they might at first appear, because someone could say that an exception or a qualification exists. For example, as in US jurisprudence, the Torah could law down a prohibition, but elsewhere an exception to the rule could appear. It could say that God will not change His decision, but later on it could say that conditions have changed since then and now God has changed His mind. Or it could say that God lacks the physical features of a human, but later mention Moses seeing God's feet, and a commentator could use a qualification that the original statement meant God lacked inherent physical human features.
Or in fact an expression actually could be a logical impossibility, but then someone could reply that the writers were just using an expression or "manner of speaking". For example, a friend could say that she "ran down to the store", but in fact took a car and was only using a figure of speech. So people could resolve a contradiction by saying that a term or expression is meant in a different sense.
Or a person could reply that something is meant as an allegory or metaphor, like when it describes a person in the Song of Solomon as a deer.
Or two statements that seem to contradict the other can be inclusive. For example, at one point the Tanakh gives one figure for the size of David's army, but at another point it gives a larger figure. So the larger figure could be inclusive of the smaller figure.
So is there any place in terms of pure logic where there is no logical way, however extremely strange, to explain what is absolutely a contradiction of logic?
The Tanakh has about 930 chapters and include events that sound like myths, yet it is accepted in Judaism and Christianity. In all those pages is there nothing that so obviously has no rational explanation that with 100% certainty it must be a mistake?
I don't mean purely physical, scientific impossibilities, because advocates of inerrancy could always say that it was a miracle. For example, advocates of the idea that land animals populated the world in several thousand years after Creation or the flood could propose that the continents miraculously and extremely quickly broke apart and spread across the globe in that time.
Logical impossibilities seem harder to prove than they might at first appear, because someone could say that an exception or a qualification exists. For example, as in US jurisprudence, the Torah could law down a prohibition, but elsewhere an exception to the rule could appear. It could say that God will not change His decision, but later on it could say that conditions have changed since then and now God has changed His mind. Or it could say that God lacks the physical features of a human, but later mention Moses seeing God's feet, and a commentator could use a qualification that the original statement meant God lacked inherent physical human features.
Or in fact an expression actually could be a logical impossibility, but then someone could reply that the writers were just using an expression or "manner of speaking". For example, a friend could say that she "ran down to the store", but in fact took a car and was only using a figure of speech. So people could resolve a contradiction by saying that a term or expression is meant in a different sense.
Or a person could reply that something is meant as an allegory or metaphor, like when it describes a person in the Song of Solomon as a deer.
Or two statements that seem to contradict the other can be inclusive. For example, at one point the Tanakh gives one figure for the size of David's army, but at another point it gives a larger figure. So the larger figure could be inclusive of the smaller figure.
So is there any place in terms of pure logic where there is no logical way, however extremely strange, to explain what is absolutely a contradiction of logic?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1cWjCzi
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire