Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Discuss the March 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God’s Plan by Daniel Friedmann.
Alias
Posts: 3029
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Alias »

And he presents various facts and figures from various scriptures and scholarly articles to support his argument.
I don't know what the 'scholarly articles' are or who wrote them, but if they're supported by 'scriptures', they lose any claim to scientific consideration.
So we can't merely neglect him
Yes, we can. It is unquestionably, unequivocally, terminally ridiculous.
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Sushan »

Alias wrote: March 4th, 2021, 12:09 am
And he presents various facts and figures from various scriptures and scholarly articles to support his argument.
I don't know what the 'scholarly articles' are or who wrote them, but if they're supported by 'scriptures', they lose any claim to scientific consideration.
So we can't merely neglect him
Yes, we can. It is unquestionably, unequivocally, terminally ridiculous.
Well, I too have a similar idea regarding this concept. Most importantly this is not scientific, and we can give this some credit considering this as somewhat philosophical. I would like to neglect this outright, but there are many readers who accept and support these ideas. So I think it is worth subjecting this to logical argument, then pointing out the negative aspects, and disregarding the whole concept
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
Alias
Posts: 3029
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Alias »

Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 12:24 am Well, I too have a similar idea regarding this concept. Most importantly this is not scientific,
Worse than that: it is dishonest in pretending to be scientific.
and we can give this some credit considering this as somewhat philosophical.
In what way is it philosophical?
I would like to neglect this outright, but there are many readers who accept and support these ideas.
They're not my problem. If you're smart, you'll realize they're not your problem, either.
So I think it is worth subjecting this to logical argument, then pointing out the negative aspects, and disregarding the whole concept
Done.
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Sushan »

Alias wrote: March 4th, 2021, 1:29 am
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 12:24 am Well, I too have a similar idea regarding this concept. Most importantly this is not scientific,
Worse than that: it is dishonest in pretending to be scientific.
and we can give this some credit considering this as somewhat philosophical.
In what way is it philosophical?
I would like to neglect this outright, but there are many readers who accept and support these ideas.
They're not my problem. If you're smart, you'll realize they're not your problem, either.
So I think it is worth subjecting this to logical argument, then pointing out the negative aspects, and disregarding the whole concept
Done.
Google defines 'philosophical' as,
relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
So, what this author is discussing has a relationship to philosophy. And that makes the discussions about this book philosophical (my opinion). Since it has no actual scientific proof, it is not scientific (we both agree on that).
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
Alias
Posts: 3029
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Alias »

Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 1:05 pm
[relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.]

So, what this author is discussing has a relationship to philosophy.
Not really. From the little I've read of his work, it's not dealing any of those things. He's trying to legitimize a mythology as factual. That is apologetics at best - chicanery at worst - and in an case, abuse of his academic credentials, thus casting doubt on all the honest engineers who share his profession. No reflection on philosophers, archeologists or theologians, as he's none of those, and in fact, has no qualifications whatever in the subject on which he writes.
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Sushan »

Alias wrote: March 4th, 2021, 3:37 pm
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 1:05 pm
[relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.]

So, what this author is discussing has a relationship to philosophy.
Not really. From the little I've read of his work, it's not dealing any of those things. He's trying to legitimize a mythology as factual. That is apologetics at best - chicanery at worst - and in an case, abuse of his academic credentials, thus casting doubt on all the honest engineers who share his profession. No reflection on philosophers, archeologists or theologians, as he's none of those, and in fact, has no qualifications whatever in the subject on which he writes.
Actually he identifies himself as a scientist. And I do believe that he is trying to legitimize a myth.

Whether philosophy or apologetics, here the problem is that the author is being biased. He has begun this discussion being in the belief that the bible is true. So for us, who does not believe in each and every word in the bible, it is fair for his work to be seen as purely irrational blasphemy, which is neither scientific, nor philosophical.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
Alias
Posts: 3029
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Alias »

Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:01 pm
Alias wrote: March 4th, 2021, 3:37 pm
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 1:05 pm
[relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.]

So, what this author is discussing has a relationship to philosophy.
Not really. From the little I've read of his work, it's not dealing any of those things. He's trying to legitimize a mythology as factual. That is apologetics at best - chicanery at worst - and in an case, abuse of his academic credentials, thus casting doubt on all the honest engineers who share his profession. No reflection on philosophers, archeologists or theologians, as he's none of those, and in fact, has no qualifications whatever in the subject on which he writes.
Actually he identifies himself as a scientist.
He can:
He studied engineering physics at the University of British Columbia and in 1979 went to work for MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates, a company that at that time specialized in hardware and software for satellite ground stations - wiki
but the science he studied and practices - howbeit from an executive position - unrelated to any of the sciences relevant to the subject on which he's writing books.
Whether philosophy or apologetics, here the problem is that the author is being biased. He has begun this discussion being in the belief that the bible is true. So for us, who does not believe in each and every word in the bible, it is fair for his work to be seen as purely irrational blasphemy, which is neither scientific, nor philosophical.
I would not use the term 'blasphemy' and I don't think he's irrational. I think he's disingenuous, and that he's doing equal disservice to the bible and to science by mashing them into popular nonsense. He's doing an even greater disservice to his credulous readers, who might benefit from a better understanding of both the biblical stories and their anthropological roots.
There are enough purveyors of disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, agitprop, fake news, snake oil and misrepresentation to turn the brains of half the world to mush. Do we really need to take another one seriously?
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Sushan »

Alias wrote: March 5th, 2021, 1:54 am
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:01 pm
Alias wrote: March 4th, 2021, 3:37 pm
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 1:05 pm
[relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.]

So, what this author is discussing has a relationship to philosophy.
Not really. From the little I've read of his work, it's not dealing any of those things. He's trying to legitimize a mythology as factual. That is apologetics at best - chicanery at worst - and in an case, abuse of his academic credentials, thus casting doubt on all the honest engineers who share his profession. No reflection on philosophers, archeologists or theologians, as he's none of those, and in fact, has no qualifications whatever in the subject on which he writes.
Actually he identifies himself as a scientist.
He can:
He studied engineering physics at the University of British Columbia and in 1979 went to work for MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates, a company that at that time specialized in hardware and software for satellite ground stations - wiki
but the science he studied and practices - howbeit from an executive position - unrelated to any of the sciences relevant to the subject on which he's writing books.
Whether philosophy or apologetics, here the problem is that the author is being biased. He has begun this discussion being in the belief that the bible is true. So for us, who does not believe in each and every word in the bible, it is fair for his work to be seen as purely irrational blasphemy, which is neither scientific, nor philosophical.
I would not use the term 'blasphemy' and I don't think he's irrational. I think he's disingenuous, and that he's doing equal disservice to the bible and to science by mashing them into popular nonsense. He's doing an even greater disservice to his credulous readers, who might benefit from a better understanding of both the biblical stories and their anthropological roots.
There are enough purveyors of disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, agitprop, fake news, snake oil and misrepresentation to turn the brains of half the world to mush. Do we really need to take another one seriously?
There are enough purveyors of disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, agitprop, fake news, snake oil and misrepresentation to turn the brains of half the world to mush. Do we really need to take another one seriously?
Well, when you put it like that, I would say no. You are correct. This is not the only time that someone thought of some popular question in a bit of unusual and marvellous mmanner and created some sort of mash up of the things. Some of such things got some attention, but others did not. What everything like that had in common was, they were not of actual use for anyone, and this concept too have that common quality
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 3651
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Belindi »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology

Numerology in The Bible, even if everybody understood it, is not relevant to how we should live.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by evolution »

Sushan wrote: March 1st, 2021, 8:24 pm
After an in-depth exploration of science and biblical texts, I have determined that such a reconciliation is indeed possible. This book demonstrates the resolution between science and scripture with respect to the timing of the formation of the universe and the appearance of life on Earth.
As the above quote suggests, the author is trying to reconcile biblical and other religious teachings regarding God's creations along with the scientific theories made so far regarding the same fact of beginnings of the solar system, earth, and life. The author is arguing philosophically that these time lines go hand in hand, and at some occasions only the wordings have added some confusion but the facts are true.

For an example he suggests that the God's creation of solar system, earth, and life in just seven days is a true scenario, but that word 'day' does not mean a 24-hour day that we currently experience but it is thousands of years. And when it is taken like that, it agrees with the since.

What do you think of this philosophical argument?
But that is not an argument. That is just a claim.
Sushan wrote: March 1st, 2021, 8:24 pm Is this reconciliation acceptable?
One would have to see the actual reconciliation to be able to say it is acceptable or not.

Also, and by the way, the word 'reconcile' infers that whatever 'it' is would have been reconciled, which, in and of itself, would have to be acceptable, correct?

Was an actual reconciliation made?
Sushan wrote: March 1st, 2021, 8:24 pm While philosophy is something that uses arguments to prove a thing, and science is a subject that uses research and evidence for the same purpose, can we bring these two to a common table, like this author has done?
Obviously, for some 'things', like whether the Universe began or not, they have to proven by and through arguments first, and then human beings can later on work out how to substantiate this, empirically.
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Sushan »

Belindi wrote: March 5th, 2021, 4:20 am https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology

Numerology in The Bible, even if everybody understood it, is not relevant to how we should live.
Quite correct. This author has studied on various numerological studies and developed (or understood) this so called pattern of events and its repetition. Still, even God has granted free will, so no one has to live by any such imaginative rule or a belief system.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
Alias
Posts: 3029
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Alias »

Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 2:41 am This is not the only time that someone thought of some popular question in a bit of unusual and marvellous mmanner and created some sort of mash up of the things.
There is nothing unusual about this approach. I'm sure it was old hat when I first heard of the 2-billion-year* days of creation in high school, in the early 1960's.
*And whoever was promulgating that theory at that time had the sense not to mix in the young-earth nonsense. It was the era of scientific dynamism and religious ecumenicalism, when all the preachers were trying to reconcile with preachers of competing sects, and dull the argument of secular critics with their reasonable approach to factual information.
In any case, as I mentioned, the long-day theory only covers the first two pages of a very big book. Which then raises the question of time-keeping, and all the other fanciful religious arithmetic, from Genesis III onward - the two or three kinds of time can't be reconciled without some dishonest bookkeeping.
Anyway, it goes no way at all toward legitimizing Noah, Abraham, Sampson, Lot or Moses.

That semi-realistic approach has been abandoned by fundamentalist sects of every kind in the new millennium. Appeal to the extreme, to the emotions, to lowest standard of logical deduction has become their SOP.
It's a pity, really. Religious text, history, cultural impact and personal experience is worth treating seriously.
What everything like that had in common was, they were not of actual use for anyone,
Oh, but they are. They're politicized into repressive laws.
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Sushan »

Alias wrote: March 5th, 2021, 12:00 pm
Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 2:41 am This is not the only time that someone thought of some popular question in a bit of unusual and marvellous mmanner and created some sort of mash up of the things.
There is nothing unusual about this approach. I'm sure it was old hat when I first heard of the 2-billion-year* days of creation in high school, in the early 1960's.
*And whoever was promulgating that theory at that time had the sense not to mix in the young-earth nonsense. It was the era of scientific dynamism and religious ecumenicalism, when all the preachers were trying to reconcile with preachers of competing sects, and dull the argument of secular critics with their reasonable approach to factual information.
In any case, as I mentioned, the long-day theory only covers the first two pages of a very big book. Which then raises the question of time-keeping, and all the other fanciful religious arithmetic, from Genesis III onward - the two or three kinds of time can't be reconciled without some dishonest bookkeeping.
Anyway, it goes no way at all toward legitimizing Noah, Abraham, Sampson, Lot or Moses.

That semi-realistic approach has been abandoned by fundamentalist sects of every kind in the new millennium. Appeal to the extreme, to the emotions, to lowest standard of logical deduction has become their SOP.
It's a pity, really. Religious text, history, cultural impact and personal experience is worth treating seriously.
What everything like that had in common was, they were not of actual use for anyone,
Oh, but they are. They're politicized into repressive laws.
Seemingly this concept of the Creation have been attempted to be proven several times using several explanations. And this book seems as another addition to that line up.

Cultural differences and religious beliefs should be treated seriously. Otherwise it will be a cause for serious issues. This reminds me about the riots that arose against not letting Muslim Covid Deaths to be buried.

But the religions and preachers should know their boundaries, and should not try to peek into or abuse the boundaries of other subject areas. Whole this reconciliation thought has occurred because the believers have crossed their border.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 3651
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Belindi »

Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 5:50 am
Belindi wrote: March 5th, 2021, 4:20 am https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology

Numerology in The Bible, even if everybody understood it, is not relevant to how we should live.
Quite correct. This author has studied on various numerological studies and developed (or understood) this so called pattern of events and its repetition. Still, even God has granted free will, so no one has to live by any such imaginative rule or a belief system.
But neither God, nor nature, have "granted" Free Will. Both God, and nature, are deterministic.

The difference between God and nature is the former knows what he/she/ it is doing and intends to it, while the latter unfolds according to immutable laws usually called 'laws of science' .
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the reconciliation acceptable?

Post by Sushan »

Belindi wrote: March 6th, 2021, 4:43 am
Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 5:50 am
Belindi wrote: March 5th, 2021, 4:20 am https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology

Numerology in The Bible, even if everybody understood it, is not relevant to how we should live.
Quite correct. This author has studied on various numerological studies and developed (or understood) this so called pattern of events and its repetition. Still, even God has granted free will, so no one has to live by any such imaginative rule or a belief system.
But neither God, nor nature, have "granted" Free Will. Both God, and nature, are deterministic.

The difference between God and nature is the former knows what he/she/ it is doing and intends to it, while the latter unfolds according to immutable laws usually called 'laws of science' .
If the God is some sort of a conscious being, then he/she/it might be having his/her/its own reasons for his/her/its doings.

On the other hand, we cannot say that the nature always acts according to the laws of science, because there are occasions where things happen by chance and things happen suddenly with no warning or no apparent reason. At the same time we have yet to discover many things regarding science as well as nature.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
Post Reply

Return to “The Biblical Clock by Daniel Friedmann”

Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021