• Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Dude, your meme is about logical consistency of the bible. To test for logical consistency, you have to assume it is true to test it against itself.

    Also I am not a believer, so I don’t believe it is true… But I can argue in favor of something that I am not believing. A basic skill that people need for scientific process.

      • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I am not sure what is a quote from Carl Sagan and I am not sure why anyone should care who said it in this context.

        I assume the second “it” is the quote? Maybe not? Do me the favor and help me to understand your message.

        • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua:

          is a literal arrangement of words, but nonsensical, like the logic of the creation of the bible. Can you argue in favor of Lorem ipsum?

          • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Assuming you mean the content of “Lorem Ipsum”, I can’t argue in favor of it. The content of “Lorem Ipsum” is literally intentionally meaningless. It doesn’t propose a position, argue a point or even express a thought. I can’t argue in favor of nothing.

            But as your way of expressing yourself is so poor, I could intentionally misunderstand you and argue in favor of “Lorem Ipsum”… As a placeholder text. Easy first Argument, it is meaningless and well known as a placeholder text, making difficult to confuse it with real content while being similar to real European languages.

            I am disappointed that you didn’t help me to understand what quote you meant or what “it” was. But I can only blame myself at this point.

            • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              “Light Circles” and “Time Units” are literally not in the Bible. You literally used literally incorrectly.

              • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                You seem unaware how an explanation works and what literally means.

                Let’s start with the obvious, I never claimed to exclusively words that are in the bible. I claimed that a literal reading could be understood a different ways. at least some, I included in my message.

                Now that we know that you are on the same page (not the literal meaning of page, here)

                1. Literal just means “taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration.” The word “day” is used multiple ways. One is for the time in which the sun starts directly illuminating the speakers location until it stops. Another is as a time unit; 24 hours. So the literal meaning of a day is very much both. Just as an example, “page” has a few literal meanings too. A book page, a webpage. But also in “being on the same page”, “page” can mean “being in agreement”, e.g. in the earlier case, agreement on what I said and meant.

                2. An explanation of a literal reading of a text is not required to use exclusively words from the text. Think about it for a second. If someone asks you what a word means, you probably at least want to include the literal meaning of the word, right? So, will you respond with just that one word? "What is ‘orwellian’ "? “Oh, it means Orwellian” of course, you wouldn’t. People would think you are an asshole.

                I want to apologize if I made any wrong assumption about you, e.g. that you agree on the facts of what I said.

                I hope this helps

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  This is embarrassing. Like even for an explanation.

                  Words literally have definitions; not to be used figuratively when it helps your argument.

                  I hope this helps.

                  • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    Yeah, be mad but a “day” can be a time unit and a light cycle. In it’s literal meaning. I know that. You know that.

                    If you doubt it, google “how long is a day on Mars?”.

                    The answer of that question makes it clear that the word “day” have “light cycle” meaning in a literal sense.

                    And I really hope you aren’t arguing that “day” can’t literally mean 24 hours.