What distinguishes a fantasy book from the bible?

[Shell B]

Nothing. The answer is nothing. Well, if you make the stipulation that it is a crappy fantasy novel and there are not nearly enough dragons and sweaty guys battling them.

[Minimalist]

Now seeking truth in God's revealed word, not only is that a good idea, but it seems like it is the only rational one.

If only you had such a book....or such a god. Instead you have your absurd bible and your murderous old yahweh and his "son."

Oh....and let's not forget caspar the friendly ghost!

[Ace Otana]

Closed minded? This coming from the guy who refuses to actually debate the evidence and the facts and just sits on the bench tossing out insults? Nice.

That's funny. I remember the last time we debated and the performance you gave. You demonstrated why creationists are a complete waste of time! You're the one who refused to actually fucking debate! Remember?

[Emanuel]

Well you should do some reading on the philosophy of science then, because that is exactly what is taught in upper division science courses at university. We are not working in the field to discover truth.

Why don't you tell us what science is for then.

Well, from what I've understood, Statlor Wardof was saying that science's purpose isn't to discover Truth (with capital "t"). That is the purpose of philosophy. By "Truth" I suppose he meant things like whether there is some objective purpose for human life, in what it consists, what is the origin of the universe (by this I mean the issue of a creator, and whether it's personal and so on), etc.. The pursuit of these "Truths" belongs to philosophy. Science only tries to observe the natural world, understand how it works and also possibly make predictions based on the observations. For example, science discovered the Big Bang. Now science's job is done, and philosophy takes over trying to understand what it means, what implications does this have on a certain worldview, and so on. Science cannot do these things. If a scientist tries to talk about these things, he's stios being a scientist, becoming a little phiolosopher.

This is what I think he meant. May he correct me if I'm wrong.

[Napoléon]

This is what I think he meant. May he correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah well it would be fucking good if he could tell everyone exactly all the fucking answers himself. Seen as he seems to have them.

Looks to me like he's just whining at people telling them they're wrong without actually telling them how they are wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Science's Job" is never done on a subject. There is no point where a philosophical argument will ever have more weight than scientific observation. No matter how reasoned our argument, no matter how tight our logic, in the end, it must be fact checked. Guess who does this sort of thing?

[Emanuel]

"Science's Job" is never done on a subject. There is no point where a philosophical argument will ever have more weight than scientific observation. No matter how reasoned our argument, no matter how tight our logic, in the end, it must be fact checked. Guess who does this sort of thing?

I admit that you have a point here. But still, science cannot answer everything, neither can it atempt to.

[theVOID]

One thing I've never understood is how people took the bible so literally to where it became a belief and all the stuff that transpired in the book was real. What distinguishes the bible from any other fantasy book ever made, was it just blind faith? Or the need to have something good happen to them after they die.

Fantasy books don't often promise the reader immortality if they believe Gandalf is their lord and savoir. Then again, not many people who read Tolkein are stupid enough to believe the words on the pages represent reality.

[The Grand Nudger]

What is it that you're hoping science can't answer Emanuel? I concede that there are such things, but I doubt that those things have anything to do with the kind of questions you may have.

[MilesTailsPrower]

"Science's Job" is never done on a subject. There is no point where a philosophical argument will ever have more weight than scientific observation. No matter how reasoned our argument, no matter how tight our logic, in the end, it must be fact checked. Guess who does this sort of thing?

I admit that you have a point here. But still, science cannot answer everything, neither can it atempt to.

Could you think of 1 thing science can't explain? Can it explain why you failed to spell attempt wrong?