I always have the same answer to this.
Let's say they knew something that it seems unlikely they would know. What does that tell us about how they knew it?
Nothing. It tells us nothing about how they knew it. The source is a further claim, which requires its own evidence. Saying its "from God" or whatever is just the argument from ignorance (you can't prove me wrong so I'm right).
As it happens, they didn't know anything surprising. They knew what you'd expect a bunch of people back then to know, and the rest is people feverishly retrofitting later scientific discoveries.
And also... one section of a book being true does not imply the whole book is true either. Even if that bit was inspired by a deity.
Let's say they knew something that it seems unlikely they would know. What does that tell us about how they knew it?
Nothing. It tells us nothing about how they knew it. The source is a further claim, which requires its own evidence. Saying its "from God" or whatever is just the argument from ignorance (you can't prove me wrong so I'm right).
As it happens, they didn't know anything surprising. They knew what you'd expect a bunch of people back then to know, and the rest is people feverishly retrofitting later scientific discoveries.
And also... one section of a book being true does not imply the whole book is true either. Even if that bit was inspired by a deity.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum