Hey.

hey

i'm curious why you deleted the post

instead of just letting it be until i could get to it

didn't want to bring it to meta - i find "why was my posted deleted" questions (on all the se sites) turn into bandwagons of stfu lol

Sure. It was collecting flags as "not an answer" (and downvotes, which wasn't helping anyone). I'm happy to reinstate it when you get to it. It's in accordance with the policy on "no references."

hmm - that seems counter-intuitive... I don't see how it wasn't an answer

I mean, I wrote it in a bit of a hurry, and certainly needs some cleanup and clarity, but based on the link you gave me (where you said it doesn't reference sources)

it still meets your criteria for a valid answer because it uses logic instead of references

maybe I'm just misunderstanding your post on that question you linked me, but it seems to meet the criteria

Using logic is rather controversial. It's always going to be present to some extent, but when the question largely depends on a logical argument, some questions are raised: are the premises valid, are there hidden factors not considered? is this the correct argument/formula for this situation?

The challenge is working out whether the discussion belongs at Hermeneutics or on Skeptics. On Hermeneutics, they are willing to discuss the meaning of the poetry of the Bible. On Skeptics, we tackle notable claims with empirical evidence. I think it is reasonable to argue that enough people argue for the literal truth of the Bible that claims are notable claim, even if others have a more nuanced interpretation of the words.

The challenge is working out whether the discussion belongs at Hermeneutics or on Skeptics. On Hermeneutics, they are willing to discuss the meaning of the poetry of the Bible. On Skeptics, we tackle notable claims with empirical evidence. I think it is reasonable to argue that enough people argue for the literal truth of the Bible that claims are notable, even if others have a more nuanced interpretation of the words.

I can certainly see the problem with that

I think one of the key distinctions would have to saying "I interpret it this way because it's the logical way to interpret it" as opposed to "I interpret it this way because it's the intended interpretation"

A point I attempted to, but obviously failed to, illustrate in my post

For example, the idea that only farmers would be planting seeds, so all seeds must be seeds that would be reasonably expected to be planted by farmers

that's a logical inference that would be interpreted the same way whether it came from Richard Dawkins or James Dobson

I also see the problem you refer to with different definitions - one of my biggest 'beefs' with many religious "science" is their insistence on redefining terms - for example, how much would the entire site erupt at the use of the word "kinds"?