Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

The Biblical Clock by Daniel Friedmann, Dania Sheldon is a non-fiction book which tries to reconcile biblical historical facts along with the scientific theories and evidence about the beginning of the universe and life. Having that reconciliation as the base, the author tries to predict the future of humankind.

What is your overall opinion of the book? What do you like most about it? What do you like least? Will you recommend the book to other people? Why or why not?

[evolution]

The Biblical Clock by Daniel Friedmann, Dania Sheldon is a non-fiction book which tries to reconcile biblical historical facts along with the scientific theories and evidence about the beginning of the universe and life. Having that reconciliation as the base, the author tries to predict the future of humankind.

What is your overall opinion of the book? What do you like most about it? What do you like least? Will you recommend the book to other people? Why or why not?

If the book is written under the presumption that the Universe and Life had a beginning, then the book is written under a False pretense, 'in the beginning'.

That is my overall opinion of the book.

I would not recommend the book to people because the book is written under a presumption, which can be proven False, Wrong, and Incorrect.

[Sushan]

The Biblical Clock by Daniel Friedmann, Dania Sheldon is a non-fiction book which tries to reconcile biblical historical facts along with the scientific theories and evidence about the beginning of the universe and life. Having that reconciliation as the base, the author tries to predict the future of humankind.

What is your overall opinion of the book? What do you like most about it? What do you like least? Will you recommend the book to other people? Why or why not?

If the book is written under the presumption that the Universe and Life had a beginning, then the book is written under a False pretense, 'in the beginning'.

That is my overall opinion of the book.

I would not recommend the book to people because the book is written under a presumption, which can be proven False, Wrong, and Incorrect.

I agree with you. The author had his biases from the beginning of the book and he has attempted to prove his beliefs in a scientific manner. Someone else who is having a different belief system can easily argue and break his points, since his points are mainly based on speculations and philosophical arguments rather than scientific research or evidence

[evolution]

The Biblical Clock by Daniel Friedmann, Dania Sheldon is a non-fiction book which tries to reconcile biblical historical facts along with the scientific theories and evidence about the beginning of the universe and life. Having that reconciliation as the base, the author tries to predict the future of humankind.

What is your overall opinion of the book? What do you like most about it? What do you like least? Will you recommend the book to other people? Why or why not?

If the book is written under the presumption that the Universe and Life had a beginning, then the book is written under a False pretense, 'in the beginning'.

That is my overall opinion of the book.

I would not recommend the book to people because the book is written under a presumption, which can be proven False, Wrong, and Incorrect.

I agree with you. The author had his biases from the beginning of the book and he has attempted to prove his beliefs in a scientific manner.

This, 'having beliefs' is the main issue. See, while one has a belief, then they are not open to any thing contrary nor otherwise, and what they will 'try' and do is prove their beliefs, in any way possible. Unfortunately though they do not just use actual evidence nor proof.

Someone else who is having a different belief system can easily argue and break his points, since his points are mainly based on speculations and philosophical arguments rather than scientific research or evidence

But it would not matter if someone was have a different belief or not. If something is not true, then it could very easily be argued against anyway.

What is wrong with 'philosophical arguments'?

If any argument is sound and valid, then one could base absolutely anything upon that argument, as long as it logically reasoned and follows faultlessly.

Also, 'evidence' does not necessarily 'prove' some thing, and, scientific research only looks at what could be, and never looks at what actually IS.

Thee Truth, no matter what 'it' is, is found in 'agreement', and 'proven' irrefutably True , Right, and/or Correct either empirically and/or with a sound and valid argument.

For example like how the Universe and Life never began.

[Sushan]

The Biblical Clock by Daniel Friedmann, Dania Sheldon is a non-fiction book which tries to reconcile biblical historical facts along with the scientific theories and evidence about the beginning of the universe and life. Having that reconciliation as the base, the author tries to predict the future of humankind.

What is your overall opinion of the book? What do you like most about it? What do you like least? Will you recommend the book to other people? Why or why not?

If the book is written under the presumption that the Universe and Life had a beginning, then the book is written under a False pretense, 'in the beginning'.

That is my overall opinion of the book.

I would not recommend the book to people because the book is written under a presumption, which can be proven False, Wrong, and Incorrect.

I agree with you. The author had his biases from the beginning of the book and he has attempted to prove his beliefs in a scientific manner.

This, 'having beliefs' is the main issue. See, while one has a belief, then they are not open to any thing contrary nor otherwise, and what they will 'try' and do is prove their beliefs, in any way possible. Unfortunately though they do not just use actual evidence nor proof.

Someone else who is having a different belief system can easily argue and break his points, since his points are mainly based on speculations and philosophical arguments rather than scientific research or evidence

But it would not matter if someone was have a different belief or not. If something is not true, then it could very easily be argued against anyway.

What is wrong with 'philosophical arguments'?

If any argument is sound and valid, then one could base absolutely anything upon that argument, as long as it logically reasoned and follows faultlessly.

Also, 'evidence' does not necessarily 'prove' some thing, and, scientific research only looks at what could be, and never looks at what actually IS.

Thee Truth, no matter what 'it' is, is found in 'agreement', and 'proven' irrefutably True , Right, and/or Correct either empirically and/or with a sound and valid argument.

For example like how the Universe and Life never began.

Philosophical arguments have a great importance when it is done in a logical manner. But most of the time, though they are highly intelligent, most people argue to defend thier own beliefs. They may or may not be open to accept any opposing ideas.

It is true that science looks at what it sees. But from what I have seen in the development of the world, mostly it is due to scientific research, not due to arguments or agreements. Agreements can be made in false things, but scientific researches, if conducted correctly, will atleast show correct results, though it may not be 'what actually is'. Anyway, such results should have some credibility, otherwise how could we have achieved so called success in our world in various fields which are related to science?

[evolution]

If the book is written under the presumption that the Universe and Life had a beginning, then the book is written under a False pretense, 'in the beginning'.

That is my overall opinion of the book.

I would not recommend the book to people because the book is written under a presumption, which can be proven False, Wrong, and Incorrect.

I agree with you. The author had his biases from the beginning of the book and he has attempted to prove his beliefs in a scientific manner.

This, 'having beliefs' is the main issue. See, while one has a belief, then they are not open to any thing contrary nor otherwise, and what they will 'try' and do is prove their beliefs, in any way possible. Unfortunately though they do not just use actual evidence nor proof.

Someone else who is having a different belief system can easily argue and break his points, since his points are mainly based on speculations and philosophical arguments rather than scientific research or evidence

But it would not matter if someone was have a different belief or not. If something is not true, then it could very easily be argued against anyway.

What is wrong with 'philosophical arguments'?

If any argument is sound and valid, then one could base absolutely anything upon that argument, as long as it logically reasoned and follows faultlessly.

Also, 'evidence' does not necessarily 'prove' some thing, and, scientific research only looks at what could be, and never looks at what actually IS.

Thee Truth, no matter what 'it' is, is found in 'agreement', and 'proven' irrefutably True , Right, and/or Correct either empirically and/or with a sound and valid argument.

For example like how the Universe and Life never began.

Philosophical arguments have a great importance when it is done in a logical manner. But most of the time, though they are highly intelligent, most people argue to defend thier own beliefs. They may or may not be open to accept any opposing ideas.

Could we then just say and agree that 'any' argument is of great importance when formulated in a logically reasoned way?

Could we also agree that to argue to defend one's own belief, where the belief is not absolutely and irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct anyway, would just be an illogical way to proceed?

It is true that science looks at what it sees. But from what I have seen in the development of the world, mostly it is due to scientific research, not due to arguments or agreements.

What you have seen in the "development of the world" was also due to 'agreement', correct? We could not have flown, for example, let alone flown to the moon, without some sort of 'agreement' being reached, first, correct?

And, you are probably exactly right that the human "developed" 'technological world' is mostly due to science and/or scientific research, but really is there much use in "developing" the already existing world if we are just going to keep polluting it while we continue bickering and warring over possessions and money, because we are just being greedy, selfish beings?

Scientific research may create a truly technologically "developed" world, but it will be through logically reasoned, sound and valid 'arguments' that will create a truly peaceful and harmonious world.

Agreements can be made in false things, but scientific researches, if conducted correctly, will atleast show correct results, though it may not be 'what actually is'.

This appears very contradictory and hypocritical. I would not agree in false things. But each to their own.

I much prefer, instead, to just look at, and see, only, 'what actually is'.

Anyway, such results should have some credibility, otherwise how could we have achieved so called success in our world in various fields which are related to science?

'Success' is very relative.

[Sushan]

I agree with you. The author had his biases from the beginning of the book and he has attempted to prove his beliefs in a scientific manner.

This, 'having beliefs' is the main issue. See, while one has a belief, then they are not open to any thing contrary nor otherwise, and what they will 'try' and do is prove their beliefs, in any way possible. Unfortunately though they do not just use actual evidence nor proof.

Someone else who is having a different belief system can easily argue and break his points, since his points are mainly based on speculations and philosophical arguments rather than scientific research or evidence

But it would not matter if someone was have a different belief or not. If something is not true, then it could very easily be argued against anyway.

What is wrong with 'philosophical arguments'?

If any argument is sound and valid, then one could base absolutely anything upon that argument, as long as it logically reasoned and follows faultlessly.

Also, 'evidence' does not necessarily 'prove' some thing, and, scientific research only looks at what could be, and never looks at what actually IS.

Thee Truth, no matter what 'it' is, is found in 'agreement', and 'proven' irrefutably True , Right, and/or Correct either empirically and/or with a sound and valid argument.

For example like how the Universe and Life never began.

Philosophical arguments have a great importance when it is done in a logical manner. But most of the time, though they are highly intelligent, most people argue to defend thier own beliefs. They may or may not be open to accept any opposing ideas.

Could we then just say and agree that 'any' argument is of great importance when formulated in a logically reasoned way?

Could we also agree that to argue to defend one's own belief, where the belief is not absolutely and irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct anyway, would just be an illogical way to proceed?

It is true that science looks at what it sees. But from what I have seen in the development of the world, mostly it is due to scientific research, not due to arguments or agreements.

What you have seen in the "development of the world" was also due to 'agreement', correct? We could not have flown, for example, let alone flown to the moon, without some sort of 'agreement' being reached, first, correct?

And, you are probably exactly right that the human "developed" 'technological world' is mostly due to science and/or scientific research, but really is there much use in "developing" the already existing world if we are just going to keep polluting it while we continue bickering and warring over possessions and money, because we are just being greedy, selfish beings?

Scientific research may create a truly technologically "developed" world, but it will be through logically reasoned, sound and valid 'arguments' that will create a truly peaceful and harmonious world.

Agreements can be made in false things, but scientific researches, if conducted correctly, will atleast show correct results, though it may not be 'what actually is'.

This appears very contradictory and hypocritical. I would not agree in false things. But each to their own.

I much prefer, instead, to just look at, and see, only, 'what actually is'.

Anyway, such results should have some credibility, otherwise how could we have achieved so called success in our world in various fields which are related to science?

'Success' is very relative.

Development is measured using various methods. When one method says 'it is developed', another one can say it is not. Sometimes people argue that materialistic development is not a complete development, but a spiritual and moral development is also needed. That is where religions come in.

Arguments and philosophical discussions can go either way, useful or useless. Darvin's evolution was a theory. Some agreed with him but some did not. Later the theory underwent few changes as well. But most of the world accepts it not only because it is logical, but there were evidence that backed that theory.

But scientific theories are not always agreements. Einstein showed that matter can be converted into energy, and he gave a formula for that as well. He did not have to discuss it with others and come into an agreement, but he proved it through experiments and mathematics.

We can argue on useless matters for days. Someone who is looking at such an argument might get it as a very important, philosophical argument, though it actually is of no use. So the mere ability to discuss upon does not give anything, any value.

[evolution]

This, 'having beliefs' is the main issue. See, while one has a belief, then they are not open to any thing contrary nor otherwise, and what they will 'try' and do is prove their beliefs, in any way possible. Unfortunately though they do not just use actual evidence nor proof.



But it would not matter if someone was have a different belief or not. If something is not true, then it could very easily be argued against anyway.

What is wrong with 'philosophical arguments'?

If any argument is sound and valid, then one could base absolutely anything upon that argument, as long as it logically reasoned and follows faultlessly.

Also, 'evidence' does not necessarily 'prove' some thing, and, scientific research only looks at what could be, and never looks at what actually IS.

Thee Truth, no matter what 'it' is, is found in 'agreement', and 'proven' irrefutably True , Right, and/or Correct either empirically and/or with a sound and valid argument.

For example like how the Universe and Life never began.

Philosophical arguments have a great importance when it is done in a logical manner. But most of the time, though they are highly intelligent, most people argue to defend thier own beliefs. They may or may not be open to accept any opposing ideas.

Could we then just say and agree that 'any' argument is of great importance when formulated in a logically reasoned way?

Could we also agree that to argue to defend one's own belief, where the belief is not absolutely and irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct anyway, would just be an illogical way to proceed?

It is true that science looks at what it sees. But from what I have seen in the development of the world, mostly it is due to scientific research, not due to arguments or agreements.

What you have seen in the "development of the world" was also due to 'agreement', correct? We could not have flown, for example, let alone flown to the moon, without some sort of 'agreement' being reached, first, correct?

And, you are probably exactly right that the human "developed" 'technological world' is mostly due to science and/or scientific research, but really is there much use in "developing" the already existing world if we are just going to keep polluting it while we continue bickering and warring over possessions and money, because we are just being greedy, selfish beings?

Scientific research may create a truly technologically "developed" world, but it will be through logically reasoned, sound and valid 'arguments' that will create a truly peaceful and harmonious world.

Agreements can be made in false things, but scientific researches, if conducted correctly, will atleast show correct results, though it may not be 'what actually is'.

This appears very contradictory and hypocritical. I would not agree in false things. But each to their own.

I much prefer, instead, to just look at, and see, only, 'what actually is'.

Anyway, such results should have some credibility, otherwise how could we have achieved so called success in our world in various fields which are related to science?

'Success' is very relative.

Development is measured using various methods. When one method says 'it is developed', another one can say it is not. Sometimes people argue that materialistic development is not a complete development, but a spiritual and moral development is also needed. That is where religions come in.

Arguments and philosophical discussions can go either way, useful or useless. Darvin's evolution was a theory. Some agreed with him but some did not. Later the theory underwent few changes as well. But most of the world accepts it not only because it is logical, but there were evidence that backed that theory.

But scientific theories are not always agreements. Einstein showed that matter can be converted into energy, and he gave a formula for that as well. He did not have to discuss it with others and come into an agreement, but he proved it through experiments and mathematics.

We can argue on useless matters for days. Someone who is looking at such an argument might get it as a very important, philosophical argument, though it actually is of no use. So the mere ability to discuss upon does not give anything, any value.

What is your point here in this post?

Is there any thing, which you would like to look at and openly discuss?

[Sushan]

Philosophical arguments have a great importance when it is done in a logical manner. But most of the time, though they are highly intelligent, most people argue to defend thier own beliefs. They may or may not be open to accept any opposing ideas.

Could we then just say and agree that 'any' argument is of great importance when formulated in a logically reasoned way?

Could we also agree that to argue to defend one's own belief, where the belief is not absolutely and irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct anyway, would just be an illogical way to proceed?

It is true that science looks at what it sees. But from what I have seen in the development of the world, mostly it is due to scientific research, not due to arguments or agreements.

What you have seen in the "development of the world" was also due to 'agreement', correct? We could not have flown, for example, let alone flown to the moon, without some sort of 'agreement' being reached, first, correct?

And, you are probably exactly right that the human "developed" 'technological world' is mostly due to science and/or scientific research, but really is there much use in "developing" the already existing world if we are just going to keep polluting it while we continue bickering and warring over possessions and money, because we are just being greedy, selfish beings?

Scientific research may create a truly technologically "developed" world, but it will be through logically reasoned, sound and valid 'arguments' that will create a truly peaceful and harmonious world.

Agreements can be made in false things, but scientific researches, if conducted correctly, will atleast show correct results, though it may not be 'what actually is'.

This appears very contradictory and hypocritical. I would not agree in false things. But each to their own.

I much prefer, instead, to just look at, and see, only, 'what actually is'.

Anyway, such results should have some credibility, otherwise how could we have achieved so called success in our world in various fields which are related to science?

'Success' is very relative.

Development is measured using various methods. When one method says 'it is developed', another one can say it is not. Sometimes people argue that materialistic development is not a complete development, but a spiritual and moral development is also needed. That is where religions come in.

Arguments and philosophical discussions can go either way, useful or useless. Darvin's evolution was a theory. Some agreed with him but some did not. Later the theory underwent few changes as well. But most of the world accepts it not only because it is logical, but there were evidence that backed that theory.

But scientific theories are not always agreements. Einstein showed that matter can be converted into energy, and he gave a formula for that as well. He did not have to discuss it with others and come into an agreement, but he proved it through experiments and mathematics.

We can argue on useless matters for days. Someone who is looking at such an argument might get it as a very important, philosophical argument, though it actually is of no use. So the mere ability to discuss upon does not give anything, any value.

What is your point here in this post?

Is there any thing, which you would like to look at and openly discuss?

I have nothing to discuss out of the scope. I am merely replying to your opinions regarding the question, with relation to the book that we discuss whenever possible.

Here my point is that, science is not developed through arguments and agreements, but through research and experiments. Scientific projects, like going in to the moon, is not a single man's work, and that is not a purely scientific work, but has a contribution of many other fields like politics. In such occasions arguments and agreements have a validity and necessity, but not in the pure scientific work.

[evolution]

Could we then just say and agree that 'any' argument is of great importance when formulated in a logically reasoned way?

Could we also agree that to argue to defend one's own belief, where the belief is not absolutely and irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct anyway, would just be an illogical way to proceed?



What you have seen in the "development of the world" was also due to 'agreement', correct? We could not have flown, for example, let alone flown to the moon, without some sort of 'agreement' being reached, first, correct?

And, you are probably exactly right that the human "developed" 'technological world' is mostly due to science and/or scientific research, but really is there much use in "developing" the already existing world if we are just going to keep polluting it while we continue bickering and warring over possessions and money, because we are just being greedy, selfish beings?

Scientific research may create a truly technologically "developed" world, but it will be through logically reasoned, sound and valid 'arguments' that will create a truly peaceful and harmonious world.



This appears very contradictory and hypocritical. I would not agree in false things. But each to their own.

I much prefer, instead, to just look at, and see, only, 'what actually is'.



'Success' is very relative.

Development is measured using various methods. When one method says 'it is developed', another one can say it is not. Sometimes people argue that materialistic development is not a complete development, but a spiritual and moral development is also needed. That is where religions come in.

Arguments and philosophical discussions can go either way, useful or useless. Darvin's evolution was a theory. Some agreed with him but some did not. Later the theory underwent few changes as well. But most of the world accepts it not only because it is logical, but there were evidence that backed that theory.

But scientific theories are not always agreements. Einstein showed that matter can be converted into energy, and he gave a formula for that as well. He did not have to discuss it with others and come into an agreement, but he proved it through experiments and mathematics.

We can argue on useless matters for days. Someone who is looking at such an argument might get it as a very important, philosophical argument, though it actually is of no use. So the mere ability to discuss upon does not give anything, any value.

What is your point here in this post?

Is there any thing, which you would like to look at and openly discuss?

I have nothing to discuss out of the scope. I am merely replying to your opinions regarding the question, with relation to the book that we discuss whenever possible.

Here my point is that, science is not developed through arguments and agreements, but through research and experiments.

'Science' is just a process, done by human beings through observations and experiments, is it not?

Scientific projects, like going in to the moon, is not a single man's work, and that is not a purely scientific work, but has a contribution of many other fields like politics. In such occasions arguments and agreements have a validity and necessity, but not in the pure scientific work.

What are you actually 'trying to' argue for, or against, here?

[Alias]

My opinion is that this book is almost certainly the standard creationist BS, dressed up to look educated and sell lots of copies to gullible people.
I'm curious: Why are you so preoccupied with the topic? What's so fascinating about it?
I mean, starting a thread about a book you find interesting is normal. Starting a thread about a book with which you totally disagree is still OK. But you've started how many? six, about this same book? Why??

[Sushan]

My opinion is that this book is almost certainly the standard creationist BS, dressed up to look educated and sell lots of copies to gullible people.
I'm curious: Why are you so preoccupied with the topic? What's so fascinating about it?
I mean, starting a thread about a book you find interesting is normal. Starting a thread about a book with which you totally disagree is still OK. But you've started how many? six, about this same book? Why??

That is not because I loved the book or I agreed with all the facts that the author has presented. But I felt like that there are points that can be discussed related to this book, and they may lead to great discussions or increment of knowledge. Maybe I am wrong, but that was my idea behind all those topics

[Alias]

That's fine. I'm just saying you might do batter to keep all discussions of a particular book to one thread. That would make it easier for other people to follow what book you're discussing. You can always bring up various questions you have about the that book sequentially, rather than concurrently. I don't see enough people interested enough to follow so many aspects of a single subject.

[Sushan]

That's fine. I'm just saying you might do batter to keep all discussions of a particular book to one thread. That would make it easier for other people to follow what book you're discussing. You can always bring up various questions you have about the that book sequentially, rather than concurrently. I don't see enough people interested enough to follow so many aspects of a single subject.

I see your point.

There is a main forum called Philosophy book of the month club. Underneath that the monthly books for discussion are listed as separate forums and underneath them we can post new topics. So here all the topics that I have posted come under the forum "The Biblical Clock by Daniel Friedmann" which has this separate link

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... m.php?f=36

I am sorry but I do not see a way to post questions sequentially, rather than posting them as per the way that this website has allowed to.

[Alias]

I am sorry but I do not see a way to post questions sequentially, rather than posting them as per the way that this website has allowed to.

It allows you to pose your questions in an existing thread, and wait until one topic has been answered and discussed before posing the next question in the same thread.
This book is not very much more engaging than the wilderness crying one; neither deserves to take up half the active topics.