>>18106410
>these theories do falsify that viewpoint.
And if that methodology isn't just being done for the fun of it, but is actually serious, that means the methodology is being informed by philosophically materialist claims which are strictly naturalist only. By that token, it means that it does require its practitioners to commit to purely materialist naturalism. And that brings us back to the question of where that comes from. And it brings things right back to the deficiencies of that presupposition as earlier elaborated on.
>If you think the Book of Daniel is an inspired religious text,
If the book of Daniel and other scriptures in the Holy Bible are inspired by the Creator, the Lord and God who is asserted in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21, that would mean the books of the Bible are factually true. I'm not sure why anyone would use the term "inspired" in some other way than this. Maybe, if someone was being disingenuous they would say the word "inspired" to appear to some people as if they were saying the above, while really meaning some other definition. The use of the term "religious" in modern parlance often seems to indicate the presence of such an ulterior definition. However, these connotations are notoriously slippery and not always overtly stated.
I feel bad for people who think it's fine to reaffirm their fellow human beings in something they know is false simply by calling it a "religious truth."
>So if that's the case then you're correct that it doesn't assume what you assume,
I said it assumes what I don't assume, not the other way around. The methodology and practice now in popular use assumes certain possibilities are not allowed to be considered, but I allow those possibilities to be considered.