Complexity? Really?

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

You also pretended not to notice my direct clear question above @Calilasseia

That’s rich coming from you.

@Sheldon

@Sherlock-Holmes

all evidence is interpreted, within some overall worldview.

That an objective fact is no more reliable than an unevidenced subjective religious belief is risible nonsense. However let’s test your risible generalisation;

There is overwhelming objective evidence that the world is not flat.

Now please tell me which worldview I am using to subjectively interpret the shape of the earth, and what alternative interpretation(s) you think are viable and why?

@Sheldon

@Sherlock-Holmes

there are good reasons to regard the Biblical cannon (and perhaps some extra canonical works too) as being - to some degree - supernaturally originated.

Be a dear, and give us your top 3 please?

@Sheldon

Indeed, which is why methods like science and logic are the best we have, as part of those methods is to remove exactly such subjective bias. Religions on the other hand have spent millennia championing closed minded subjective bias, they call it faith.

@Sherlock-Holmes

That’s not really true, it’s an over simplification.

1. Which method can be objectively demonstrated to be better than science?
2. Are you seriously saying religions haven’t championed the closed minded bias of faith? You’re wrong.

I think you need to answer some of the many questions put to you, based on the many unevidenced claims and assertions you reel off, before decrying for anyone else for missing one question asked a few hours ago.