P1: If someone wants to explain something, and expects it to be accepted as valid in an argument, it must be based on objective verifiable evidence that can be independently assessed.

Examples: I recently had someone claim 1.2 million sacrifices happened in Jerusalem and they based this off the Talmud. It defies logic and there are examples of mathematical errors or exaggeration in the Talmud. Since there is a discrepancy, we cannot take a theological claim or assertion at face value and have to look at outside sources. Josephus records ~250k sacrifices at one point which cleared 2 million people. Max population estimates show that around the 1st century 200k population max during religious festivals in Jerusalem. To follow that math forward, it would be serving 12 million people. This is the problem with simply using religious texts alone. bad example

Another Example: the snake in the garden of eden. The book says it is a snake. The theological answer varies from Lillith (Jewish folklore) to Satan (christian/jewish folklore) Neither one can be verified, and entirely rests on making up stories to explain situations. It requires relying entirely on subjective and mostly biased interpretation.

P2: Theological explanations often rely on religious text and interpretations which are not independently verifiable or based on physical evidence.

For example: In the Quran it describes the sun settling down into a muddy spring and a person traveling to it and discovering people there. Theological interpretation requires adapting a clearly ridiculous story into a figurative one. This bouncing back and forth between figurative and literal just depends on personal interpretation.

(Surah Al-Kahf (18:86)

The verse describes the story of Dhul-Qarnayn, a figure who travels to the place where the sun sets:

"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of black muddy or turbid hot spring."

Some take it literally, others take it figuratively.¹ To resolve this issue it is necessary to seek outside corroboration. Theology cannot stand on it's own merits.

Conclusion: Theological explanations for biblical text should not be accepted in an argument where objective, verifiable evidence is required because it can lead to biased or unfounded conclusions.

Notes:

Theology is reminiscent of "Just So Stories", by Kipling which explain how leopards got their spots, or how elephant trunks came to be. Things not grounded in evidence. If your argument relies on

1. Simplistic explanations for complex questions without evidence or scientific basis

2. Not empirically supported or objective evidence, relying on anecdotal, traditional, or speculative accounts

3. Narrative convenience which appeals to fit a worldview rather than factual accuracy

You may be creating or using a "Just so" story.

Steelmanning position

1. There may be instances where theological explanations can align with empirical evidence, but in that case the theological explanation is not necessary

2. Not all theological explanations are matched by these examples, they are a baseline comparison

3. There may be translation issues which would clarify interpretation

4. I am carrying a presupposition that objective verifiable evidence is valid. I believe that the minimization of bias, consistency and reliability and reproducibility of results is superior than subjectivity. If you don't agree with this presupposition, please explain why subjective, anecdotal, or religious interpretation should be the preferred method. Cultural and moral insights might be the only case I can think of that would justify a theological approach.