Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-13-2014, 01:15 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,083 posts, read 20,587,076 times
Reputation: 5927

Advertisements

Good response. To awsmith's pertinent question, I have to say, how do we know that the Potassium-argon method of dating rocks is not affected by some unknown factor (as affected the mussel shells, and we only knew the C14 was wrong because we knew what age they really were) that would completely skew the Radiometric dates and (perhaps) give a date nearer the thousands of years rather than millions or billions?

The thing with C14 is that we often do know when a date looks impossible as we have other methods of dating. Thus a general confirmation has built up to show that, by and large, C14 dating is reliable. Possibly some things have slipped through the net. Some wooden statue dated a thousand years old when it is really only a year or two. But then we see that something very unusual would have needed to happen to the wood to alter the date that much. The very unusually low carbon 14 food the mussels dined on wouldn't apply to wood, or indeed most other organic materials.

We would need to consider those sealskins and the mortar. Just the bald claim was too under-researched and led to a backbite.

With radiometric dating, in one of the earlier responses, it was shown that several other confirmatory dating methods have been used and the correlation is compelling. There is also context. It is possible that some particular strata of rocks might get something affecting the radiometric date, but then we'd see something was wrong as we did with the mussels, because it would be in the wrong place. If strata malformation or some other factor didn't explain the anomaly, we'd try to find out why it was wrong. However, I know of no example of such a wildly wrong Potassium - Argon date for a rock -strata.

Therefore, dating rocks by the radiometric method seems reliable and some error -factor similar to those mussel -shells seems as unlikely to upset the reliability of Potassium -Argon dating any more than the mussel -shells upsets C 14 dating.

 
Old 12-13-2014, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
19,825 posts, read 13,364,699 times
Reputation: 9822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Parr View Post
Maybe there is no God and I have been fooled or maybe there is a God that takes care of everybody - including Atheists.
You know, Ella, I have zero problem with believers who can make statements like this. Humility, intelligence, and respect for your fellow man need not be undermined by belief in god.

I think that this forum tends to attract people with huge ego investments in being "right" and it's refreshing to engage with a different sort of believer for a change. Do continue to hang around!
 
Old 12-13-2014, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
19,825 posts, read 13,364,699 times
Reputation: 9822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ella Parr View Post
Yes, I am sure that a lot of people think a belief in God is irrational. I don't. Besides, if I am wrong, then no harm, no foul. But if you are wrong, ....
This is a version of Pascal's Wager. You may wish to search for that in other threads here and on the A&A forum, it has been covered in some depth. The basic problem with Pascal's Wager, philosophically, is what John referred to with his "which god" question. Pascal's Wager assumes a binary choice between no god and the accepted Christian god of his day. There are many other gods however.

Similarly, atheists such as myself are often assumed to reject Jehovah / Jesus specifically. In point of fact, we reject all god(s) of any kind, although for those of us who live in the West, Jehovah is the only god-claim we have engaged with in detail.

Generally it's easier, rather than harder, to disbelieve in a specific god / doctrine / dogma than in the concept of deities generally. The more specific one gets, the more logical consistencies there are to deal with. For a deconvert such as myself, I initially rejected the teachings of Christian fundamentalism, then of generic Christianity, and it didn't take long to figure out that other religions had nothing better to commend to me.
 
Old 12-13-2014, 04:12 PM
 
874 posts, read 634,452 times
Reputation: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
You remind me a bit of our ptsum, who is a Native American and who has been discussing a similar point of view on the part of the many tribes -- a default of mutual respect for the personal nature of one's religious beliefs. According to him, a tribal member can believe in no god at all, and that is respected as "their path".
Yes, I believe each has his own path. We each have to find our own way. We don't know what is in a man's heart or what has caused him to be whatever way he is, so we must get out of his way and let him make his own journey. I try to live my life so that I display what I believe are God's ways and I try not to be a stumbling block to others finding their own way. I think that is my responsibility - not trying to beat someone over the head with the Bible or my "religion" (which actually I don't have since I don't go to church).

How do you feel about the world and our sojourn through life and man's place in it all?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
That is very different from the common tropes of Christianity, which usually involve some notion of capital-T Truth for all, of orthodoxy vs apostasy, right vs wrong, heaven vs hell.
The really sad thing about Christianity is that the only "rules" for being a Christian is that one believes in God and that one believes Jesus is the son of God and Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Period. Absolutely every thing else is man-made. With 40,000 different denominations that can't agree on much of anything, there is a lot of "man-made" going on out there. I've never been ashamed to call myself Christian - until just lately. Organized religion has hi-jacked "Christianity" and put a very ugly face to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
This also explains how you can fit your beliefs to god without a universally agreed definition of god -- you are talking about fitting your beliefs to god as you conceive of him, personally. Which is perfectly fine, even if I don't get it.
Yes, I am fitting my beliefs to God as I conceive him to be. I have started on my 3rd reading of the Bible trying to discern what I can about God. That is why I believe each has his own path. I participated in OR for many years and I heard them. It didn't give me the answers *I needed*. It seems to work perfectly well for millions of others. I don't know if I am right or wrong. I disagree with the overwhelming majority in my beliefs and with 99.9 % of the church-going public. What's that old saying about if you don't agree with that many people, you must be wrong. I don't know. I don't "feel" wrong and I am willing to take that chance. I *think* I have learned things that most others have not acknowledged. But, there is still that thing: if you don't agree with that many other people... I believe that by trying to understand God better, instead of within the constraints of OR, I am opening up a world of possibilities that OR doesn't teach. One of those things is that the world really is 4.54 billion years old. In my own mind, I believe that I know why (other than science says so) from what I read in the Bible. I think taking the Bible and letting God be my boundaries is far more accurate than letting OR be my boundaries. We have Christian OR posters on this thread still arguing that the world is 6,000 years old because those were the generations of Adam and Adam was part of Creation. OR set their boundaries and they have to make their beliefs fit it. That doesn't work for me. I had to "find" a different answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
If there is no objective shared reality in which god is god, if it's entirely personal, then to me, what you're really talking about is fitting your personal conception of god to the facts on the ground -- which is better than the way it's usually done in OR, granted. But it is still nothing you can show to be objectively so, it is simply what you choose to believe about god.
I think there is probably a shared reality of God - in one way. Those who believe in God pretty much agree that He is omnificent and all powerful. But, there are those who think He is mean and vengeful and those who think he is all sweetness and light - and everything in between. If one is to have a personal relationship with God, one must seek out God and build a relationship. Technically, it is not any different that a man making a new friend. Someone else can tell you about another person, but until you have one-on-one contact, you really can't call that person a friend. Once you do, others may perceive that new friend of yours as something totally different than you do. Ten people may be friends with person A, and all ten relationships will be different. That is the nature of relationships. A relationship with God is no different.

I don't think there is anything objective about it. I don't think you can "show" a relationship or prove to another a relationship - on earth or with God. So, yes it is what I choose to believe, but based on interaction and my reading of the Bible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
In any way, at all. How can god enter into my deliberations about the nature of things when he is not even part of nature, which is all I can apprehend in the first place?
I can't answer that for you. Only you can answer that. Hence, each has his own path. I believe God to be part of the nature of things. I see God everywhere. If we talk about a tree, I see God. If we talk about the nature of man, I don't see God working in man, collectively, as much as I would like.
I see man coming in 2 parts - the animal and the conscience. Yes, the conscience I call a "soul" or "of God". Some men have no conscience. Some men blend the two - like most of us who try to follow the laws of our land and know love for another, and don't go out and rape, kill, and pillage. I think all people who refrain from this latter have a conscience, the "God element", I call it - whether one believes in God or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
When Christians use the language you used ("god is not bounded by any natural laws"), that usually is part of the "god is outside of and above / beyond nature" which = supernatural. If you believe god is part of nature, that makes him less removed and potentially quantifiable, and I apologize for misunderstanding your view.?
I know that I was conversing with a poster who kept using "God is not bounded by any natural laws" as his mantra and reason for his argument. So, I very well could have used that statement. It is true that I believe God is capable of whatever He wants to do. However, I think God created natural laws and He runs this world by them. But, I see what you mean. It is a fine line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I see nature in nature, I do not see intentionality or orchestration. If you see god in nature, than you have to see him in cancer and tsunamis and human suffering as well as in flowers and rainbows and unicorns. You can't have it both ways.
This is hard for me to explain. I do see the orchestration. I realize that is because I choose to see it, because I believe in God. I had cancer. So, do I believe that God looked down on Oprah Winfrey and said, "I am going to give you every wonderful thing this world has to offer" and then He looked down on me and said, "I'm going to give you cancer"? No, I don't believe that. However, one has a very good argument in pointing out that that is the case. Why don't I believe that? Perhaps, because that is more than the meager human mind can accept. It certainly doesn't mean that it isn't true. So as a human, I rationalize. I do not know God's mind and I don't think I ever will. Most things are just supposition as we try to answer why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
No, not at all. I do not automatically accord any unearned free passes to religious notions in the free marketplace of ideas, but that is a critique of ideas, not of you. In all honesty if most Christians were like you I'd find Christianity far less annoying and cloying.
Me, too. They do get on my last nerve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I also may be influenced at times by my background I came out of, which is Christian fundamentalism.
We're all influenced by something. There's that "own path" thing again. Please tell me more about it, if you feel comfortable doing so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
That you are :-)
Aw, shucks... Thanks.
 
Old 12-13-2014, 04:21 PM
 
Location: Free From The Oppressive State
30,226 posts, read 23,649,798 times
Reputation: 38582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn View Post
Science is not a "they", it is a process that has been confirmed to be reliable enough to be accepted as the best means of coming to conclusions. Religion and superstitions have been regularly proven wrong and thereby the least reliable method for making predictions and arriving at conclusions. Because some carbon 14 dating methods, only one of many dating methods, has been contaminated and has come to inconsistent results does not mean that the errors can be considered off by a factor of billions of years, hundreds or thousands at most. Certainly, no scientific dating methods suggest the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Again, as I posted previously, (I feel like the scientist in the video) there are many, many more problems for theists to overcome to prove the flood ever happened to even consider it in the debate about the age of the Earth much less about the reliability of carbon 14 dating.
No. All are theories. The hypocrisy of those who pretend science isn't FILLED with theories is mind blowing.
 
Old 12-13-2014, 04:47 PM
 
Location: Richardson, TX
8,734 posts, read 13,788,315 times
Reputation: 3807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow View Post
No. All are theories. The hypocrisy of those who pretend science isn't FILLED with theories is mind blowing.
Of course science is filled with Theories. That's what it's about. Theories are paramount. Theories are the explanations that the SM provides. Who pretends science isn't about Theories?
 
Old 12-13-2014, 06:14 PM
 
Location: Iowa, USA
6,542 posts, read 4,083,761 times
Reputation: 3805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow View Post
No. All are theories. The hypocrisy of those who pretend science isn't FILLED with theories is mind blowing.
Everything in science is a theory. If it's not a theory, it's either a law or a hypothesis. A law is obvious. The laws of physics are a set of laws (clue is in the title for that one). A hypothesis is that black hole open and exit somewhere. There is no concrete evidence for it but the idea is entirely unreasonable.

An example of a theory is gravity, or the theory of relativity. The possibility of it being wrong is there, which is why it's not a law. However, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that it is in fact correct, and has gone through rigorous tests and scrutinizing observation to make certain that the theory is a working one.

The word theory, for whatever reason, seems to imply a great deal of uncertainty when this is not the case. A theory must be based off of some kind of rational observation. This is the case even outside of science.
 
Old 12-13-2014, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
31,374 posts, read 20,094,900 times
Reputation: 14069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow View Post
No. All are theories. The hypocrisy of those who pretend science isn't FILLED with theories is mind blowing.
Not nearly as mind-blowing as the number of fundavangelists who don't have Clue #1 what "theory" means in the scientific sense.
 
Old 12-13-2014, 07:14 PM
 
9,345 posts, read 4,302,670 times
Reputation: 3022
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty View Post
Everything in science is a theory. If it's not a theory, it's either a law or a hypothesis. A law is obvious. The laws of physics are a set of laws (clue is in the title for that one). A hypothesis is that black hole open and exit somewhere. There is no concrete evidence for it but the idea is entirely unreasonable.

An example of a theory is gravity, or the theory of relativity. The possibility of it being wrong is there, which is why it's not a law. However, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that it is in fact correct, and has gone through rigorous tests and scrutinizing observation to make certain that the theory is a working one.

The word theory, for whatever reason, seems to imply a great deal of uncertainty when this is not the case. A theory must be based off of some kind of rational observation. This is the case even outside of science.
No the possibilities of being wrong is not the difference between laws and theories. Laws generally in physics and math and theories when equations and formulas are not part of them.
 
Old 12-13-2014, 07:22 PM
 
874 posts, read 634,452 times
Reputation: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
This is a version of Pascal's Wager. You may wish to search for that in other threads here and on the A&A forum, it has been covered in some depth. The basic problem with Pascal's Wager, philosophically, is what John referred to with his "which god" question. Pascal's Wager assumes a binary choice between no god and the accepted Christian god of his day. There are many other gods however.

Similarly, atheists such as myself are often assumed to reject Jehovah / Jesus specifically. In point of fact, we reject all god(s) of any kind, although for those of us who live in the West, Jehovah is the only god-claim we have engaged with in detail.

Generally it's easier, rather than harder, to disbelieve in a specific god / doctrine / dogma than in the concept of deities generally. The more specific one gets, the more logical consistencies there are to deal with. For a deconvert such as myself, I initially rejected the teachings of Christian fundamentalism, then of generic Christianity, and it didn't take long to figure out that other religions had nothing better to commend to me.
I totally agree with you. I think you covered some very important points very well.

When I rejected OR, I didn't reject God/Jesus (Christianity Plain, I'm going to call it. ) Somehow I knew God was out there (for me), but I didn't know where or how. I had to search. If He wasn't out there for me, then so be it. I couldn't find Him in church. So, I searched elsewhere. Back to that "own path" thing.

I don't know what Pascal's Wager is. I will look this up. Thanks to people - mostly non-followers - on this forum, I have read and explored many things. I don't think information and knowledge are bad, threatening things. My faith must stand the test of time and challenge or it isn't any good.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:48 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top