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.
Even though it is an ancient book and touches on many subjects, the Bible contains no scientific inaccuracies. Does not such a book merit, at the very least, our consideration? when it comes to scientific matters, the Bible is noteworthy not only for what it says but also for what it does not say. Views about the earth ranged from the idea that it was flat to the notion that tangible substances or objects held it aloft. Long before science learned about the spread and prevention of disease, physicians employed some practices that were ineffective at best, lethal at worst. But not once in its more than 1,100 chapters does the Bible endorse any unscientific views or harmful practices. Some 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is hanging “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) In the eighth century B.C.E., Isaiah clearly referred to “the circle [or, sphere] of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22) A spherical earth held in empty space without any visible or physical means of support—does not that description sound remarkably modern? (Isaiah 45:12) "I made the earth and created man on it. I stretched out the heavens with my own hands, And I give orders to all their army.”(Jeremiah 10:12) He is the Maker of the earth by his power, The One who established the productive land by his wisdom And who stretched out the heavens by his understanding. (Isaiah 51:13) Why do you forget Jehovah your Maker, The One who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundation of the earth? (Isaiah 51:13) For this is what Jehovah says, The Creator of the heavens, the true God, The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it, Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.(Psalm 115:16) As for the heavens, they belong to Jehovah, But the earth he has given to the sons of men. (Ecclesiastes 1:4) A generation is going, and a generation is coming,But the earth remains forever. (Psalm 37:29) The righteous will possess the earth,And they will live forever on it. (Isaiah 44:24) This is what Jehovah says, your Repurchaser, Who formed you since you were in the womb: “I am Jehovah, who made everything. I stretched out the heavens by myself, And I spread out the earth. Who was with me? (1 Corinthians 15:41) The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, one star differs from another star in glory. (Job 38:3-6) Brace yourself, please, like a man; I will question you, and you inform me. Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you think you understand. Who set its measurements, in case you know,Or who stretched a measuring line across it? (Job 38:33) Do you know the laws governing the heavens. (Job 38:31) Can you tie the ropes of the Ki′mah constellation. Or untie the cords of the Ke′sil constellation? In conclusion, these are just a few reasons why millions of people are convinced that the Bible is worthy of trust.
First thing you should do is read the terms of service for the forum...A link must be provided when you copy from a website....Secondly the bible is rife with scientific errors, and deserves no consideration in that regard.....
Yes as I pointed out, that is one of your problems. You don;t need to 'wish' to 'believe'...
Just two points.
Quote:
And I would argue that it is not 'illogical' that a creative intelligence might be behind the existence of the Universe,
it is not against logic to say so. It is not against logic to say it is possible. But it is illogical to claim that there is good evidence for it when there isn't, never mind fiddling the evidence to look like it
Quote:
Assuming that logical processing is done with the brain in mind, are you not just fiddling words here?
No. Illogical thinking is one thing - self -justifying 'common sense' as it is called, is in fact the normal method of human reasoning. Logic and Scientific method introduces ways of avoiding illogical thinking. Brain disorder through mental disease or damage is something else entirely. Though sometimes it is hard to tell one from the other.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-05-2015 at 02:37 AM..
No, the Bible is not a science book--not even remotely. At the same time many of the early Church fathers held to a spherical shape---sort of. Here is the quick and dirty from Wiki. Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So perhaps not as many of those early Christians bought into the "flat earth" idea, even if some of them had the earth as the center of the universe. Certainly Thomas Aquinas did not.
I agree. In fact I mentioned earlier that the Church had nothing to do with flat earthism (1) They held to a Geocentric system but not a flat earth. apparently through a reverence for Aristotle rather than for Genesis. Augustine accepted a round earth, though I read he still thought that nobody could live on the underneath of it or they'd fall off.
(1) that was started in the 19th c by an individual and only later latched onto the Bible as evidence that the earth had to be flat - especially when the cult was exported to America.
From my notes
"So, is there any truth in the idea that the Church has always argued for a flat earth up to, say the 18th-century?
Not a lot. It is true that Lactantias and Cosmas Indicopleustes and their followers, Severianus, bishop of Gabala and St john Crysostom argued against a globe using references to the OT, but they had limited influence. The main objection was not that the earth was round but on logical and scriptural grounds, no-one could live there (Augustine, Isidore of seville). The general effect of the church was to translate and transmit greek learning as was the case with the Arabic world, where Ptolemy's work was translated as 'Almagest'."...."In the medieval world Ptolemy and Aristotle were the source books of cosmological thought and the idea of a flat earth was a non-issue. What the church banned in 1616 was not the idea of a round earth but any books suggesting that the earth moved. And it was the idea of a contradiction of God's special fixed creation that was at stake."
And a bit of a return to Darwinism.
"While the church had quitetly dropped its opposition to a heliocentric solar system, what was causing it disquiet was the study of geology. William Smith, James Hutton and Cuvier's research on strata and fossils had begin to raise ideas of an earth that was a lot older than the Bible would appear to indicate. The favoured view of catastrophism was joined by the idea of gradual change (Sir Charles Lyell, and Lamarck) and Darwin and Wallace on the biological side and Kant and Laplace on the cosmological side looked like removing the need for a creator god from science at all."
"So, when and how did the flat earth idea resurface? ...
This was the brain-child of Robert Owen(1771-1858) (writing as "Parallax") who was led by socialist views into questioning the scientific orthodoxy...After some heated exchanges, it was suggested that the matter be settled by experiment. This was conducted at Plymouth and, if Owen was right all of Eddystone lighthouse should be visible, whereas, if the earth was curved, then only the lantern should be visible. In fact, owing to the peculiar properties of the air on that day, only half the lantern was visible. This should have floored Owen but be declared that, since only half the lantern was visible whereas the round-earthists had said that it would all be visible, they were wrong so he must be right." (Cheating in order to win is all part of the game)
(quite apart from setting the record straight on the Church view on the flat -earth issue, and in fact the same is really true of the Evolution issue after some initial opposition, I am diverted by the similarity of Owen's flat earth cult to the methods of present day Creationism.)
"Flat-earthism was shipped across the pond to America where Wilbur Voliva, having deposed the president (Scottish snake-oil seller John Dowie) of a religious city (Zion, Illinois) in the 20's after a financial meltdown and established a Theocratic police-state of which Bible-literalism, including a flat earth doctrine, was mandatory. The increasingly disaffected population eventually disempowered him and his repeated failed end of the world pronouncements around the time of WW2."
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-05-2015 at 02:21 AM..
Back to evolution. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth", these are the first words of man's most sacred book. It does not set a time limit. The heavens are said to be over 15 billion years old, the Earth is 4.5 billion years in age. The bible though not a scientific textbook, if Devine should agree with present day scientific knowledge. The bible states the Earth is a sphere which hangs on nothing in the midst of an expanding universe. Which implies there is a force still unknown to man, that is stretching the heavens. This at a time thousand of years ago when it was thought, the Earth sat on the back of a great tortes.
Let me be clear that I am a non literal atheist. That means I don't care what people believe as much as I do about the claims they make. I look at each claim before I link them to check the validity of a world view.
I have stated that time is irrelevant. The shape of the earth is irrelevant too. Any reasonable person so many thousands of years ago can come up with a time frame and shape. In fact, as I have said before they did pretty good for 6000 years ago.
What you have shown is that smart people 6000 years ago were as insightful as smart people today. Basically they use the information around them to come up with a reasonable explanation. "divinely inspirited". I don't really do divine. "divine" really seems more emotional to me. I find ants "divine".
Lastly, any biologist can put a line of reasonable logic that matches memes to proteins to make the story lines fit atheist and theist views in one swoop. I find this more satisfactory than so many people being flat out wrong. I just don't see that as reasonable. But I also think, maybe my view is emotionally skewed
Yes as I pointed out, that is one of your problems. You don;t need to 'wish' to 'believe' and in the case of considering ideas like their being a creative intelligence behind the formation of the Universe, having a wish to believe it is the case is not a requirement. Indeed, belefs are best left out of such thinking processes.
Agreed. List the facts and then form the belief. Don't list the belief then squish the facts into them. many atheist that act religiously do this. But remember, most of us don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
Yet this 'godfaith' you mention is not necessary. That is your problem.
I know what you mean. But really claiming "no nothing" needed just does not match observations. Frankly, the only valid reason to hold to that claim is emotional needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
and I would argue that it is not 'illogical 'that a creative intelligence might be behind the existence of the Universe, even then this intelligence need not be regarded as 'G()D' in that traditional sense of the meaning which your mind focuses upon to the seeming exclusion of other thought processes.
Your right here. In fact it is more valid to say that "life" produces "life". At least on earth. maybe nothing was before the big bang. But once it happened there was life. unknown complexity in a small volume looks like life. I haven't seen one small volume with a high complexity not look like life yet.
Look at dna. A small volume with a vast amount of information.
Then patterns. Look for many patterns in a small volume and you may see life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
Assuming that logical processing is done with the brain in mind, are you not just fiddling words here? *
Agreed again. what is needed are particle interactions that produce repeated patterns in a "wavelike" manor. I don't mean ocean wave here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
Eeeww! 'apologists'! Name it and shame it eh! *
agreed again. Some people treat it as bad. What it means is "apologists" change what they believe based in new information about god. Calling it "bad" is a debate tactic to draw people away from the evidence and put them on the defensive. Apologetic's should say "yeah, I changed with new info, why don't you."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
A useless answer
None are so blind as those defending their beliefs, be those beliefs in G()Ds or beliefs in 'mindless accidents of nature'.
yes again. "no nothing does not match observations. many atheist just keep saying "nope", "nope", and "nope". Now granted some of the nopes are correct. But that's it. squeezing data to keep the religious atheists going on the war path is as bad as any literal theist religion doing the same.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 06-05-2015 at 07:01 AM..
it is not against logic to say so. It is not against logic to say it is possible. But it is illogical to claim that there is good evidence for it when there isn't, never mind fiddling the evidence to look like it
This 'finding the logic' that you refer to is really no more or less than a conscious intelligent individual recognizing the intelligence involved in the unfolding totality of the process of evolution.
Your problem isn't that you are not intelligent but that you cannot recognize the same intelligence because this infers that theists are correct (you would have to become what you refer to as an "apologist") which is not a matter of making intelligent observation but a lack of being able to due to emotional based platforms of observation.
This emotionally propelled observation prohibits you from being able to agree the actual intelligent observation shows plainly that there is intelligence involved in the process of evolution.
However, in being able to allow intelligent observation its place, does not conclude that one has to agree with the myths of theism being actually real literal things.
What it allows one to achieve is to being able to sort through those myths and determine intelligently that such can be understood as quite natural but of themselves cannot be used to claim 'There is no "G()D"' ie..."there is no creative intelligence behind the reality of the physical universe."
To do so is to step too far and is more a symptom of emotionally based opposition to theism than an actual outpouring of none emotive intelligence.
Quote:
No. Illogical thinking is one thing - self -justifying 'common sense' as it is called, is in fact the normal method of human reasoning. Logic and Scientific method introduces ways of avoiding illogical thinking. Brain disorder through mental disease or damage is something else entirely. Though sometimes it is hard to tell one from the other.
In relation to my argument none of the above answers adequately. Logic in relation to scientific method can only be applied to the material. Science cannot for example (to repeat myself) tell anyone whether the material is a property of an incredibly complex simulation which all involved are within.
Yet logical thinking can of itself ponder the possibility and can even suggest that if so, this does not mean only one being created the said simulation.
It could have been created by billions of beings altogether.
So do you notice that my argument does not get all emotional regarding 'science' or 'evolution'? This is because I readily accept what science is able to uncover. What I do not do (but what you do do) is try and use science to justify a belief that a creative intelligence is not behind the formation of the Universe. I would go so far as to also add that I do not see science as claiming any such thing either.
What I do see (because it happens to be the case) is that certain types of atheists use science to uphold their own emotionally propped-up positions to categorically state that their belief that no intelligent designer(s) are behind the formation of the universe and the overall process of what is called 'evolution', is actually The Truth.
So it is not 'science' saying "there is no G()D" but it is certain types of atheists who claim science is saying 'there is no G()D'.
Science and the scientific method are incapable of making such claims and proving them.
Atheists who use the authority of science to bolster and proclaim their beliefs are not different from theists who use their particular idea of G()D to bolster their own belief based proclamations.
All fall short of the mark.
Sadly all are responsible for the decline of the human species, because of the drama such interaction between the 'opposites' create.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Agreed. List the facts and then form the belief. Don't list the belief then squish the facts into them. many atheist that act religiously do this. But remember, most of us don't.
How is it then that the voice of atheism most heard are those whom act religiously about their beliefs?
I would say, "list the facts and dispense with the beliefs."
I would also add, just because 'the facts' are only related to material evidence, do not belittle the fact that one can imagine what the material cannot produce, and that what is material may not necessarily be all that is (exists)...
Beliefs are redundant apart from being obviously necessary for the purpose of drama and disunity. How are we to convince those with beliefs to abandon said beliefs for the sake of humanity?
For that matter, such a thing - if even possible - may be too late to engage with.
Quote:
I know what you mean. But really claiming "no nothing" needed just does not match observations. Frankly, the only valid reason to hold to that claim is emotional needs.
Yes I agree. It is not that we should become unemotional and robotic of course, but that we learn to control our emotions rather than have our emotions control us.
Certain emotions are pointless or rather serve to make sure we never evolve to that position.
Quote:
Your right here. In fact it is more valid to say that "life" produces "life". At least on earth. maybe nothing was before the big bang. But once it happened there was life. unknown complexity in a small volume looks like life. I haven't seen one small volume with a high complexity not look like life yet.
Look at dna. A small volume with a vast amount of information.
Then patterns. Look for many patterns in a small volume and you may see life.
I concur.
It is no problem contemplating that this universe is the only thing and that it came about through a mindless activity, but the point is a mind came from this activity and we do not even know how encompassing that mind is (but there are ways to gauge and measure and interact) and we do not know that the mind has not found ways of sustaining itself without the brain (see 'afterlife') and etc etc...
Theism and atheism tend to want to corral the mind into whatever boundaries the particular beliefs enfold and it seems that the mind accommodates even while being free from any particular individual or group beliefs concerning 'what it is' and 'what its capabilities are'.
Life is what? That which lives. Then there is also 'that which lives and knows that it lives' then there is 'that which lives and knows that it lives and gives itself purpose and meaning for living, even that initially it came from a mindless purposelessness process.'
That is life. It can be seen to be intelligent in the patterns you mention. Atheists (those types of) have said 'it is coincidence and chance. The brain likes to imagine there are patterns where there are none and then assign intelligent self aware agency to those imagined patterns.
What I say is that those patterns might not be 'imagined' but rather 'recognized' by 'the brain' (or rather the conscious intelligence in relation with the brain) and the compulsion to assign intelligence to what is observed is not the problem at all. The problem is in assigning presumed character and function to that intelligence solely through imaginative story-telling for questionable reasons.
Quote:
Agreed again. what is needed are particle interactions that produce repeated patterns in a "wavelike" manor. I don't mean ocean wave here.
IF this creative mind exists, find ways of interacting with it. Are observing particle interactions achieving this? Please expand on this (create a thread perhaps or point me in the direction) 'wave' subject you refer to.
I thought a wave is a wave is a wave. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Ripples and ripple effects. (((o)))
Quote:
agreed again. Some people treat it as bad. What it means is "apologists" change what they believe based in new information about god. Calling it "bad" is a debate tactic to draw people away from the evidence and put them on the defensive. Apologetic's should say "yeah, I changed with new info, why don't you."
Yes oh dear. Being an 'apologist' is as nasty as being in the position of 'middle' in the eyes of those who choose belief over reason.
Quote:
yes again. "no nothing does not match observations. many atheist just keep saying "nope", "nope", and "nope". Now granted some of the nopes are correct. But that's it. squeezing data to keep the religious atheists going on the war path is as bad as any literal theist religion doing the same.
Admittedly the militant atheists on this board are tame compared with those I have experienced on other boards. I think that has much to do with the nature and structure of the board itself, which tends to keep things in the general capacity of acceptable etiquette and niceness. That is of course not a bad thing.
Admittedly the militant atheists on this board are tame compared with those I have experienced on other boards. I think that has much to do with the nature and structure of the board itself, which tends to keep things in the general capacity of acceptable etiquette and niceness. That is of course not a bad thing.
We need a Peace Path.
yuppers rot. I'ma thinnin wez on that there same page. That might not be so good for you.
They are tame here because of good adminz. I got a few "time outs" when I came here from a big site. I dissevered them I must add.
This 'finding the logic' that you refer to is really no more or less than a conscious intelligent individual recognizing the intelligence involved in the unfolding totality of the process of evolution.....
etc, ets.
I don't see much point in addressing your post. I don't care what you think of me or atheism in general and the only thing we can reasonably investigate is what we can reasonably investigate. I am happy to leave you to your speculations.
This 'finding the logic' that you refer to is really no more or less than a conscious intelligent individual recognizing the intelligence involved in the unfolding totality of the process of evolution.
Your problem isn't that you are not intelligent but that you cannot recognize the same intelligence because this infers that theists are correct (you would have to become what you refer to as an "apologist") which is not a matter of making intelligent observation but a lack of being able to due to emotional based platforms of observation.
This emotionally propelled observation prohibits you from being able to agree the actual intelligent observation shows plainly that there is intelligence involved in the process of evolution.
I'll take a stab at this one, because I think here is where there is a major divergence of thought.
First from my own experience as a design engineer, I have trouble believing that what we observe in nature is evidence of design, because it is so blindingly inefficient! It simply isn't elegant, it doesn't appear to be goal oriented, and is incredibly wasteful. Look at how many evolutionary dead ends we have found.
Secondly, if I step back and view it in a less personal, more objective manner, it still does not appear to indicate intelligence per se, because we can describe it algorithmically. We have an entire field of research in system optimization and control theory where biological evolution is distilled into a mathematical algorithm and that is applied to other design and optimization problems. From these we can see how evolution, inherited changes being acted on by external pressure, can optimize a specific population for a given set of external pressures. When those conditions change, the population is again optimized ( or sometimes outcompeted by some other population, "dying" out entirely). These same patterns, the same "drama of life" unfolds whether we are discussing a population of mammals or a population of ARMA models, Feed-Forward control loops, or generic solutions to a system of differential equations. The "magic" is not in intelligence, it is in the algorithm of evolution via natural selection. It is not an intelligent process, but a blind application of rules, physical or mathematical, that produces these results.
The question is why, if we can see that for Genetic Algorithms this is not a process of intelligence but simply a mathematical reality, why should anyone assume that biological evolution is different? It is not emotion that leads me to believe that evolution is an unintelligent, blind process, it is the evidence that supports that view and the lack of evidence for some intelligence.
Is it possible that there was some "Intelligence" involved? Sure. But do we have evidence for that proposition? Is there a reason to believe that over the idea that it is a mechanistic, natural process? Especially since we can see that it is reducible to a blind mathematical algorithm that does not require "Intelligent" guidance?
These are the questions that matter. Not, "Is it possible?" but, "It is supported by evidence?", "It is the most robust, the best, explanation we have?", "Does it allow us to make useful predictions and generalizations about the world around us?". I submit that a naturalistic approach to evolution is currently the best, most well supported conclusion we have.
I'll take a stab at this one, because I think here is where there is a major divergence of thought.
-NoCapo
how robust? We have some pretty robust data that suggest something over no nothing. people dismiss "robust" on personal intentions many times. I don't know about a designer, that's a given. But how robust to you need to say it is more reasonable to claim "more complexity", like "life", than no-nothing alive?
Are we just algorithms too? Then what can we conclude?
Natural? what does that mean? god is not natural? again, maybe not "designed" like you or I design a program or a machine. But how about the way "life" designs the blood cell, or the brain? or a tree?
what about field theory. where are the boundaries for life and non life? Let's just think in terms of earth size for now to keep it sensible. .
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.
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.
