DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Science and Theology, the sequel
Pages:   ... [90]
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 2231, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/04/2008 10:25:30 AM · #26
Just a note to say that "Nearly all agree" and "most now think" would themselves have to be sourced, as that is as likely to be conjecture as anything.
04/04/2008 10:32:52 AM · #27
Originally posted by dponlyme:

One should note that God does not want to be 'provable' scientifically

How convenient for him.
04/04/2008 10:45:36 AM · #28
Originally posted by chalice:

That does not mean that I think that the universe necessarily always existed or that it began out of nothing on its own. I think it is more probable that a Creator set things in motion.

Your suspicion that the universe hasn't always existed and was instead created by something even more complicated that HAS always existed does not necessarily make the latter more probable. If a Creator can exist independently of a creator, then it should be even more likely that the same is possible of something considerably simpler.
04/04/2008 10:46:06 AM · #29
Originally posted by dponlyme:

You have a greater statistical chance of a rollex watch (much less complex than a human or any animal) coming together in the primordial ooze than you ever would the formation of for instance an eyeball without intelligent design. Think about that. .


I think about that. What I think about that is that people who think this sort of comment has anything to do with evolution, have no clue what evolution is about.
Write it three times fast 'Evolution is not a theory of random chance' About as far away from that as it is possible to get, really.
04/04/2008 10:49:03 AM · #30
Originally posted by Flash:

Some literary license is identifiable in scripture (in my opinion), however the use of some literary license does not make the entire work false - no more than the tales an angler tells of his latest catch, qualify him as a liar. His story is filled with many accurate facts and truths, just some get embellished for impact.

...and I really enjoy fishing.


That sure sounds like the definition of a lie to me.

2 : to create a false or misleading impression

But okay. Bits are true. Bits aren't. Some is made up. Some isn't. Some embellished for effect, some literal.

Genesis, bits might be made up or embellished. We seem to have established that from several posters.

The gospels ?

You just get to pick and choose like a theological buffet line ?


Message edited by author 2008-04-04 10:51:56.
04/04/2008 10:49:54 AM · #31
Originally posted by Flash:

Evolution could offer several explainations for apparent inconsistencies like the age old question of whom did the son's (Adam and Eve) have children with? If evolution were nearly complete, and Adam was the first true man, then...

Science doesn't offer explanations for stories. One could equally ask how the Bible explains Zeus' defeat of Chronos. :-/
04/04/2008 10:53:01 AM · #32
Originally posted by dponlyme:

One should note that God does not want to be 'provable' scientifically. His is not a scientific phenomenon to be studied.

Those who want to teach Intelligent Design in science class apparently didn't get that memo.
04/04/2008 11:40:48 AM · #33
Originally posted by Gordon:

You just get to pick and choose like a theological buffet line ?


Yes and No.

Yes in the sense that it certainly seems as though that is what has happened over the last 2000 years and mirrors consistent with much of the criticism of religion in general.

No in the sense that it is through science and the immense volumes of scholarly research, that we can deduce much of the historical context of scripture - as has been plainly illustrated by the most recent discussion (and example references) by Chalice.

04/04/2008 11:47:12 AM · #34
Originally posted by Flash:

it is through science and the immense volumes of scholarly research, that we can deduce much of the historical context of scripture - as has been plainly illustrated by the most recent discussion (and example references) by Chalice.

We can deduce that some of the characters existed as real people, but not that any of the actions or conversations attributed to them ever took place - as has been plainly illustrated by the example of Davy Crockett.
04/04/2008 11:52:41 AM · #35
Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Flash:

Some literary license is identifiable in scripture (in my opinion), however the use of some literary license does not make the entire work false - no more than the tales an angler tells of his latest catch, qualify him as a liar. His story is filled with many accurate facts and truths, just some get embellished for impact.

...and I really enjoy fishing.


That sure sounds like the definition of a lie to me.

2 : to create a false or misleading impression


So the real question becomes, what was the intent? Was the intent of "embellisment" to "create a false or misleading impression"? or was it to use litterary license to impart an understanding - thus teach a lesson/message?

I then conclude, that you have mis-applied the definition (2) of Lie, as the intent in scripture was not to create a false impression, rather to impart an understanding.

That said, Louis' posts certainly imply the former. The active intentions of the writers to "lie". However, I agree with Chalice's position and logical conclusion on the unlikelyhood of Paul's intent to mis-lead, especially in light of the consequence (and in fact argued similarly previously).
04/04/2008 11:57:36 AM · #36
The creation story, in the original Hebrew is clearly poetic. There are plays on words and such all over the place. If poetic forms are important to the author than I certainly take it to be reasonable to think the story is also "poetic".

The gospels are not poetic. They are accounts. I'm thinking the authors there tried to get things as accurate as possible. They weren't concerned with the fact that "man" and "earth" sound the same, etc.
04/04/2008 11:57:52 AM · #37
Originally posted by Flash:

I agree with Chalice's position and logical conclusion on the unlikelyhood of Paul's intent to mis-lead, especially in light of the consequence.

Shall we then conclude that it was not Jim Jones' intention to mislead when he claimed to be an incarnation of Jesus or Buddha, especially in light of the consequence?
04/04/2008 12:01:39 PM · #38
I wish there was a statistic on the front page for how many times evolution vs. creation or Christianity vs. Atheism have been debated ad infinitum on this poor site. Maybe it would help new folks to realize that, as the Bible says, there is nothing new under the sun. These continuously repetitious arguments are largely for the entertainment of the participants, not because no one has ever brought up the Christian perspective.

04/04/2008 12:03:30 PM · #39
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:

I agree with Chalice's position and logical conclusion on the unlikelyhood of Paul's intent to mis-lead, especially in light of the consequence.

Shall we then conclude that it was not Jim Jones' intention to mislead when he claimed to be an incarnation of Jesus or Buddha, especially in light of the consequence?


That is not what I would conclude, however you can conclude anything you like.

Certainly you are not comparing Paul to Jim Jones or are you?
04/04/2008 12:05:05 PM · #40
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:

I agree with Chalice's position and logical conclusion on the unlikelyhood of Paul's intent to mis-lead, especially in light of the consequence.

Shall we then conclude that it was not Jim Jones' intention to mislead when he claimed to be an incarnation of Jesus or Buddha, especially in light of the consequence?


Is your argument that since there have been examples of religious people who either misled their people or were delusional that ALL religious people are similar? Does this same argument hold for scientists?
04/04/2008 12:20:29 PM · #41
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Is your argument that since there have been examples of religious people who either misled their people or were delusional that ALL religious people are similar?

No, my argument was that a willingness to die for a claim is not evidence of its truth. Much has also been made of Paul's conversion as evidence of his conviction, but even that story is suspect...

Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

If he can't even get the story of his own conversion straight, then how can we rely on his accounts of other events, especially when they don't agree with the Gospels? Where are those 500 witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus in Mark or Luke? Was Paul's account an embellishment, or did the later Gospels leave out 500 witnesses to emphasize a message?

Message edited by author 2008-04-04 12:36:55.
04/04/2008 12:27:33 PM · #42
Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Flash:

Some literary license is identifiable in scripture (in my opinion), however the use of some literary license does not make the entire work false - no more than the tales an angler tells of his latest catch, qualify him as a liar. His story is filled with many accurate facts and truths, just some get embellished for impact.

...and I really enjoy fishing.


That sure sounds like the definition of a lie to me.

2 : to create a false or misleading impression


So the real question becomes, what was the intent? Was the intent of "embellisment" to "create a false or misleading impression"? or was it to use litterary license to impart an understanding - thus teach a lesson/message?.


For the angler ? To make a misleading impression I'm sure. I doubt anglers are trying to teach a lesson about the one that got away.

Message edited by author 2008-04-04 12:27:48.
04/04/2008 12:28:57 PM · #43
Originally posted by nards656:

I wish there was a statistic on the front page for how many times evolution vs. creation or Christianity vs. Atheism have been debated ad infinitum on this poor site. Maybe it would help new folks to realize that, as the Bible says, there is nothing new under the sun. These continuously repetitious arguments are largely for the entertainment of the participants, not because no one has ever brought up the Christian perspective.


I'm using it as part of the proof of a meta-argument that free will doesn't exist.
04/04/2008 12:31:42 PM · #44
Originally posted by scalvert:

Much has also been made of Paul's conversion as evidence of his conviction, but even that story is suspect...

Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."


"hearing a voice" is not literally equivelent to "heard not the voice of him that spake to me". You suggest that the writers is inconsistent in these two passages, however the specific words in and of themselves do not make your case. Unless you can present evidence that in both cases only one voice was present and that these are both the exact same event. Even if that were the case, your position has been that the translaters are so unreliable, that anything could have been written and/or changed or inserted anytime in the last 2000 years.
04/04/2008 12:37:38 PM · #45
Originally posted by Gordon:

[ I doubt anglers are trying to teach a lesson about the one that got away.


I take it you don't fish much?

Sure they are, amongst the entertainment value of the embellishment, is most assuredly a lesson. A lesson on lures, tactics, methods, even the rarity of the event itself.
04/04/2008 12:41:22 PM · #46
Originally posted by Flash:

"hearing a voice" is not literally equivelent to "heard not the voice of him that spake to me". You suggest that the writers is inconsistent in these two passages, however the specific words in and of themselves do not make your case. Unless you can present evidence that in both cases only one voice was present and that these are both the exact same event. Even if that were the case, your position has been that the translaters are so unreliable, that anything could have been written and/or changed or inserted anytime in the last 2000 years.

Ah, so these people were either tuned to a different invisible radio station or Paul was converted in Damascus more than once or the text is unreliable... wanna pick your favorite?
04/04/2008 12:42:10 PM · #47
Paul's conversion should give at least some pause for thought. Something must have happened to him to cause such an about face. Not only does Paul go from persecuting Christians to their champion, but he also goes from devout Pharisee, the utmost keepers of the law, to one who feels that freedom of the law is critical. These are BIG changes.

Sure, I agree, it doesn't prove anything. It is however, one piece of information to tie in with lots of others. All the disciples died violent deaths (except John). To me that indicates at the very least they believed Jesus had risen from the dead (or you'd figure at least one would have recanted at the prospect of being flayed or crucified or boiled, etc). This makes them unlikely candidates for having moved the body and I'm not really sure who else would have done it. That argument may not speak to you, but it does to me.
04/04/2008 12:45:45 PM · #48
Originally posted by dponlyme:

First off I am a Christian. I know that God exists without a doubt.


No - you believe that God exists; you have faith that God exists. No matter how firm that belief is, it cannot accurately be described as "knowledge." If you think about it, even you should agree given what you say about God not wanting to be "proveable" by science. If God is not proveable, then we can only have belief not knowledge. If you have faith, that is fine, and by definition, your faith should be enough for you. I always find it curious, however, that believers want to elevate faith to certainty -- if you have true faith, why do you need certainty? For me, no other characteristic of religious belief more eloquently illustrates the state of doubt that must necessarily accompany it.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

I have a personal relationship with him. He talks to me through his Holy Spirit who lives in me and through me and all other true Christians. I know without a doubt that he (being intelligent beyond all comprehension) did design this universe and in particular us intelligently.


So Christians who don't believe in God as the literal creator are not "true Christians"? Because surely, if all "true Christians" are receiving direct input from God through the Holy Spirit, all "true Christians" must be able to come to agreement on what God wants us to do and to be, which holy books are accurate and what they mean, and which organized church is "correct" and "true" - right?

BTW - when you meet someone who says that they also receive talks from God through the Holy Spirit which lives in them, and their religious beliefs don't agree with your own, how do you judge who is really hearing the Holy Spirit accurately? Do you just assume it's you? What method do you use to decide? What method do you use to persuade the other of his or her inaccuracy, or yourself of your own? What "authority" (since most people of religious belief don't like the word "evidence") do you resort to if the conflict cannot be resolved?

Originally posted by dponlyme:

You have a greater statistical chance of a rollex watch (much less complex than a human or any animal) coming together in the primordial ooze than you ever would the formation of for instance an eyeball without intelligent design. Think about that.


As others have already mentioned, this is not evolution - this is the straw man that religion has created in an attempt to mock evolution. And make no mistake, evolution must be mocked. Evolution and a traditional belief in God are not compatible. Try going back to Spain or Rome in the 1500s and making an argument to Christian authorities that evolution and Christian theology are compatible. Good luck with that. Heck, go back to the early Christians and make the argument. Bring a good pair of running shoes.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

As many have pointed out science and God are not mutually exclusive. Science is merely the study of God's creation and is by it's very nature rarely fully correct. It is always being revised when new information becomes available. For instance it was once thought that the smallest particles were protons, neutrons and electrons. It's what I was taught in school. Now they say there are even smaller particles I believe one of which is called a quark. Science agrees with itself that it was wrong.


Herein lies the true difference between belief and science. The very strength of science - its ability, no... its deliberate nature and intention to constantly question and test it's own hypotheses, and then adjust its tenants when new or better evidence becomes available, is seen as a weakness by those of strong religious belief. This makes sense. Questioning and testing are actively discouraged by all major religions. When followers actively question and test, they don't stay followers very long. Science never says "this is the way it is" - science says "given all the available evidence, this is the best model available of the way it is." New evidence becomes available, new tools make better measurements or methods available, science gleefully takes that new evidence into account and rigorously tests its previous models against the new evidence. Religious belief clings like a drowning man to any evidence that even appears to bolster its beliefs and summarily rejects any and all evidence which undermines those beliefs.

Also, who is it who is coming up the the new evidence and the new methods? Scientists. Science is never satisfied, science is never secure. The old guard may resist the new in science, but the old guard is always and inevitably overthrown. Science is constant revolution, refinement, and rejection of anything that cannot stand against scrutiny.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Since God is so much more intelligent than the created we don't really know squat about the universe. We are limited by our meager 5 senses. If we can't see it, touch it, taste it, smell it or hear it then we tend to assume it doesn't exist.


Actually we're not nearly so limited - science has given us measuring tools and methods that go so far beyond the capabilities "hardwired" into our bodies. We cannot see distant stars, but radio telescopes provide us the view. We cannot touch the event horizon of a black hole, but our mathematics can express and illustrate them for us. And while we may assume that things we cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear do not exist, the scientist will look for ways to test if our assumptions are truly correct. In fact, the scientist will look for ways to test whether the things that we do see, touch, taste, smell or hear are actually true as well, or whether they are just the fancies of our primate brain.

Originally posted by dponlyme:

I thank God that he gave us only these senses as our tiny little brains couldn't handle the full truth. Not sure if this falls in line with the rest of what you all are discussing but these are my thoughts on Science and Religion.


We couldn't handle the truth? Why not? If he created us, isn't that his/her/its fault? If the truth is so wonderful -- because God is truth and God is wonderful, right? -- then why wouldn't he/she/it want that truth for its creations as well? Doesn't the parent want the child to be more than the parent? What a petty and cruel God it must be to want such hobbled and feeble creations as its worshipers.

Message edited by author 2008-04-04 13:06:49.
04/04/2008 12:47:49 PM · #49
Originally posted by scalvert:

Ah, so these people were either tuned to a different invisible radio station or Paul was converted in Damascus more than once or the text is unreliable... wanna pick your favorite?


Nope.

It is not I that is having the difficulty with Paul's writing. At least it has been shown that books could have been written earlier than the sacred 70AD, which is enough evidence for me to no longer take you and Louis as the harbingers of truth. If your positions that no books were written before 70AD was intentional, then Gordon's definition #2 might apply.

04/04/2008 12:48:45 PM · #50
Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

You have a greater statistical chance of a rollex watch (much less complex than a human or any animal) coming together in the primordial ooze than you ever would the formation of for instance an eyeball without intelligent design. Think about that. .


I think about that. What I think about that is that people who think this sort of comment has anything to do with evolution, have no clue what evolution is about.
Write it three times fast 'Evolution is not a theory of random chance' About as far away from that as it is possible to get, really.


You have me intrigued. I was under the impression that the theory of evolution held that everything came from One celled organisms that came from a chance configuration of amino acids and other stuff (now theres science- stuff -lol). I further thought that evolution presupposes that random mutations led to more and more complex organisms that had some advantage that allowed them to out-survive their premutated predecessors and that this continued on until voila: Human beings. In short I indeed did think evolution depended upon random chance mutations. Did the one celled organisms get together and decide to build animals? If it's not random chance then what is it?
Pages:   ... [90]
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 01:28:39 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 01:28:39 PM EDT.