| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/01/2007 12:28:14 AM · #876 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...personally I don't see the putative Supreme Being as having any input whatsoever in that sorry state of affairs. |
Except, of course, by way of its purported omniscience, knowledge of the ultimate destiny of mankind, and prankish desire to instill humans with free will. ;-) |
Well, no, that's humankind inserting their own take on things... We have all these peculiar ideas of what we want/demand of our Father; it's called psychology :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2007 03:37:33 AM · #877 |
Okay, Here I am...Finally! I know ya'll were wondering where I was missing a thread, like this I just saw it tonight!
Now, I'm here...not to change any minds, but to let folks know that a serious guy, like me, does enjoy having a little fun with even these kinds of ideas.
First, The Big Bang Theory is one of the best ways to show the coexistence of science & theology. After all, if there was a Big Bang, then Somebody had to be there to "strike the match!"
Secondly, Earlier in this thread there was a comment that science and theology couldn't possibly be compatible because spiritual matters couldn't possibly be measured & verified by the scientific method. Well, Ding!Ding!Ding! That wins the "door prize" for swerving into Truth.
If you believe in The Almighty, The Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent Sentient Person that I do, then This Individual may be better understood by using the imagination. (Although, this is not allowable to the rational mind. It is certainly understandable to the logical mind that has been unchained by the blessing of AD/HD, and therefore able to think on multiple levels at the same time.)
Humans own homes in which we keep own tools for carpentry in a shop, our tools for lawn care in a shed, our cooking tools in the kitchen, our tools for relaxation in the den, and our tools for the daily sculpting of beauty in the bathroom. How kind can it be for us to try to deny to God the privilege of keeping His general, everyday tools for the maintenance of science in the room, called Time, and His tools for the miraculous and the spiritual in the room, called Eternity? (Besides, Science is merely a subset of the miraculous & the spiritual because it exists during the small chapter of temporal creation in the tome of God's existence!)
Finally, as I said at the end of another thread, the only way two people can see "eye-to-eye" on any subject is to callibrate the "monitors" that they are using to understand the issues.
For photography, we callibrate for contrast, brightness, color, levels, etc...and the challenge scores reflect wide ranges...that surely must include the differences of the monitors used to judge the originals. (The lower the resolution of the monitor the higher the apparent quality, and vice versa.)
For science we callibrate for the contrast of ideas, the brightness of believability, the color of personal experience/personality/intelligence/parental belief system during our formative years.
For theology we callibrate for contrast of ideas, the brightness of believability, the color of personal experience/personality/intelligence/parental belief system during our formative years. Hmmmmmm.......This line of logic could lead one to believe that science IS a religion!
Though I am admittedly in the minority, even among Christians, I offer merely some ideas for thinking people to "chew over" and consider. Logic is for me...the continuity between science and theology.
My understanding of God is enhanced by the use of the Scientific Method conducted with spiritual tools. The only Tool Chest upon which I am WILLING to rely for the understanding of the realm of the spirit is The Bible. (Sources can be cited upon request that show the Bible to be more historically accurate than other books.)
Therefore, when I read in Malachi 3 and Deuteronomy 32:39-40 that God is a consistent God, and He verifies His consistency myriad times for the helping of His believers after years of trouble,...and I could give you a whole long list of other verifications, but it doesn't matter anyway to many in this venue because the Bible has absolutely no meaning for them.
However, one thing that I know you believe is the imperative nature of being inclusive as to beliefs and cultures of the peoples of the World. The best logic I can offer on that subject has been presented by one of the greatest Christian apologists alive today, Dr. Ravi Zacharias of Atlanta, GA.
Once during an Open Forum at Georgia Tech, Dr. Zacharias quoted the fallacies of Steve Turner in Turner's own words, "...We believe that there is no absolute Truth, except in the Truth that there is no absolute Truth..."
He,also, said, "...There is an 'Either/Or Non-Contradictory Position.' There is a 'Both/And Dialectical Position.'...In studying religion I must use the 'Either/Or' or 'Both/And' in order to understand. Is that right?"
This forced the professor with whom he was debating to confess, "The 'Either/Or' does seem to emerge, doesn't it?" |
|
|
|
12/01/2007 11:37:32 AM · #878 |
to Milo...
on page 30 of this thread I posted many links regarding the great flood.
The one that you keep eagerly criticizing, regarding Rhinos - was an excerpt from this link
If you have further questions, then contact that author.
Regarding the attempts to address the 20 questions; those were an excerpt from the link referencing Dr Brown. He offers an opportunity for anyone to debate him for 1 hour, with the session taped. I suggest you and others, may be interested in such discourse.
to Louis, Scalvert, Milo,
regardless of your insistence that the Bible is a text without proof, I have offered up examples and will continue to do so, whenever I find evidence of science (or scientific tools ie. archeology)verifying or confirming yet another historical notation in scpriture. Your continued refusal to acknowledge that many characters of the Bible have been confirmed, their locations, customs, and even their beliefs are accurately depicted - (this we know due to archeology) is akin to an ostrich sticking its head in the sand.
Are you learned men? It appears so to me. I can only surmise that your insistent position of ridicule is an address of a spiritual unease.
I am confused how you explain the many peoples (learned peoples)who have spent lifetimes perpetuating what you percieve as a lie? How do you explain the scholars who've dedicated lifetimes of work and research to scripture? Are these all misguided souls, lost to a fabrication and lie? Or are these learned men, the pursuers of Truth?
|
|
|
|
12/02/2007 03:32:11 PM · #879 |
Originally posted by Flash:
to Milo...
on page 30 of this thread I posted many links regarding the great flood. |
Well, the instances I pointed out to you were articles about a flood in the Black Sea about 7,000 years ago and floods in Babylonia in 28th Century BCE which you somehow extrapolated into a global flood. Go back and read those three articles if you don’t believe me. Again, how does evidence for a flood in the Black Sea, which you linked, lead to the conclusion of a global flood. And how does a flood 7,000 years ago in the Black Sea correlate to floods in southern Babylonia thousands of years later? They’re your links yet they give no indication of a global flood.
Originally posted by Flash:
The one that you keep eagerly criticizing, regarding Rhinos - was an excerpt from this link |
I didn’t criticize. I asked for some corroboration which you were unwilling or unable to provide. Neither does the link to which you continually refer.
Originally posted by Flash:
If you have further questions, then contact that author. |
You mean the author who also writes about Bigfoot, Ogopogo, and The Marfa Lights?
Originally posted by Flash:
Regarding the attempts to address the 20 questions; those were an excerpt from the link referencing Dr Brown. He offers an opportunity for anyone to debate him for 1 hour, with the session taped. I suggest you and others, may be interested in such discourse. |
Many of us of us have taken the responsibility to defend our quotes and sources to the best of our abilities and several people (pidge, Bear Music) have addressed a number of the questions you listed. You, however, have made absolutely no effort to address these criticisms nor to defend your source. This is a surrendering of your responsibility and ultimately, not a response at all.
As for Dr. Brown’s challenge, geologist Dr. Joe Meert has been trying to get him to debate for over seven years. Apparently, he’s still waiting.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2007 04:32:31 PM · #880 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Flash:
If you have further questions, then contact that author. |
You mean the author who also writes about Bigfoot, Ogopogo, and The Marfa Lights?
|
And your point is? You imply that the author is a kook by the articles associated with his authorship. Yet when reading those articles, the known facts/stories are presented, even including those that adamantly disagree. How is that a bad thing?
The point in establishing so many links on the Great Flood was to provide an assemblance of articles all dealing with the same event/historical myth, from a multitude of sources. Each with a different twist, yet adressing the same event. One article even went so far as to mention all the various places on earth where the same/similar legend was part of the history. This was suggested as evidence that "some" major event must have occurred, to have impacted so many different regions mythology.
I sense that you and others continue to argue with me against a literal interpretation of scripture and specifically Genesis. Let me say this as plainly as I can...I believe that scripture is literal and figurative. That the Bible is a Historical account, a philosophical treatise, and a piece of literature. It can be read as anu one of these or a combination.
Archeology has demonstrated many many evidences of history recorded in scripture. Its philosopy and/or literature contributions are other arguments.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2007 05:13:47 PM · #881 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Archeology has demonstrated many many evidences of history recorded in scripture. Its philosopy and/or literature contributions are other arguments. |
This is a strange argument. I believe that the more common argument employed is that physical evidence (such as archeological or paleontological evidence) can safely be ignored. This is on the basis that the written record found in the one's holy book of choice is accurate, so contradictory physical "evidence" must be placed there by one's omnipotent deity of choice in order to challenge us.
I suppose that once all the contradictary evidence has been excluded, what is left must certainly support your position.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2007 05:44:18 PM · #882 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
Archeology has demonstrated many many evidences of history recorded in scripture. Its philosopy and/or literature contributions are other arguments. |
This is a strange argument. I believe that the more common argument employed is that physical evidence (such as archeological or paleontological evidence) can safely be ignored. This is on the basis that the written record found in the one's holy book of choice is accurate, so contradictory physical "evidence" must be placed there by one's omnipotent deity of choice in order to challenge us.
I suppose that once all the contradictary evidence has been excluded, what is left must certainly support your position. |
Matthew,
For clarification (if needed), the "its" above is referencing scripture not archeology. I should have wrote as; "Scripture as philosophy and/or literature contributions are other arguments."
What I meant was, as a historical text, the Bible has had many many items (names, places, persons, belief structure, etc) confirmed by archeology. The more common arguments of philosophy/literature are separate arguments for me. In other words, I encounter persons arguing against the Bible's accuracy by picking any one item and thereby concluding refutation of the entire text which in my opinion is 3 works. If one is going to refute the accuracy of scripture, then they need to do it on all 3 levels or specify which text they are addressing with their argument. The "fog" if you will, is due to the positioners not clarifying which content is being targeted (History, Philosophy or Literature).
|
|
|
|
12/02/2007 06:03:24 PM · #883 |
Getting back to the Great Deluge, Noah's "flood" in the bible, it's absolutely true that deluge mythology pops up all OVER the place, not just in the Biblical lands. They have flood mythology in Australia, for example, handed down from the aborigines. Wiki has a good overview on these myths.
A reasonable person familiar with how anthropologists and archaeologists work might easily conclude that this is sufficient circumstantial/anecdotal evidence to make it highly likely that within the species-memory of mankind a devastating flood visited the earth.
It makes no point to try to deny the possibility of the flood described in the Bible by focusing on whether or not it is "true" that Noah built an ark of such-and-so dimensions and populated it with all the animal species and saved them. It is not required of any but the most literal Believers that this story be taken at face value. It is entirely sufficient to accept that there WAS a flood that caused great devastation (highly likely), that there WAS a man named Noah who filled a large watercraft with animals and rode out the flood (perfectly feasible), and so forth and so on.
People who selectively nitpick the Bible by trying to expose all of its errors and misstatements are guilty of missing the forest for the trees. The Bible, whatever else it is, is one of the great documents, possibly the greatest document, of human history. It is worthy of serious study on so many levels, not least of which is that the Bible has had more influence on the course of civilization than any other document ever created by man.
I find it very strange when I meet people, otherwise super-intelligent and well informed, who disdain the Bible without having bothered to study it, or after only the most cursory of readings. "Surely," I think to myself, "if you are to be an informed and involved Citizen of the World, it is pretty much required of you to have a working knowledge of this incredible document that has been so integral to the evolution of Western Civilization?"
And I'd say the same about the Koran, the Torah, the writings of the Chinese mystics, all of these works that have shaped the very identities of the peoples who created them.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 06:16:52 PM · #884 |
Well, the thread seems to be mercifully simmering down and I'm a bit hesitant to resurrect it, but I wanted to hear from the atheist/materialists that were part of the discussion how they feel about the Strong Anthropic Principle. I mentioned it a few times, but nobody really bit on it. I'm not even sure I have the energy to rebut any answer people are willing to give, but I'm curious how they deal with this conundrum.
You can read the wiki link above for a good discourse, but to in summary it seems we find ourselves living in a universe that has been finely tuned to support life. Tweak the strong force slightly or add or subtract a little mass from the universe and suddenly we find ourselves either in a universe of black holes or helium or another scenario unfit for complex intelligence.
How do anteists/materialists approach this?
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 06:50:43 PM · #885 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You can read the wiki link above for a good discourse, but to in summary it seems we find ourselves living in a universe that has been finely tuned to support life.
How do anteists/materialists approach this? |
Douglas Adams said it whimsically, and best:
". . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."
The argument is reversed, IMHO. The universe is not tuned to US so much as we became tuned BY it. You see the difference?
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 07:34:06 PM · #886 |
Originally posted by david_c:
The argument is reversed, IMHO. The universe is not tuned to US so much as we became tuned BY it. You see the difference? |
Yes, I think this is a reasonable response if people start talking about the universe favoring carbon-based, bipedal animals with the propensity to lose their hair later in life. However, a number of these finely balanced values will result in universal conditions which seem to be beyond ANY type of life from arising (ie. the black hole universe or the homogeneous helium universe or the collapsed universe or the runaway inflation universe). This is the more important question. Why does our universe have complex matter in it which is even in the position to evolve life?
Message edited by author 2007-12-04 19:35:55.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2007 08:52:07 PM · #887 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by david_c:
The argument is reversed, IMHO. The universe is not tuned to US so much as we became tuned BY it. You see the difference? |
Yes, I think this is a reasonable response if people start talking about the universe favoring carbon-based, bipedal animals with the propensity to lose their hair later in life. However, a number of these finely balanced values will result in universal conditions which seem to be beyond ANY type of life from arising (ie. the black hole universe or the homogeneous helium universe or the collapsed universe or the runaway inflation universe). This is the more important question. Why does our universe have complex matter in it which is even in the position to evolve life? |
However, we did defy the odds by having the right conditions to support our particular forms of life in this tiny corner of an obscure galaxy. If you trust data that has been collected about our Sun, this happy circumstance will not last forever. Millions of years more, perhaps, but one day this planet will NOT be suitable for life as we know it. Will we, as a species, still be here when the main sequence forces the sun to go nova, and swallows all but the outermost planets in our tiny solar system? Maybe, maybe not. It's moot for us to debate, since we'll likely be here for the foreseeable future...barring any type of Raptures.
The more important question of yours much more difficult to answer, Doc. Prime Causes and First Movers are tougher to wrap my head around. I'm happier to pay heed to modern physicists and astronomers with empirical data rather than mystical philosophers with ancient religious scripture in this regard. Thus, my opinion is that Science and Theology do not co-exist (see? I can stay on topic!) |
|
|
|
12/04/2007 11:53:42 PM · #888 |
Originally posted by david_c:
The more important question of yours much more difficult to answer, Doc. Prime Causes and First Movers are tougher to wrap my head around. I'm happier to pay heed to modern physicists and astronomers with empirical data rather than mystical philosophers with ancient religious scripture in this regard. Thus, my opinion is that Science and Theology do not co-exist (see? I can stay on topic!) |
Well, I can certainly sympathize with this line of thought. But when you are sitting back with a nice stout beer on a cozy night and contemplating the universe, do you just ignore the problem or do you go with the "scientific" non-scientific answer of a multiverse? And is either position really that much better than us Prime Cause people? Sure it sits better with you, but on a fundamental, logical or philosophical level, aren't you back in the same boat I am either ignoring a problem without an apparent answer or giving an answer which has no hope of being proven?
Message edited by author 2007-12-04 23:54:55. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 12:28:19 PM · #889 |
Nobody else is going to bite? Are we all arguing morality next door now?
Does this mean nobody thinks about these things or they don't have an answer?
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 12:33:39 PM · #890 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nobody else is going to bite? Are we all arguing morality next door now?
Does this mean nobody thinks about these things or they don't have an answer? |
Oh, I think about them. I read on the topic. I don't have an answer, except to comment, peripherally, that any statement that other forms of environments cannot support life should be hedged by making that "life as we know it".
I think it's pretty presumptuous to assume that the only viable forms of life would have to be carbon-based. I don't have any trouble imagining whole other types of life arising in other types of environments. I think Douglas Adam's puddle analogy, referenced earlier, is actually a very apt one.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 12:39:48 PM · #891 |
Well, I agree Robert, but I do think there are scenarios where even our wildest imagination cannot construct some sort of life. A universe with no matter. A universe with all the same kind of matter (say helium). A universe with nothing but black holes. The anthropic principle says that most conceivable states of the universe should look more like these than ours.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 01:54:07 PM · #892 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nobody else is going to bite? Are we all arguing morality next door now?
Does this mean nobody thinks about these things or they don't have an answer? |
Well, you said when you originally brought it up that you couldn't even be bothered discussing it, so are you surprised nobody else wants to ?
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 01:55:15 PM · #893 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I agree Robert, but I do think there are scenarios where even our wildest imagination cannot construct some sort of life. A universe with no matter. A universe with all the same kind of matter (say helium). A universe with nothing but black holes. The anthropic principle says that most conceivable states of the universe should look more like these than ours. |
Who's to say that they don't also exist or that they didn't exist in the past or will exist in the future ? There's an anthropocentric aspect to thinking that 'when' we are as well as 'where' we are is somehow special - it seems highly unlikely that either of those are true.
Message edited by author 2007-12-05 13:56:51.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 02:07:55 PM · #894 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I agree Robert, but I do think there are scenarios where even our wildest imagination cannot construct some sort of life. A universe with no matter. A universe with all the same kind of matter (say helium). A universe with nothing but black holes. The anthropic principle says that most conceivable states of the universe should look more like these than ours. |
Who's to say that they don't also exist or that they didn't exist in the past or will exist in the future ? |
Am I reading you right that you are talking about a multiverse model?
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 03:00:14 PM · #895 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Am I reading you right that you are talking about a multiverse model? |
I'm a big fan of the idea of multiverses. I think quantum theory leads us in that direction actually. I'm particularly partial to the notion that our universe is contained within a grain of sand among billions of other grains of sand on on a beach of a planet in another universe, and so on ad infinitum :-)
R.
Message edited by author 2007-12-05 15:00:29.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 03:08:33 PM · #896 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Who's to say that they don't also exist or that they didn't exist in the past or will exist in the future ? |
Am I reading you right that you are talking about a multiverse model? |
It's one argument - the other of course is just evolution. Physics isn't adapted to our benefit, 'we' adapted to the prevailing physics.
Message edited by author 2007-12-05 15:08:54.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 03:19:27 PM · #897 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Who's to say that they don't also exist or that they didn't exist in the past or will exist in the future ? |
Am I reading you right that you are talking about a multiverse model? |
It's one argument - the other of course is just evolution. Physics isn't adapted to our benefit, 'we' adapted to the prevailing physics. |
Right, but, again (I feel like a broken record here), if the physics gives no quarter to matter or complex matter at all, then evolution doesn't really have anything to act upon.
So, as a follow-up, in your mind, why does the multiverse model sit better with you than a Supreme Being model? I'm just asking for my own benefit.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 03:28:01 PM · #898 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So, as a follow-up, in your mind, why does the multiverse model sit better with you than a Supreme Being model? I'm just asking for my own benefit. |
Speaking for myself, I don't see any inconsistency between the two models. Assuming the presence of a Supreme Being or a Prime Mover, he/she/it could have created/caused to be the whole ball of multiversal wax, right?
R.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 03:39:01 PM · #899 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So, as a follow-up, in your mind, why does the multiverse model sit better with you than a Supreme Being model? I'm just asking for my own benefit. |
Speaking for myself, I don't see any inconsistency between the two models. Assuming the presence of a Supreme Being or a Prime Mover, he/she/it could have created/caused to be the whole ball of multiversal wax, right?
R. |
Agreed. I'm asking Gordon, however, who seems to accept one as a possibility and rejects the other. My question is what he sees as the difference between the two?
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 03:43:56 PM · #900 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Agreed. I'm asking Gordon, however, who seems to accept one as a possibility and rejects the other. My question is what he sees as the difference between the two? |
Maybe if you asked ME some questions I wouldn't feel so lonely here :-)
R.
|
|
