Stadium-Armory Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 I think the way that you framed your question makes it almost impossible for me to answer. The last thing in the world that I would want is to say something that would upset you about your kids (even if I did not mean to.) I am more interested in how you feel and how you think. If something is the way that you believe it to be, who am I to argue that you are wrong? As for me, I view the world as chaotic and volatile. The world is on a string and made of plastic. It even says "made in Japan" on the bottom. I love the world regardless. I don't worry too much about what made me love my kid. I just know that I do, and don't spend too much time worrying why. I learned a long time ago that truth is often not anywhere near as beautiful as I want. Does not matter that the world is the equivalent of some galactic "Big Boy's" in outer space, It's the only world I know. It does not matter to me that it winds up. I didn't mean to frame the question in such a way that would bait you into offending me, really. I just tried to pick something -- love -- that most people can feel and know is real, but that we haven't yet (and may never be able) to explain through science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 I didn't mean to frame the question in such a way that would bait you into offending me, really. I just tried to pick something -- love -- that most people can feel and know is real, but that we haven't yet (and may never be able) to explain through science. While explaining the mechanism of love hasn't happened, it isn't like science doesn't have an answer about why love makes sense from a scientific stand point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polywog999 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 I didn't mean to frame the question in such a way that would bait you into offending me, really. I just tried to pick something -- love -- that most people can feel and know is real, but that we haven't yet (and may never be able) to explain through science. Does it matter at all what causes people and animals to love? If there was no supreme being with a white beard and sandals, would love be any less of a beautiful thing? If I found out tomorrow that there was no hereafter, that there was no god, I would not love my son any less. If anything, knowing that I was truly alone might make me love people even more. Is that such a bad thing? Is life without forever, somehow even more sweet, for its lack of permanence? I did not think for a minute that you would try to bait me. I am just very careful to not hurt someones feelings where their children are concerned. Scott. ---------- Post added January-9th-2011 at 03:01 PM ---------- While explaining the mechanism of love hasn't happened, it isn't like science doesn't have an answer about why love makes sense from a scientific stand point. Peter, I can't imagine that love is so complicated that Science has no answer for it. Just off the top of my head, I imagine its mostly; trust, respect, accessibly and desire somehow culminating in an endorphin release? This release over time, solidifying the overwhelming desire to be near someone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 We can have an emotional people component that still doesn't lead us to "universal truths" and not be computers. cool, so what Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polywog999 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 The horrible truth is that all my choices have already been made for me at the beginning of time. Even my ties that my wife picks out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 While explaining the mechanism of love hasn't happened, it isn't like science doesn't have an answer about why love makes sense from a scientific stand point. Yup. I saw this article on the AP wire that associated the love of music with dopamine release in the brain. Science can (scientifically) answer much about what's going on in the brain, and even infer others. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_MUSIC_ON_THE_BRAIN?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Even the feeling of love that If feel for my children?It might be true to say that there "is probably a scientific element to everything..." , but as yet all has not been understood through science. And until then, there will be parallell paths which attempt to explain and understand. And both are valuable and helpful in explaining. And the scientists should continue to observe and repeat, and the philosophers should continue to write and discuss, and observe behavior. Your love of your children translates to sacfiicing time and energy for their benefit. From an evolutionary standpoint, this behavior makes sense because if you didn't love your children, they would be less likely to survive to adulthood and pass on your genes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Your love of your children translates to sacfiicing time and energy for their benefit.From an evolutionary standpoint, this behavior makes sense because if you didn't love your children, they would be less likely to survive to adulthood and pass on your genes. Actually, it was occurring to me earlier today, that while I can certainly see that a species having an instinct to protect the young of that species could well be a survival trait, the thought occurs to me that the only way such an instinct could evolve would be if it were encoded in the genes. And "It is to my species' advantage for me to protect children" seems, to me, to be a really complicated concept to encode into the punched paper tape programming of an individual cell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 If i was recorded 6 hours a day 5 days a week you'd have way more than this. Now he can do a "wanna get away" commercial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Yup. I saw this article on the AP wire that associated the love of music with dopamine release in the brain. Science can (scientifically) answer much about what's going on in the brain, and even infer others.http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_MUSIC_ON_THE_BRAIN?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT describing cause and effect of a thing really doesn't describe the thing itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 we have the young that can't take care of themselves... we don't love'em they don't live. the news is full of those that don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polywog999 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Actually, it was occurring to me earlier today, that while I can certainly see that a species having an instinct to protect the young of that species could well be a survival trait, the thought occurs to me that the only way such an instinct could evolve would be if it were encoded in the genes. And "It is to my species' advantage for me to protect children" seems, to me, to be a really complicated concept to encode into the punched paper tape programming of an individual cell. Larry, you would be surprised at how many instincts you are born with. From the look of a perfect face to walking and even some language.skills. Think of it as Bios.Your hard-drive would never boot without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 That would only be "this" universe. Yes, "this" universe is about 14 billion years old, according to the best scientific theory to date, confirmed by a mountain of experimental data. Where did the mass of this universe come from? That's a very good question. Unfortunately, you have decided to rig the answer a priori, when you go here... It would only be logical to assume that there was some some sort of pre-existing condition that gave rise to our current situation. Whatever the scenario, one could ether assume that there is ether some form of an endless eternal cycle.... or the universe was a big accident, much like the movie "Stayin Alive." In ether case, whatever is discovered to be the truth, where does god figure in? There's no evidence, but you "assume" that the universe is eternal or accidental, and then ask why something eternal or accidental needs an intentional creator. You might as well have just said: "Assume the universe doesn't need God. Why does it need God?" Your entire post is one giant commision of the informal logical fallacy begging the question. You begin by assuming that the premise you're trying to argue for is true. In point of fact, the best science to date says that the Universe is not eternal. It's around 14 billion years old. There is no data to support any further supposition. This is what I was referring to earlier... if you're going to make stuff up, you might as well put it in a book and call it a religion. But hey... if the implications of a non-eternal universe trouble you, Fred Hoyle is some pretty good company. What still I can't reconcile though are the areas where religion and science DO conflict. There are such conflicts, like the age of the earth, are there not? The best science regarding the age of the Earth is in conflict with one particular reading of the Bible, but most Christians (including the largest branch, Catholicism) do not hold to a young earth, so whether there's a conflict depends upon who you talk to. I was just reading What is the proper relationship between science and religion?, which is an article on Francis S Collins' website, The Biologos Forum. If you don't know Dr. Collins, he's a biologist that headed up the Human Genome Project, and he's also a Christian. Anyway, the article (not written by Dr. Collins, just to be clear) is pretty good, and includes this: As mentioned above, one well-known historic example of the interaction between science and religion is the Galileo Affair. Although it is often cited as an example of conflict between science and religion, it is also a prime example of scientific contribution to religious belief. In Galileo’s time there was a heated disagreement over the interpretation of a few Bible verses in poetic sections of the Psalms. If it was assumed that these scriptures were meant to be read as science, and not primarily as poetry, then they could be interpreted to say that the Earth was physically central in the universe. However, Galileo had been convinced by Copernicus’ argument that this was impossible. Galileo, who remained a loyal Catholic to the end of his life, makes his position clear In a letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany:"[in] St. Augustine we read: 'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.' " "This granted, and it being true that two truths cannot contradict one another, it is the function of expositors to seek out the true senses of scriptural texts. These will unquestionably accord with the physical conclusions which manifest sense and necessary demonstrations have previously made certain to us." 7 Galileo was not suggesting that his discoveries were contrary to the truth revealed through scripture, but that science had offered a refinement to their proper understanding. Even today there is plenty of opportunity for similar guidance, particularly when interpreting the first chapters of Genesis. Overwhelming scientific evidence points to an old earth. If the scriptures of Genesis are true, they are not meant to be interpreted as a step-by-step account of when or how God created the world. Professor Donald Mackay offers a healthy perspective on scientific involvement with religion: ”Obviously a surface meaning of many passages could be tested, for example, against archaeological discoveries, and the meaning of others can be enriched by scientific and historical knowledge. But I want to suggest that the primary function of scientific enquiry in such fields is neither to verify nor to add to the inspired picture, but to help us in eliminating improper ways of reading it. To pursue the metaphor, I think the scientific data God gives us can sometimes serve as his way of warning us when we are standing too close to the picture, at the wrong angle, or with the wrong expectations, to be able to see the inspired pattern he means it to convey to us.” 8 Natural revelation is a doctrine of Christianity, at least (Paul uses it in Romans 1, for example, to argue that no one has an excuse for not recognizing God), so it would seem to me that this is a reasonable approach. There is a scientific element to any and everything in the universe. No, there really isn't, and I've already listed several examples. It explains the nature of mans interactions with the world, without a need for proof of any kind as to weather it is correct in its observations. You're selling philosophy short here, I think. Philosophy includes logic, which along with mathematics, provide the most certain of proofs (not science, which is effectively successive approximation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Actually, it was occurring to me earlier today, that while I can certainly see that a species having an instinct to protect the young of that species could well be a survival trait, the thought occurs to me that the only way such an instinct could evolve would be if it were encoded in the genes. And "It is to my species' advantage for me to protect children" seems, to me, to be a really complicated concept to encode into the punched paper tape programming of an individual cell. Nevertheless, other animals (mammals mostly), do it as well to varying degrees. What makes us so special? Loving/protecting others, like say other people's children, non-related elderly, or even your parents/siblings, is a bit more advanced behavior. I believe some behavior scientists have proposed a "non-specific kin selection" mechanic (basically, we view other people as our "kin" even though they really aren't, at least not immediately), but I don't know much about that field and don't know the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polywog999 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Yes, "this" universe is about 14 billion years old, according to the best scientific theory to date, confirmed by a mountain of experimental data. I am not arguing that! I quite simply inferred, that the universe came from somewhere. Even if it came at of "nothing" there had to be some sort of pre-universe. Why is this concept so foreign, that you can't even wrap you mind around it? That's a very good question. Unfortunately, you have decided to rig the answer a priori, when you go here... Originally Posted by polywog999 It would only be logical to assume that there was some some sort of pre-existing condition that gave rise to our current situation. Whatever the scenario, one could ether assume that there is ether some form of an endless eternal cycle.... or the universe was a big accident, much like the movie "Stayin Alive." In ether case, whatever is discovered to be the truth, where does god figure in? How did I rig the answer? Are you accusing me of intellectual dishonesty? Still looking for my "rig." There's no evidence, but you "assume" that the universe is eternal or accidental, and then ask why something eternal or accidental needs an intentional creator. You might as well have just said:"Assume the universe doesn't need God. Why does it need God?" The Universe is ether eternal, supported by the indestructible nature of matter/energy....or it is finite. Is there some other curtain # 3 that I am not aware of? In point of fact, the best science to date says that the Universe is not eternal. It's around 14 billion years old. There is no data to support any further supposition. Go back and read what I have written. You are completely missing the boat. Just because science has absolutely no idea what happened in the time before the big bang, this does not mean that there can never be an explanation. This does not mean that "god rolled the universe out of his palm" like a bowling ball. This is what I was referring to earlier... if you're going to make stuff up, you might as well put it in a book and call it a religion. I am not making anything up. You however are making up arguments that I had naught to do with. They already did that, it's called the Bible. But hey... if the implications of a non-eternal universe trouble you, Fred Hoyle is some pretty good company. At this point you are not really even trying to engage me in serious debate. It's quite obvious that you somehow feel superior to me and that my position is not even worthy of consideration by such an intellectual heavyweight as yourself. Why would you accuse me of being troubled by mortality? I have already stated that I am a firm believer in the here and now. Straw-man argument. The best science regarding the age of the Earth is in conflict with one particular reading of the Bible, but most Christians (including the largest branch, Catholicism) do not hold to a young earth, so whether there's a conflict depends upon who you talk to. This is the Genealogy of Jesus taken from the bible: How can you stretch these people into 4.5 billion years. How is this not a conflict with science? God Adam Seth Enosh Cainain Mahalalel Jared Enoch Methuselah Lamech Noah Shem Arphaxad Cainan Shelah Eber Peleg Reu Serug Nahor Terah Abraham Isaac Jacob Judah Pharez Hezron Ram Amminadab Nahshon Salmon Boaz Obed Jesse David Nathan Mattatha Menna Melea Eliakim Jonam Joseph Judah Simeon Levi Matthat Jorim Eliezer Joshua Er Elmadam Cosam Addi Melchi Neri Shealtiel Zerubbabel Rhesa Joanan Joda Josech Semein Mattathias Mahath Naggai Hesli Nahum Amos Mattathias Joseph Jannai Melchi Levi Matthat Heli Mary[7] & Joseph* Jesus Looks a lot like 2-3 thousand years to me. Can't wait for you to throw some long dis-proven explanation at me. Does any denomination of Christianity NOT use the new testament? Natural revelation is a doctrine of Christianity, at least (Paul uses it in Romans 1, for example, to argue that no one has an excuse for not recognizing God), so it would seem to me that this is a reasonable approach. Paul said that in the Bible? Would Paul say anything to the contrary? No, there really isn't, and I've already listed several examples. Sorry, but I did not see where you proved anything other than how much you love pontificating and droning on and on about matters that you are incredibly misinformed about. You're selling philosophy short here, I think. Philosophy includes logic, which along with mathematics, provide the most certain of proofs (not science, which is effectively successive approximation). I'm not selling philosophy short, you on the other hand are selling it cheap on the streets. You have your beliefs and I have mine. When I offer things I believe to be true, you dismiss them in a very condescending and haughty manner. Fine. I could not care less that you have such little regard for my opinions. The thing that rattles my cage is that I actually have a lot of respect for you and your opinions. Kind of sad to see you treating someone else with such contempt. Not truly sad, more disappointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 What is laughable is thinking men who lived 2-3k years ago knew more than we do today. That somehow a invisible man who lived on mountains then moved to the clouds then to 'up there' gave ancient man the secrets to the universe Is the rainbow really a covenant[Genesis 9:13] between God and the earth or is it dispersion Could snakes, Turtles and donkeys really talk back then? Que the believers response: Pick one !.change the literal statements to a figurative meaning 2. What the Bible really meant was. 3. Improper interpretation 4. It must be read in the original language while also taking into consideration the culture of the time 4. You must be a believer to understand the it 5. We cannot understand God When i was a beliver I got 1 day older and 2 days dumber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polywog999 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 What is laughable is thinking men who lived 2-3k years ago knew more than we do today. That somehow a invisible man who lived on mountains then moved to the clouds then to 'up there' gave ancient man the secrets to the universeIs the rainbow really a covenant[Genesis 9:13] between God and the earth or is it dispersion Could snakes, Turtles and donkeys really talk back then? Que the believers response: Pick one !.change the literal statements to a figurative meaning 2. What the Bible really meant was. 3. Improper interpretation 4. It must be read in the original language while also taking into consideration the culture of the time 4. You must be a believer to understand the it 5. We cannot understand God When i was a beliver I got 1 day older and 2 days dumber LOL! you will smoke a turd in Haydies for this Crabr! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I tend to find many atheists to be that way. They say you cannot prove there is a God you are an idiot for thinking there is one but then you can't prove that there isn't one either. Why is being so sure that there is one worse than being so sure that there isn't? I never god that. You are referring to militant atheists, no different than a percentage of any group. I could care less which person/place/thing you worship. But when someone is wrong on the internets we all must line up and tell them, or our day will not be complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I am not arguing that! I quite simply inferred, that the universe came from somewhere. Well, on that much we agree. The difficulty is that you then proceeded to short circuit the discussion by assuming that the only possible options are that the universe is actually eternal, or an accident. Even if it came at of "nothing" there had to be some sort of pre-universe. This is an unwarranted assumption, and contradictory to boot. If "before" (kind of a questionable term in and of itself, since without time, there is no "before") the Universe there was nothing, then there was nothing. How did I rig the answer? Let me quote you again: Whatever the scenario, one could ether assume that there is ether some form of an endless eternal cycle....or the universe was a big accident, much like the movie "Stayin Alive." In ether case, whatever is discovered to be the truth, where does god figure in? You postulate only two possible choices: either the universe is an accident, or the universe doesn't have a creator because it's always existed. You exclude God in your assumptions, then ask where God fits in. You beg the question Are you accusing me of intellectual dishonesty? I'm puzzled by your reaction, honestly. Where did I accuse you of intellectual dishonesty? I just pointed out that your argument contains an unspoken assumption (that God didn't create the universe). This isn't unusual, and generally addressing the issue helps to sharpen discourse. The Universe is ether eternal, supported by the indestructible nature of matter/energy....or it is finite. Is there some other curtain # 3 that I am not aware of? No, this is correct, and as I pointed out, the best supported scientific theory to date suggests that it is finite (there are other reasons to think this as well beyond the Big Bang, but I didn't actually intend to get that deeply into this). Just because science has absolutely no idea what happened in the time before the big bang, this does not mean that there can never be an explanation. No, that's true. It's important that we avoid a "God of the gaps" situation, where anything we can't explain right now immediately gets chalked up to God. Equally dangerous in my view, however, is what I call "Science of the Gaps", which is the tendency to assume that anything that doesn't currently have a naturalistic explanation automatically will some day. We should confine our science to what we can prove with the data. And the data right now says that the universe is finite. Maybe one day that will change, but until it does, we can't just assume that the universe is eternal. As I said, I thought that was the job of the religious... This does not mean that "god rolled the universe out of his palm" like a bowling ball. Actually, I think a pretty good argument can be made that this is exactly what that means, which is why Hoyle didn't like the Big Bang theory, but I guess that's kind of secondary to this discussion, which started only because you asked why the universe couldn't be eternal. I gave you one answer (there are other reasons too). At this point you are not really even trying to engage me in serious debate. It's quite obvious that you somehow feel superior to me and that my position is not even worthy of consideration by such an intellectual heavyweight as yourself. I honestly have no idea where you are getting this, but I'd suggest that if you're going to take discussion and disagreement so personally, you might not want to participate in discussion threads, especially those involving hot topics like religion and politics. There's a reason mom always told us not to discuss them in polite company. Why would you accuse me of being troubled by mortality? I didn't suggest you were troubled by mortality. I suggested that you might, like Hoyle, be troubled by the implications of a finite Universe (which ironically, can point to immortality), since you seem to be working so hard to argue that the universe is eternal, despite the fact that there is no evidence to suggest this, and a mountain of evidence against. This is the Genealogy of Jesus taken from the bible: How can you stretch these people into 4.5 billion years. How is this not a conflict with science? I'll give you not one, but two ways there doesn't need to be a conflict. 1) The first way goes back to what the article I quoted in my last post was talking about, and which you actually responded to: nature, accessed through science, is part of God's revelation to man, just as the Bible is, and so it can help shed light on how we should interpret it. What you need to understand about the Gospels is that scholars have come to understand that they are written in the genre of the ancient biography. Here's a short article about the genre. A couple of excerpts: Cornelius Nepos lived in the 1st century B.C., and although he did not invent the genre, his works are the earliest biographies that have come down to us. He was a friend of Cicero and Atticus, and of Catullus. He wrote full lives of Cicero and Cato the Elder which do not survive, and a series of short lives (most only two or three A4 pages long) in a work called 'Illustrious Men', part of which is the Great Leaders of Foreign Peoples mentioned above. The rest is lost, apart from scattered fragments and lives of Cato the Elder and Atticus from the section 'Latin Historians'. 1st century BCE Roman Empire. Sound familiar? Perhaps the greatest biographer of ancient times was Plutarch. He was a Greek, born in the late 40s or early 50s A.D., and he probably lived on into the early part of the reign of the emperor Hadrian (117-138 A.D.). We know that he spent some time in Rome and Alexandria, and that as well as being a citizen of Chaeronea (his home town) he was also a citizen of Athens and a priest of the oracle of Delphi. He wrote a series of 48 lives of famous Greek and Roman political and military figures, divided into pairs, one Greek and one Roman, each pair being followed by a comparison of the two. We only have 46 of these parallel lives (the lives of Epaminondas and Scipio are missing), and not all of the pairs now have a comparison (whether they ever did, we don't know). We also have two lives of Roman emperors (Galba and Otho) from a series of imperial biographies from Augustus to Vitellius, and two miscellaneous lives of Aratus and Artaxerxes. Plutarch was also a prolific essayist on a variety of subjects, and about half of his essays survive. In a much-quoted passage from the introduction to his lives of Demosthenes and Cicero, Plutarch admits that the small town of Chaeronea is not the best place for a historian to work and that a larger place with access to libraries and scholars might be better. Plutarch's purpose in writing was not so much to give a straightforward account of the actions or internal life of his subjects, as we might expect from a modern biographer, but to give character studies and moral examples. Emphasis mine. Anyway, the upshot of all of this is that unlike modern historians, the authors of ancient biographies weren't concerned with precise details or chronology, but instead with making a point and conveying concepts. The geneology you quote is from Luke, but there's actually a different one in Matthew, and one possible reason for this is that each was writing to different audiences and so attempting to make a different theological point: This is a pretty good article on the geneologies, and notes that one possible reason for the differences (which you didn't bring up, I know) is that Matthew is tracing Jesus' geneology through Joseph, while Luke is using Mary. Of more import, though, are these two excerpts: •Matthew's genealogy is condensed and divided into three groups of 14, representing a movement through three time periods. The first group lists the patriarchs, the second names the kings, and the third contains private citizens. The intent was not to give a strict record, but rather, present the historical progression. It begins by highlighting the family origin, then the rise to power through the Davidic throne, and eventually the decline from royalty to the humble birth of the promised Messiah. and One interesting commentary points out that by beginning with Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, Matthew's genealogy shows the relationship of Jesus to all Jews—he is their Messiah. This coincides with the overarching theme and purpose of the book of Matthew—to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. On the other hand, the overriding purpose of the book of Luke is to give a precise record of the life of Christ as the perfect human Savior. Therefore, the genealogy of Luke traces all the way back to Adam, demonstrating the relationship of Jesus to all of mankind—he is the Savior of the world. So we can see here that rather than focusing on precise details, Matthew and Luke were each trying to make a larger point about Jesus, as was common in the genre. It's more clear with Matthew, who obviously and intentionally leaves out generations so he can have a specific number (42 made up of three groups of 14), but Luke could well be doing it too. What you see as a "contradiction" is actually you putting your 21st century Western expectations on a 1st century Eastern genre of writing. 2) If you want to be more of a literalist, science doesn't suggest that humans are 4.5 billion years old. Homo Sapiens have probably been around for more like 200 thousand years. Moreover, in Judaism (which was originally an oral culture), it was common practice to leave out unimportant generations from geneologies, because nobody wanted to spend all day listing people that didn't matter anyway. The Hebrew translated in the King James as "begat", for instance, could be used as a relationship between ancestor and decendent, and not just father and son. It's therefore possible that the extra years are represented by generations that weren't of note, and so they weren't included. Can't wait for you to throw some long dis-proven explanation at me. Hope I didn't disappoint. Does any denomination of Christianity NOT use the new testament? Not that I'm aware of, no. Of course, there is more than one way to read the text, especially in the light of modern revelation (and reason and science come from God too). Paul said that in the Bible? Would Paul say anything to the contrary? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. My point was simply that natural revelation (which would include science, the tool we use to understand that natural world) has been a component of Christianity since the beginning, so it's not like it's cheating or something to use science to enlighten our interpretation of the texts. It's not like I was trying to use the Bible to prove God created the Universe, or something, if that's what you thought. Sorry, but I did not see where you proved anything other than how much you love pontificating and droning on and on about matters that you are incredibly misinformed about. Well, thanks! I'll risk "droning on" again, then, and just repeat myself. Here are just a few of the areas science cannot provide knowledge: 1. Mathematics 2. Morality (can't construct an experiment to prove that the Holocaust was evil) 3. History (ditto with Casear crossing the Rubicon) 4. Most interestingly, perhaps, science itself. You cannot prove that science works with science, as that is reasoning in a circle. I could go on, but I wouldn't want to bore you any further with my obvious ignorance. I'm not selling philosophy short, you on the other hand are selling it cheap on the streets. Thanks again. You have your beliefs and I have mine. When I offer things I believe to be true, you dismiss them in a very condescending and haughty manner. No, sir. I have never once ridiculed your beliefs, even if I do not share them. We aren't even discussing your beliefs, as near as I can tell. We are discussing mine, I guess, now that you've tried to prove that the Bible contradicts science and argued that God didn't create the universe, but that's okay with me. I've been known to discuss these topics from time to time. What I have done is provided scientific data about the age of the universe in order to answer a factual question you asked, i.e. why the universe can't be eternal. If you're going to ask a question, you're going to need to expect an answer. Fine. I could not care less that you have such little regard for my opinions. If I didn't have any regard for your opinion, would I have spent hours composing careful, detailed, "droning" responses? It'd be a lot easier to express contempt with a snide joke or smirk. What is laughable is thinking men who lived 2-3k years ago knew more than we do today. Even theologians believe that people know more as the ages pass. It's called "progressive revelation". The flip side of this, though, is that people too often sell the ancients short. They weren't stupid just because they didn't have the Hubble telescope. A popular example of this is the myth that the ancients thought the world was flat (largely perpetuated by Washington Irving, author of The Headless Horsemen). That simply isn't true. The Greeks were measuring the circumfrence of the Earth using trigonometry centuries before Jesus, and any sailor could tell by looking at the horizon that the Earth wasn't a pancake. Is the rainbow really a covenant[Genesis 9:13] between God and the earth or is it dispersion It could be both, you know (assuming one takes the flood story literally in the first place, instead of treating it as a moral allegory). Could snakes, Turtles and donkeys really talk back then? If Satan took the form of a snake, I don't see why it'd be such a stretch for him to talk. And the broader answer is yes, if God can create the universe and everything in it, he can make a turtle or donkey talk. If we begin with the assumption that God doesn't exist, of course it's silly, but then that assumption makes this whole discussion moot so who really cares? Que the believers response: Pick one !.change the literal statements to a figurative meaning Check. 2. What the Bible really meant was. Check. 3. Improper interpretation Check. 4. It must be read in the original language while also taking into consideration the culture of the time Double check. (Are you seriously suggesting we shouldn't consider historical and textual context?) 4. You must be a believer to understand the it Nope. 5. We cannot understand God Not completely, anyway. When i was a beliver I got 1 day older and 2 days dumber The problem you're having is that when you were a Christian, you were a fundamentalist hyper-literalist. That fell apart (as it often does), and you're still a fundamentalist hyper-literalist. It's often amusing to me (at least in the abstract) how similar Christian fundies and atheist fundies actually are. ---------- Post added January-10th-2011 at 11:12 AM ---------- LOL! you will smoke a turd in Haydies for this Crabr! Just to note, while I never once mocked your beliefs, a more sensitive Christian than myself certainly could take this as mocking hers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Just to note, while I never once mocked your beliefs, a more sensitive Christian than myself certainly could take this as mocking hers. I mock the religion because been there done that. I do not mock you cause I completely understand the brainwashing you have gone through. I am sure this board is a form or your ministry. You try to defend your Religion while winning Souls for the Lord. Casting off the yoke of religion off your back will set your free. Big difference in religion and spirituality. In Religion you need a God in spirituality you don't Ever Question why the Almighty would make circumcision a sign of his covenant between himself and ban men with crushed testicles from his assembly Genesis 17:11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you Deuteronomy 23:1 NLT "If a man's testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. PS you say i was a fundamentalist hyper-literalist. Far as i can tell you believe in talking snakes also. So was the rainbow here before the flood ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polywog999 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Just for the hell of it, Why do you continue to "assume" (why you use quotation marks on this word, I have no clue) That I somehow have a hot and steamy love affair with an eternal universe? You say that it isn't possible, well why is that exactly? Because of the universe speeding apart? I speculate that there is not enough information to support that the universe is somehow tied to a beginning and an end. Time breaks down at singularities. The big bang was an exploding singularity. Time is not the end-all be-all of existence. I would have expected you to know this. You don't seem capable of grasping the concept. I really don't have time to go back and forth with someone who has nothing better to do with their time then to spend hours debating the same points. You have me on record as not only disagreeing with you, but also incredibly bored by your constant need to be correct. You quoted me 18 times! Who the hell has time to answer that? You win, OK? Now get to work before you get canned! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I mock the religion because been there done that I wasn't talking to you. I know you're mocking my religion, and I even understand why. I was responding to polywogg999, who was very concerned that I might be mocking his beliefs, and so might want to correct the impression that he is mocking mine, since I'm pretty sure he wouldn't actually want to give that impression. . I do not mock you cause I completely understand the brainwashing you have gone through. Actually, I don't think you do. Fundamentalists, both current and former, seem to assume that their repressive experiences are par for the course, but I can assure you that the vast majority of Christians neither think nor raise their children that way. Personally, my Christianity developed over a fairly long period of time, due to investigation of the evidence. It wasn't beaten into me. you say i was a fundamentalist hyper-literalist. Far as i can tell you believe in talking snakes also. I haven't actually advocated a particular reading of Genesis here publicly, and I'm not going to (though I suspect the clever reader can probably guess). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oisn1 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I'll risk "droning on" again, then, and just repeat myself. Here are just a few of the areas science cannot provide knowledge: 1. Mathematics 2. Morality (can't construct an experiment to prove that the Holocaust was evil) 3. History (ditto with Casear crossing the Rubicon) 4. Most interestingly, perhaps, science itself. You cannot prove that science works with science, as that is reasoning in a circle. I could go on, but I wouldn't want to bore you any further with my obvious ignorance. You make some good points but these are bad examples. Mathematics teeters between science and pure logic, yet most mathematicians will tend to agree with it being based on some level of the physical. Godel's theorem's seem to imply that not all mathematics can be boiled down to logic and that there is some natural conjecture involved in the formulation of mathematics. This leads to an interesting situation where science can presumably "prove" concepts in the math but not all of them. The debate as to whether numbers exist is far from solved but science can prove the existence of mathematics in our reality. Conceptually, I liken mathematics to the concept of happiness. We know happiness exists and we have found the chemical reactions in the brain that cause it, but we do not fully understand how it comes about. It is not infeasible to see that happiness is just a series of chemical reactions in the brain caused by observing something that has previously provided pleasure (honestly, I don't much believe in realm of a purely physical cognition). Mathematics is far from settled as a concept purely rooted in logic. In terms of morality, consider how we "get" morality. Is it inherent? Is it passed down genetically or from our parents/society? Or is it outside the realm of the brain and in the proverbial "soul." If science can prove how a person's morality is formed, it may answer how we create morality. If morality is simply the brain's retention of ideals passed down from parents, then science has proven what morality is. Maybe morality is just an evolutionary trait that has evolved as humans have become more advanced, discarding outdated morality (some would place theology in this category) in favor of new moral views based on the physical world around them. It's tough to say, but science is not excluded from the concept of morality. Philosophy is an important part of morality for sure but it is unwise to discard the role that science plays. How can science not be part of history? History is predicated on the concept of the hypothesis, experimentation (analysis), and conclusion. If history wasn't scientific, we would take the Odyssey to be factual. History is constantly shifting as science uncovers falsehoods and truths in historical records, whether they are fossils, artifacts, art, or literature. I can understand your assertion as to whether science can prove science, but then it follows that nothing can prove itself. For example, then religion cannot prove itself. You cannot use the Bible to justify belief in divine Jesus and Christianity, you need something else. In fact, the whole concept of theology is voided as the only proof for theology lies in religious books, as there is no unbiased observer that verifies Muhammad seeing the angel Gabriel or Jesus being the son of God. On the other hand, if there is evidence to prove the validity of the concept then there is the belief that it can be trusted. For example, physicists stated that Venus, due to a combination of factors, was not habitable due to extreme heat and gravity. When they sent a lander to survey the surface, it landed successfully and was promptly crushed/melted. In many ways, science had proven the natural laws of gravitation and chemistry. Of course the proof is not settled, but the evidence that the scientific method cannot prove scientific concepts is not settled. Don't get me wrong, I'm not stating that science can explain everything, but it's unfair to say that the limitations of science are truly known. 2000 years ago, people may have stated that science could not explain the stars. Philosophy and science are tied by the bonds of the natural world, and often play off one another in the search of truth. Theology lies on its own plane as it ignores the concept of evidence and testing, using faith instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 You say that it isn't possible, well why is that exactly? I didn't say it wasn't possible. Anything is possible. Possibilities come cheap. It's possible, for instance, that the Universe was created five minutes ago complete with the appearance of age, memories, and undigested stomach contents. It's possible that I am just a brain in the jar of a mad scientist, stimulating responses to make me think that I am living my life and posting on this message board. What I actually wrote was that there is no evidence that the Universe is eternal. The best evidence is that it had a beginning about 14 billion years ago. Since you asked, though, another good reason to believe that the universe is not eternal is that the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem proves that any inflationary universe (which, as far as we know, ours is) cannot extend infinitely into the past. You don't seem capable of grasping the concept. Thanks once more. I really don't have time to go back and forth with someone who has nothing better to do with their time then to spend hours debating the same points. Well, look. You raise complicated issues (such as the geneology of Jesus and its relation to the genre of ancient biography and the origins of the Universe), and it took time and detail to discuss them fully. If it bores you, don't read it, but I figured if you asked the questions, you might actually want the answers. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I didn't say it wasn't possible. Anything is possible. Possibilities come cheap.It's possible, for instance, that the Universe was created five minutes ago complete with the appearance of age, memories, and undigested stomach contents. It's posssible that some supernatural being created it all. It's possible that I am just a brain in the jar of a mad scientist, stimulating responses to make me think that I am living my life and posting on this message board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.