On February 19 2009 14:10 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet.
Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (no sc jokes plz), science fails miserably.
The end definitely has alot of evidence towards heat death, look it up.
I have and there certainly seems to be no consesus whatsoever.
The most macro, I assume, is cosmology, which is a huge topic, please study it, it's pretty interesting. The most micro has quantum physics, which has observational evidence going to past 12 significant figures of agreeing with the models (which is more than even the universal law of gravitation). Even microer than that would be string theory, and perhaps the Higgs model of mass.
does any part of this invalidate my point?
As for the beginning, there are several theories that would allow a glimpse past the black hole, if they turned out to be true. For example, Loop Quantum Gravity implies that a singularity cannot exist, and thus there was a minimum size of the universe, a "hole" one could supposedly look through. If the string theory with parallel universes on parallel branes proves true, then the existence of multiple universes could help us look more towards the origin of them all. It's not a barren subject that has "failed miserably."
i never said it failed miserably. I said that it currently fails miserably. Science always has theories. And once it solves a problem, another has always replaced it. Maybe science will eventually solve everything. But right now it isn't even close. Listing off a bunch of theories means nothing to me.
Well of course it means nothing to you, you haven't checked the evidence and calculations consistent towards them. If a theory is made to be consistent with existing evidence, and then makes a prediction consistent with itself that can be observed, then it's already as strong as fuck. In science, "theory" is precluded by mounds and mounds of evidence, as I've said. If I said the universe was created in some arbitrary, untestable, unfalsifiable fashion, that would not be a scientific theory. You severely underestimate the gravity attached to the word 'theory.'
I think that you severely overestimate the understanding of existence that comes with any theory being validated, let alone merely postulated.
i think that you severaly overestimate the understanding of existance that comes with any person making something up.
your tact in your last handful of posts is that all errors in christianity are the work of man, deliberately or otherwise. the problem with this is once you take away the teachings and the scriptures there isnt actually anything left of christianity. christ himself could just as easily be attributed as an error or wrong teaching by the men that followed as the resistance to our current idea of the universe or evolution or anything christianity has been proven wrong about.
just because names, dates, places, or amounts are wrong does not make a message wrong. if i point to 2 gay guys and say "steve loves carl", but steve is actually named wayne - clearly the information is not accurate but the message is still the same.
On February 19 2009 13:18 Jerebread wrote: Hi SpiritoftheTunA and IdrA,
I realize that what is found below is a rather long read (and probably boring for the rest of you), but you guys seem to be interested in it, and I would like to know what you think of it.
William Lane Craig wrote in his book, Reasonable Faith, that ‘Now a precisely parallel problem attends the Many Worlds Hypothesis is an explanation of fine-tuning. As we have seen, Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:10^10(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a collection of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. Adopting the Many Worlds Hypothesis to explain away fine-tuning would thus result in a bizarre illusionism; it is far more probable that all our astronomical, geological, and biological estimates of age are wrong and that the appearance of our large and old universe is a massive illusion. Or again, if our universe is but one member of a World Ensemble, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those are much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but one member of an ensemble of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On atheism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no World Ensemble.’
Just so you know where this guy is coming from, and not some random hobo that just says things, he pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984). He is also an accomplished writer, authoring over 30 books and over a hundred articles in professional journals.
It's just an example of another theologian cherry picking at the multiple theories in physics to find things he wants to use to imply a creator. The calculations you mention are nowhere near widely accepted, and is one of many theories. Most theories don't imply improbability of the low entropy condition, and I suggest you do research yourself on the subject. Just because he studied doesn't mean he framed it in a sensible light. Ask any physics Ph.D (preferably Cosmology) if his conclusion is viable, and they'll tell you the truth (it's far-fetched as hell and cherry picking theories). His doctorate was in Philosophy, and his degrees were in theology, so why would you mark him as a credible source in physics?
Ask any Harvard law graduate how the moon makes the tides and he'll give you, with 100% confidence, the completely wrong answer of "gravity pulls the water closer to the moon." In actuality, the differential gravity between the sides and center of the earth is what creates the tides. Just because somebody is highly educated doesn't mean they're right. Again, most physicists won't go around pretending to be well-read theologians, theologians should truly study physics comprehensively before they should be allowed to present theories in order to advance their own creationist agendas. This guy clearly didn't, especially considering how much time he spent getting his other degrees.
Show me one article of his that got published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and I will retract all of these statements.
The Cambridge Companion to Atheism Series: Cambridge Companions to Philosophy Edited by Michael Martin Boston University + Show Spoiler +
In this volume, eighteen of the world’s leading scholars present original essays on various aspects of atheism: its history, both ancient and modern, defense and implications. The topic is examined in terms of its implications for a wide range of disciplines including philosophy, religion, feminism, postmodernism, sociology and psychology. In its defense, both classical and contemporary theistic arguments are criticized, and, the argument from evil, and impossibility arguments, along with a non religious basis for morality are defended. These essays give a broad understanding of atheism and a lucid introduction to this controversial topic.
Will this suffice? Feel free to dig around his site www.reasonablefaith.org for more of his scholarly articles.
On February 19 2009 13:30 Mindcrime wrote:
White, yolk, and shell? When you put it that way, it certainly sounds like tritheism to me!
It seems rather odd that such a major tenant of a majority of Christian sects was never explicitly stated anywhere in the Bible.
There is so much historical and archeological evidence to support his existence that every reputable historian agrees he was not just a legend.
Historical and archaeological evidence? Like what? I've never heard of any archaeological evidence of any sort, and the only historical accounts of Jesus come from historians who wrote many decades later and very plausibly could have gotten all of their information on the subject from Christians.
Hi Mindcrime,
Hm, I don't know if you read my post, but the egg analogy was of how three individual parts constitute an egg.
Indeed, you are correct, the trinity is never explicitly stated anywhere in the Bible. It is a concept that theologians have formed, due to numerous passages in the Bible that support it.
I am hesitant in linking to wiki, as no doubt some of you might say it is so easily changed, etc., but I have read it through and it appears to be sound.
There is more written about Jesus, from both 'Christian' and 'secular' sources, than any other person in history. For the amount of evidence compiled, you would have to first doubt the existance of Ceasar, Alexander the Great, etc.
Aside from the four Gospels (practically biographies), which were written around 30 years after Jesus' death, there are numerous accounts from Roman historians.
There are passages relevant to Christianity in the works of four major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries – Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.
It is actually surprising, the amount that is written about Jesus. You have to remember that at that time, this was the height of the Roman Empire. Who would be concerned about a guy that was crucified, in some remote location of the kingdom?
On February 19 2009 14:27 travis wrote: ok well do you not think it's possible that the point is not to tell people the nature of this material world (which should be completely irrelevant to the faith itself), but rather to illustrate various messages?
and in doing so, fallible people who are conveying those messages make errors in their examples because of ignorance regarding the nature of this material world? because it has nothing to do with the faith itself?
man that was worded kind of poorly but hopefully you understand me
so many people are fallible, and psychology contends that most will gravitate towards the most available interpretation of the bible. some won't learn at all about evolution, and many will deny it after learning of it, suggesting that their interpretations of the bible are wrong. the fallibility and unreliability (unreliability to produce consistent interpretations) of the faith's teachings, to me, implies there's something wrong with the faith.
does any religion exist independent of the people who teach it and pass it on? (no)
so how can it be the fault of the religion rather than the fault of the people? people teach science incorrectly all the time as well.
yeah but with science, there's a much stronger, cohesive consensus on what is accepted as correct to the level of being a "law," and what is correct to the level of being a "theory"
no such consensus with religion. i mean, what if one of the four writers of the gospels majorly fucked up and conveyed the wrong information? how could you test that? experiments in science must be repeatable. a writer of a gospel... is not repeatable.
I absolutely agree.
Religion does not work like science. We definitely agree on this.
Religion is not about objectivity. Religion is about you, subjectively, and the experiences that you have during your life. This tends to be a problem for scientific minds.
Personally, though, I would take my subjective conclusions over objective analysis any day. This is my life. I experience my life. What happens to me is all that I know.
I aim to make these "objective analy[ses]" myself, so in a way, I aim to experience life as well. Following the guidelines of science really isn't that binding. Plus, if I do happen to have a spiritual experience, I won't disregard it, because you're right, faith is different. I just haven't.
THOUGH. I have had 3 dreams in succession, completely consistent with each other, all about the same thing, but different experiences. I am being completely serious when I say this, this happened in 7th grade over three consecutive nights. I was in an amusement park called Pickle World, which consisted of a large castle behind a renaissance fair style market place, with a train going around the whole thing. The castle had suction tubes for transportation, and it was really cool. I stole pickle credits from the market place and was chased by the pickle police through these consecutive dreams, until I escaped into the castle. However, once I had reached the castle, I woke up, and stopped having these dreams, much to my dismay.
<less serious part>I don't really know what this means, but hopefully it's a glimpse into the spirituality of my future. Science hardly provides meaning to a life, so hopefully Pickle World will. </less serious part>
i think that the castle represented the kingdom of heaven and the dreams represented your worldly desires.
On February 19 2009 14:10 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet.
Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (no sc jokes plz), science fails miserably.
The end definitely has alot of evidence towards heat death, look it up.
I have and there certainly seems to be no consesus whatsoever.
The most macro, I assume, is cosmology, which is a huge topic, please study it, it's pretty interesting. The most micro has quantum physics, which has observational evidence going to past 12 significant figures of agreeing with the models (which is more than even the universal law of gravitation). Even microer than that would be string theory, and perhaps the Higgs model of mass.
does any part of this invalidate my point?
As for the beginning, there are several theories that would allow a glimpse past the black hole, if they turned out to be true. For example, Loop Quantum Gravity implies that a singularity cannot exist, and thus there was a minimum size of the universe, a "hole" one could supposedly look through. If the string theory with parallel universes on parallel branes proves true, then the existence of multiple universes could help us look more towards the origin of them all. It's not a barren subject that has "failed miserably."
i never said it failed miserably. I said that it currently fails miserably. Science always has theories. And once it solves a problem, another has always replaced it. Maybe science will eventually solve everything. But right now it isn't even close. Listing off a bunch of theories means nothing to me.
Well of course it means nothing to you, you haven't checked the evidence and calculations consistent towards them. If a theory is made to be consistent with existing evidence, and then makes a prediction consistent with itself that can be observed, then it's already as strong as fuck. In science, "theory" is precluded by mounds and mounds of evidence, as I've said. If I said the universe was created in some arbitrary, untestable, unfalsifiable fashion, that would not be a scientific theory. You severely underestimate the gravity attached to the word 'theory.'
I think that you severely overestimate the understanding of existence that comes with any theory being validated, let alone merely postulated.
i think that you severaly overestimate the understanding of existance that comes with any person making something up.
your tact in your last handful of posts is that all errors in christianity are the work of man, deliberately or otherwise. the problem with this is once you take away the teachings and the scriptures there isnt actually anything left of christianity. christ himself could just as easily be attributed as an error or wrong teaching by the men that followed as the resistance to our current idea of the universe or evolution or anything christianity has been proven wrong about.
just because names, dates, places, or amounts are wrong does not make a message wrong. if i point to 2 gay guys and say "steve loves carl", but steve is actually named wayne - clearly the information is not accurate but the message is still the same.
there's no way to verify the message itself though, that's where the faith comes in. what if it's not an error of name, but an error of procedure? what if salvation's not about accepting and thanking jesus, it's about following after his works, and the sin part was put in to simply strengthen jesus' standing? who knows???
On February 19 2009 14:10 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet.
Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (no sc jokes plz), science fails miserably.
The end definitely has alot of evidence towards heat death, look it up.
I have and there certainly seems to be no consesus whatsoever.
The most macro, I assume, is cosmology, which is a huge topic, please study it, it's pretty interesting. The most micro has quantum physics, which has observational evidence going to past 12 significant figures of agreeing with the models (which is more than even the universal law of gravitation). Even microer than that would be string theory, and perhaps the Higgs model of mass.
does any part of this invalidate my point?
As for the beginning, there are several theories that would allow a glimpse past the black hole, if they turned out to be true. For example, Loop Quantum Gravity implies that a singularity cannot exist, and thus there was a minimum size of the universe, a "hole" one could supposedly look through. If the string theory with parallel universes on parallel branes proves true, then the existence of multiple universes could help us look more towards the origin of them all. It's not a barren subject that has "failed miserably."
i never said it failed miserably. I said that it currently fails miserably. Science always has theories. And once it solves a problem, another has always replaced it. Maybe science will eventually solve everything. But right now it isn't even close. Listing off a bunch of theories means nothing to me.
Well of course it means nothing to you, you haven't checked the evidence and calculations consistent towards them. If a theory is made to be consistent with existing evidence, and then makes a prediction consistent with itself that can be observed, then it's already as strong as fuck. In science, "theory" is precluded by mounds and mounds of evidence, as I've said. If I said the universe was created in some arbitrary, untestable, unfalsifiable fashion, that would not be a scientific theory. You severely underestimate the gravity attached to the word 'theory.'
I think that you severely overestimate the understanding of existence that comes with any theory being validated, let alone merely postulated.
i think that you severaly overestimate the understanding of existance that comes with any person making something up.
your tact in your last handful of posts is that all errors in christianity are the work of man, deliberately or otherwise. the problem with this is once you take away the teachings and the scriptures there isnt actually anything left of christianity. christ himself could just as easily be attributed as an error or wrong teaching by the men that followed as the resistance to our current idea of the universe or evolution or anything christianity has been proven wrong about.
just because names, dates, places, or amounts are wrong does not make a message wrong. if i point to 2 gay guys and say "steve loves carl", but steve is actually named wayne - clearly the information is not accurate but the message is still the same.
Well, it becaomes a problem when it is a message from/written by a perfect deity. If you pointed and said "God told me that steve loves carl" it would be a closer example.
On a lighter note...names, dates, places and amounts?
"We need to correct something. When we said Jesus performed hundreds of miracles 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, we really meant that Bob performed 0 miracles 20 minutes ago out back." ;P
On February 19 2009 13:18 Jerebread wrote: Hi SpiritoftheTunA and IdrA,
I realize that what is found below is a rather long read (and probably boring for the rest of you), but you guys seem to be interested in it, and I would like to know what you think of it.
William Lane Craig wrote in his book, Reasonable Faith, that ‘Now a precisely parallel problem attends the Many Worlds Hypothesis is an explanation of fine-tuning. As we have seen, Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:10^10(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a collection of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. Adopting the Many Worlds Hypothesis to explain away fine-tuning would thus result in a bizarre illusionism; it is far more probable that all our astronomical, geological, and biological estimates of age are wrong and that the appearance of our large and old universe is a massive illusion. Or again, if our universe is but one member of a World Ensemble, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those are much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but one member of an ensemble of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On atheism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no World Ensemble.’
Just so you know where this guy is coming from, and not some random hobo that just says things, he pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984). He is also an accomplished writer, authoring over 30 books and over a hundred articles in professional journals.
It's just an example of another theologian cherry picking at the multiple theories in physics to find things he wants to use to imply a creator. The calculations you mention are nowhere near widely accepted, and is one of many theories. Most theories don't imply improbability of the low entropy condition, and I suggest you do research yourself on the subject. Just because he studied doesn't mean he framed it in a sensible light. Ask any physics Ph.D (preferably Cosmology) if his conclusion is viable, and they'll tell you the truth (it's far-fetched as hell and cherry picking theories). His doctorate was in Philosophy, and his degrees were in theology, so why would you mark him as a credible source in physics?
Ask any Harvard law graduate how the moon makes the tides and he'll give you, with 100% confidence, the completely wrong answer of "gravity pulls the water closer to the moon." In actuality, the differential gravity between the sides and center of the earth is what creates the tides. Just because somebody is highly educated doesn't mean they're right. Again, most physicists won't go around pretending to be well-read theologians, theologians should truly study physics comprehensively before they should be allowed to present theories in order to advance their own creationist agendas. This guy clearly didn't, especially considering how much time he spent getting his other degrees.
Show me one article of his that got published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and I will retract all of these statements.
The Cambridge Companion to Atheism Series: Cambridge Companions to Philosophy Edited by Michael Martin Boston University + Show Spoiler +
In this volume, eighteen of the world’s leading scholars present original essays on various aspects of atheism: its history, both ancient and modern, defense and implications. The topic is examined in terms of its implications for a wide range of disciplines including philosophy, religion, feminism, postmodernism, sociology and psychology. In its defense, both classical and contemporary theistic arguments are criticized, and, the argument from evil, and impossibility arguments, along with a non religious basis for morality are defended. These essays give a broad understanding of atheism and a lucid introduction to this controversial topic.
Will this suffice? Feel free to dig around his site www.reasonablefaith.org for more of his scholarly articles.
no, actually, because it's a philosophical journal, and it's reviewing peers could not accurately verify anything scientific. scientific journals work in a different way from literary or philosophical journals, because every claim made is checked by multiple scientists specializing in the area in which the claim is made.
On February 19 2009 14:10 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet.
Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (no sc jokes plz), science fails miserably.
The end definitely has alot of evidence towards heat death, look it up.
I have and there certainly seems to be no consesus whatsoever.
The most macro, I assume, is cosmology, which is a huge topic, please study it, it's pretty interesting. The most micro has quantum physics, which has observational evidence going to past 12 significant figures of agreeing with the models (which is more than even the universal law of gravitation). Even microer than that would be string theory, and perhaps the Higgs model of mass.
does any part of this invalidate my point?
As for the beginning, there are several theories that would allow a glimpse past the black hole, if they turned out to be true. For example, Loop Quantum Gravity implies that a singularity cannot exist, and thus there was a minimum size of the universe, a "hole" one could supposedly look through. If the string theory with parallel universes on parallel branes proves true, then the existence of multiple universes could help us look more towards the origin of them all. It's not a barren subject that has "failed miserably."
i never said it failed miserably. I said that it currently fails miserably. Science always has theories. And once it solves a problem, another has always replaced it. Maybe science will eventually solve everything. But right now it isn't even close. Listing off a bunch of theories means nothing to me.
Well of course it means nothing to you, you haven't checked the evidence and calculations consistent towards them. If a theory is made to be consistent with existing evidence, and then makes a prediction consistent with itself that can be observed, then it's already as strong as fuck. In science, "theory" is precluded by mounds and mounds of evidence, as I've said. If I said the universe was created in some arbitrary, untestable, unfalsifiable fashion, that would not be a scientific theory. You severely underestimate the gravity attached to the word 'theory.'
I think that you severely overestimate the understanding of existence that comes with any theory being validated, let alone merely postulated.
i think that you severaly overestimate the understanding of existance that comes with any person making something up.
your tact in your last handful of posts is that all errors in christianity are the work of man, deliberately or otherwise. the problem with this is once you take away the teachings and the scriptures there isnt actually anything left of christianity. christ himself could just as easily be attributed as an error or wrong teaching by the men that followed as the resistance to our current idea of the universe or evolution or anything christianity has been proven wrong about.
just because names, dates, places, or amounts are wrong does not make a message wrong. if i point to 2 gay guys and say "steve loves carl", but steve is actually named wayne - clearly the information is not accurate but the message is still the same.
there's no way to verify the message itself though, that's where the faith comes in. what if it's not an error of name, but an error of procedure? what if salvation's not about accepting and thanking jesus, it's about following after his works, and the sin part was put in to simply strengthen jesus' standing? who knows???
But... the Bible talks specifically about salvation. It's not all left up to interpretation.
On February 19 2009 14:10 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet.
Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (no sc jokes plz), science fails miserably.
The end definitely has alot of evidence towards heat death, look it up.
I have and there certainly seems to be no consesus whatsoever.
The most macro, I assume, is cosmology, which is a huge topic, please study it, it's pretty interesting. The most micro has quantum physics, which has observational evidence going to past 12 significant figures of agreeing with the models (which is more than even the universal law of gravitation). Even microer than that would be string theory, and perhaps the Higgs model of mass.
does any part of this invalidate my point?
As for the beginning, there are several theories that would allow a glimpse past the black hole, if they turned out to be true. For example, Loop Quantum Gravity implies that a singularity cannot exist, and thus there was a minimum size of the universe, a "hole" one could supposedly look through. If the string theory with parallel universes on parallel branes proves true, then the existence of multiple universes could help us look more towards the origin of them all. It's not a barren subject that has "failed miserably."
i never said it failed miserably. I said that it currently fails miserably. Science always has theories. And once it solves a problem, another has always replaced it. Maybe science will eventually solve everything. But right now it isn't even close. Listing off a bunch of theories means nothing to me.
Well of course it means nothing to you, you haven't checked the evidence and calculations consistent towards them. If a theory is made to be consistent with existing evidence, and then makes a prediction consistent with itself that can be observed, then it's already as strong as fuck. In science, "theory" is precluded by mounds and mounds of evidence, as I've said. If I said the universe was created in some arbitrary, untestable, unfalsifiable fashion, that would not be a scientific theory. You severely underestimate the gravity attached to the word 'theory.'
I think that you severely overestimate the understanding of existence that comes with any theory being validated, let alone merely postulated.
i think that you severaly overestimate the understanding of existance that comes with any person making something up.
your tact in your last handful of posts is that all errors in christianity are the work of man, deliberately or otherwise. the problem with this is once you take away the teachings and the scriptures there isnt actually anything left of christianity. christ himself could just as easily be attributed as an error or wrong teaching by the men that followed as the resistance to our current idea of the universe or evolution or anything christianity has been proven wrong about.
just because names, dates, places, or amounts are wrong does not make a message wrong. if i point to 2 gay guys and say "steve loves carl", but steve is actually named wayne - clearly the information is not accurate but the message is still the same.
the names, dates and places can be wrong. the thing is, so can the message. why should i believe you that wayne (or steve) actually loves carl. how do you know? because somebody told you when you were young and you visit a building every sunday where everyone sits around while an old man reads from a book about how wayne loves steve.
your message has no more truth to it than the information you see as unimportant.
if you continue to move in this direction you're not even supporting for christianity, just non-specific spirituality.
On February 19 2009 14:10 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet.
Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (no sc jokes plz), science fails miserably.
The end definitely has alot of evidence towards heat death, look it up.
I have and there certainly seems to be no consesus whatsoever.
The most macro, I assume, is cosmology, which is a huge topic, please study it, it's pretty interesting. The most micro has quantum physics, which has observational evidence going to past 12 significant figures of agreeing with the models (which is more than even the universal law of gravitation). Even microer than that would be string theory, and perhaps the Higgs model of mass.
does any part of this invalidate my point?
As for the beginning, there are several theories that would allow a glimpse past the black hole, if they turned out to be true. For example, Loop Quantum Gravity implies that a singularity cannot exist, and thus there was a minimum size of the universe, a "hole" one could supposedly look through. If the string theory with parallel universes on parallel branes proves true, then the existence of multiple universes could help us look more towards the origin of them all. It's not a barren subject that has "failed miserably."
i never said it failed miserably. I said that it currently fails miserably. Science always has theories. And once it solves a problem, another has always replaced it. Maybe science will eventually solve everything. But right now it isn't even close. Listing off a bunch of theories means nothing to me.
Well of course it means nothing to you, you haven't checked the evidence and calculations consistent towards them. If a theory is made to be consistent with existing evidence, and then makes a prediction consistent with itself that can be observed, then it's already as strong as fuck. In science, "theory" is precluded by mounds and mounds of evidence, as I've said. If I said the universe was created in some arbitrary, untestable, unfalsifiable fashion, that would not be a scientific theory. You severely underestimate the gravity attached to the word 'theory.'
I think that you severely overestimate the understanding of existence that comes with any theory being validated, let alone merely postulated.
i think that you severaly overestimate the understanding of existance that comes with any person making something up.
your tact in your last handful of posts is that all errors in christianity are the work of man, deliberately or otherwise. the problem with this is once you take away the teachings and the scriptures there isnt actually anything left of christianity. christ himself could just as easily be attributed as an error or wrong teaching by the men that followed as the resistance to our current idea of the universe or evolution or anything christianity has been proven wrong about.
just because names, dates, places, or amounts are wrong does not make a message wrong. if i point to 2 gay guys and say "steve loves carl", but steve is actually named wayne - clearly the information is not accurate but the message is still the same.
there's no way to verify the message itself though, that's where the faith comes in. what if it's not an error of name, but an error of procedure? what if salvation's not about accepting and thanking jesus, it's about following after his works, and the sin part was put in to simply strengthen jesus' standing? who knows???
yes again I definitely agree with you. this is why I think organized religion is such a problem. the entire thing gets changed around and traditionalized and dumbed down until it's all beside the point. it even happens with buddhism.
however, it makes me sad when some people can't see what religion based on genuine honesty with oneself and genuine investigate has to offer. even if it ends up being wrong, spirituality is not a bad thing for mankind. and so many scientists dismiss it offhand which is just so so arrogant.
On February 19 2009 14:27 travis wrote: ok well do you not think it's possible that the point is not to tell people the nature of this material world (which should be completely irrelevant to the faith itself), but rather to illustrate various messages?
and in doing so, fallible people who are conveying those messages make errors in their examples because of ignorance regarding the nature of this material world? because it has nothing to do with the faith itself?
man that was worded kind of poorly but hopefully you understand me
so many people are fallible, and psychology contends that most will gravitate towards the most available interpretation of the bible. some won't learn at all about evolution, and many will deny it after learning of it, suggesting that their interpretations of the bible are wrong. the fallibility and unreliability (unreliability to produce consistent interpretations) of the faith's teachings, to me, implies there's something wrong with the faith.
does any religion exist independent of the people who teach it and pass it on? (no)
so how can it be the fault of the religion rather than the fault of the people? people teach science incorrectly all the time as well.
yeah but with science, there's a much stronger, cohesive consensus on what is accepted as correct to the level of being a "law," and what is correct to the level of being a "theory"
no such consensus with religion. i mean, what if one of the four writers of the gospels majorly fucked up and conveyed the wrong information? how could you test that? experiments in science must be repeatable. a writer of a gospel... is not repeatable.
I absolutely agree.
Religion does not work like science. We definitely agree on this.
Religion is not about objectivity. Religion is about you, subjectively, and the experiences that you have during your life. This tends to be a problem for scientific minds.
Personally, though, I would take my subjective conclusions over objective analysis any day. This is my life. I experience my life. What happens to me is all that I know.
I aim to make these "objective analy[ses]" myself, so in a way, I aim to experience life as well. Following the guidelines of science really isn't that binding. Plus, if I do happen to have a spiritual experience, I won't disregard it, because you're right, faith is different. I just haven't.
THOUGH. I have had 3 dreams in succession, completely consistent with each other, all about the same thing, but different experiences. I am being completely serious when I say this, this happened in 7th grade over three consecutive nights. I was in an amusement park called Pickle World, which consisted of a large castle behind a renaissance fair style market place, with a train going around the whole thing. The castle had suction tubes for transportation, and it was really cool. I stole pickle credits from the market place and was chased by the pickle police through these consecutive dreams, until I escaped into the castle. However, once I had reached the castle, I woke up, and stopped having these dreams, much to my dismay.
<less serious part>I don't really know what this means, but hopefully it's a glimpse into the spirituality of my future. Science hardly provides meaning to a life, so hopefully Pickle World will. </less serious part>
i think that the castle represented the kingdom of heaven and the dreams represented your worldly desires.
On February 19 2009 14:10 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet.
Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (no sc jokes plz), science fails miserably.
The end definitely has alot of evidence towards heat death, look it up.
I have and there certainly seems to be no consesus whatsoever.
The most macro, I assume, is cosmology, which is a huge topic, please study it, it's pretty interesting. The most micro has quantum physics, which has observational evidence going to past 12 significant figures of agreeing with the models (which is more than even the universal law of gravitation). Even microer than that would be string theory, and perhaps the Higgs model of mass.
does any part of this invalidate my point?
As for the beginning, there are several theories that would allow a glimpse past the black hole, if they turned out to be true. For example, Loop Quantum Gravity implies that a singularity cannot exist, and thus there was a minimum size of the universe, a "hole" one could supposedly look through. If the string theory with parallel universes on parallel branes proves true, then the existence of multiple universes could help us look more towards the origin of them all. It's not a barren subject that has "failed miserably."
i never said it failed miserably. I said that it currently fails miserably. Science always has theories. And once it solves a problem, another has always replaced it. Maybe science will eventually solve everything. But right now it isn't even close. Listing off a bunch of theories means nothing to me.
Well of course it means nothing to you, you haven't checked the evidence and calculations consistent towards them. If a theory is made to be consistent with existing evidence, and then makes a prediction consistent with itself that can be observed, then it's already as strong as fuck. In science, "theory" is precluded by mounds and mounds of evidence, as I've said. If I said the universe was created in some arbitrary, untestable, unfalsifiable fashion, that would not be a scientific theory. You severely underestimate the gravity attached to the word 'theory.'
I think that you severely overestimate the understanding of existence that comes with any theory being validated, let alone merely postulated.
i think that you severaly overestimate the understanding of existance that comes with any person making something up.
your tact in your last handful of posts is that all errors in christianity are the work of man, deliberately or otherwise. the problem with this is once you take away the teachings and the scriptures there isnt actually anything left of christianity. christ himself could just as easily be attributed as an error or wrong teaching by the men that followed as the resistance to our current idea of the universe or evolution or anything christianity has been proven wrong about.
just because names, dates, places, or amounts are wrong does not make a message wrong. if i point to 2 gay guys and say "steve loves carl", but steve is actually named wayne - clearly the information is not accurate but the message is still the same.
Well, it becaomes a problem when it is a message from/written by a perfect deity. If you pointed and said "God told me that steve loves carl" it would be a closer example.
On a lighter note...names, dates, places and amounts?
"We need to correct something. When we said Jesus performed hundreds of miracles 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, we really meant that Bob performed 0 miracles 20 minutes ago out back." ;P
lol
anyways I agree, I think that part of the problem is that the teachings tend to not only come "from god through man", but generally then through yet another man or even more.
wow i think that was poorly worded again lol, but you'll probably understand
On February 19 2009 14:10 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet.
Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (no sc jokes plz), science fails miserably.
The end definitely has alot of evidence towards heat death, look it up.
I have and there certainly seems to be no consesus whatsoever.
The most macro, I assume, is cosmology, which is a huge topic, please study it, it's pretty interesting. The most micro has quantum physics, which has observational evidence going to past 12 significant figures of agreeing with the models (which is more than even the universal law of gravitation). Even microer than that would be string theory, and perhaps the Higgs model of mass.
does any part of this invalidate my point?
As for the beginning, there are several theories that would allow a glimpse past the black hole, if they turned out to be true. For example, Loop Quantum Gravity implies that a singularity cannot exist, and thus there was a minimum size of the universe, a "hole" one could supposedly look through. If the string theory with parallel universes on parallel branes proves true, then the existence of multiple universes could help us look more towards the origin of them all. It's not a barren subject that has "failed miserably."
i never said it failed miserably. I said that it currently fails miserably. Science always has theories. And once it solves a problem, another has always replaced it. Maybe science will eventually solve everything. But right now it isn't even close. Listing off a bunch of theories means nothing to me.
Well of course it means nothing to you, you haven't checked the evidence and calculations consistent towards them. If a theory is made to be consistent with existing evidence, and then makes a prediction consistent with itself that can be observed, then it's already as strong as fuck. In science, "theory" is precluded by mounds and mounds of evidence, as I've said. If I said the universe was created in some arbitrary, untestable, unfalsifiable fashion, that would not be a scientific theory. You severely underestimate the gravity attached to the word 'theory.'
I think that you severely overestimate the understanding of existence that comes with any theory being validated, let alone merely postulated.
i think that you severaly overestimate the understanding of existance that comes with any person making something up.
your tact in your last handful of posts is that all errors in christianity are the work of man, deliberately or otherwise. the problem with this is once you take away the teachings and the scriptures there isnt actually anything left of christianity. christ himself could just as easily be attributed as an error or wrong teaching by the men that followed as the resistance to our current idea of the universe or evolution or anything christianity has been proven wrong about.
just because names, dates, places, or amounts are wrong does not make a message wrong. if i point to 2 gay guys and say "steve loves carl", but steve is actually named wayne - clearly the information is not accurate but the message is still the same.
Well, it becaomes a problem when it is a message from/written by a perfect deity. If you pointed and said "God told me that steve loves carl" it would be a closer example.
On a lighter note...names, dates, places and amounts?
"We need to correct something. When we said Jesus performed hundreds of miracles 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, we really meant that Bob performed 0 miracles 20 minutes ago out back." ;P
On February 19 2009 14:10 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: Science's theories still work upon observable evidence though, theories aren't just "theories" in the colloquial sense, they're mounds and mounds of evidence that haven't been disproven yet.
Science has done a good job of revealing how causation works regarding most scales that are relevant to us. But when it comes to solving the beginning, the end, the most macro and the most micro (no sc jokes plz), science fails miserably.
The end definitely has alot of evidence towards heat death, look it up.
I have and there certainly seems to be no consesus whatsoever.
The most macro, I assume, is cosmology, which is a huge topic, please study it, it's pretty interesting. The most micro has quantum physics, which has observational evidence going to past 12 significant figures of agreeing with the models (which is more than even the universal law of gravitation). Even microer than that would be string theory, and perhaps the Higgs model of mass.
does any part of this invalidate my point?
As for the beginning, there are several theories that would allow a glimpse past the black hole, if they turned out to be true. For example, Loop Quantum Gravity implies that a singularity cannot exist, and thus there was a minimum size of the universe, a "hole" one could supposedly look through. If the string theory with parallel universes on parallel branes proves true, then the existence of multiple universes could help us look more towards the origin of them all. It's not a barren subject that has "failed miserably."
i never said it failed miserably. I said that it currently fails miserably. Science always has theories. And once it solves a problem, another has always replaced it. Maybe science will eventually solve everything. But right now it isn't even close. Listing off a bunch of theories means nothing to me.
Well of course it means nothing to you, you haven't checked the evidence and calculations consistent towards them. If a theory is made to be consistent with existing evidence, and then makes a prediction consistent with itself that can be observed, then it's already as strong as fuck. In science, "theory" is precluded by mounds and mounds of evidence, as I've said. If I said the universe was created in some arbitrary, untestable, unfalsifiable fashion, that would not be a scientific theory. You severely underestimate the gravity attached to the word 'theory.'
I think that you severely overestimate the understanding of existence that comes with any theory being validated, let alone merely postulated.
i think that you severaly overestimate the understanding of existance that comes with any person making something up.
your tact in your last handful of posts is that all errors in christianity are the work of man, deliberately or otherwise. the problem with this is once you take away the teachings and the scriptures there isnt actually anything left of christianity. christ himself could just as easily be attributed as an error or wrong teaching by the men that followed as the resistance to our current idea of the universe or evolution or anything christianity has been proven wrong about.
just because names, dates, places, or amounts are wrong does not make a message wrong. if i point to 2 gay guys and say "steve loves carl", but steve is actually named wayne - clearly the information is not accurate but the message is still the same.
the names, dates and places can be wrong. the thing is, so can the message. why should i believe you that wayne (or steve) actually loves carl. how do you know? because somebody told you when you were young and you visit a building every sunday where everyone sits around while an old man reads from a book about how wayne loves steve.
no, because it's the conclusion I have reached by examining the course of my own life.
well, I haven't reached that conclusion. but others have.
if you continue to move in this direction you're not even supporting for christianity, just non-specific spirituality.
that is what I have been attempting to support from the start
White, yolk, and shell? When you put it that way, it certainly sounds like tritheism to me!
It seems rather odd that such a major tenant of a majority of Christian sects was never explicitly stated anywhere in the Bible.
There is so much historical and archeological evidence to support his existence that every reputable historian agrees he was not just a legend.
Historical and archaeological evidence? Like what? I've never heard of any archaeological evidence of any sort, and the only historical accounts of Jesus come from historians who wrote many decades later and very plausibly could have gotten all of their information on the subject from Christians.
Hi Mindcrime,
Hm, I don't know if you read my post, but the egg analogy was of how three individual parts constitute an egg.
Indeed, you are correct, the trinity is never explicitly stated anywhere in the Bible. It is a concept that theologians have formed, due to numerous passages in the Bible that support it.
I am hesitant in linking to wiki, as no doubt some of you might say it is so easily changed, etc., but I have read it through and it appears to be sound.
There is more written about Jesus, from both 'Christian' and 'secular' sources, than any other person in history. For the amount of evidence compiled, you would have to first doubt the existance of Ceasar, Alexander the Great, etc.
Aside from the four Gospels (practically biographies), which were written around 30 years after Jesus' death, there are numerous accounts from Roman historians.
There are passages relevant to Christianity in the works of four major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries – Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.
It is actually surprising, the amount that is written about Jesus. You have to remember that at that time, this was the height of the Roman Empire. Who would be concerned about a guy that was crucified, in some remote location of the kingdom?
The passage attributed to Josephus is widely acknowledged as a fake that was inserted later on. Tacitus? Seeing as how he gets Pilate's title wrong, I think it is safe to assume that he's not using accurate Roman records and could very probably be basing his words on what he had heard from Christians. Suetonius? Only if you buy that "Chrestus" was somehow a misspelled "Christus," despite the fact that Chrestus was a relatively common Greek name. Pliny tells us absolutely nothing about the historical Jesus, and this, again, could have come from Christian sources.
Alexander the Great, unlike Jesus, is not a religious figure. There would be absolutely no motive to claim Alexander the Great existed if, in fact, he did not.
I'm still waiting for that archaeological evidence.
EPT
