Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There are many things I'm convinced of, but I can't prove them. I cannot prove I'm not in some Matrix-type world, for example (but perhaps I can rely on the work of Descartes, who at least offered a proof that even were this so, I can be certain that there is an "I" that exists, and go from there). However, I also have so little belief (i.e., none) that I am in some Matrix-type world that I don't care if can't prove it.
of proof has failed us, in that (most famously) an entire branch of science (the science, for many at the time and now) believed they had demonstrated their theories of physical reality were nearly complete or were complete to a "stupendously high level of confidence" (so high that there wasn't much point in pursuing a career, as Philipp von Jolly informed Max Planck, who thankfully did not follow this advice), and were wrong. For me, contra Kuhn, it doesn't mean that we can expect standard models to be constantly wholly overthrown, or that theories we think are demonstrated "to some stupendously high level of confidence" are probably not. They probably are correct, or at least mostly correct.
There is all the difference in the world between "we cannot prove anything" and "we cannot know anything or evaluate how probable something is". If I see what appears to be a brick wall in front of me, I can't "prove" it's there. But I'm not going to run at as fast as I can head first, because I'm pretty sure it is there. And if you equate a lack of proof with an inability to evaluate probability or likelihood, then you have no basis for doing things like eating, drinking, moving, etc.
However, the line doesn't read "fourth part of the earth" but τὸ τέταρτον τῆς γῆς. And as γῆ usually means "land" or "actual earth" (not the planet), why assume it is used to mean the actual globe (Earth)?
You make a very valid point. I honestly have no idea what would happen if god/s were 100% proven to exist/not exist, though I suspect the result would be both incredible and horrifying. I imagine it would be wonderful for some people and dreadful for others as such a revelation (much like the absolute conviction you described) is a very double edged sword.
For the moment I would say I understand your point, but would personally prefer to see god/s treated more like the characters of a novel than either a master to be obeyed or a theory to be examined. Having said that though it is pretty late and I'm slightly groggy. I'll think more on what you've said
Well, if that's the case: zero.
None of those seems remotely specific.
Not really. The amount of water covering the surface earth has remained at a relatively constant two thirds for the last several thousand years, so not only is it a vague assertion, it's also inaccurate.
Where does he say this? Do we have any known first-hand accounts of Daniel's writing?
That's not really surprising when you consider that the Bible was still collected and edited together about seventy years or so after the deaths of it's supposed writers.
No, it's just evidence that it was compiled and edited together. Does the consistency of language in the dictionary demonstrate that all the words it contains comes from a single source, or is it more reasonable to assume that it simply reads that way because it was collected and edited by an individual or group who agreed on the editing process. It seems a far more reasonable explanation than the Bible being divinely inspired.
And yet there is absolutely zero evidence of any kind of global flood event.
Surface Area of the Earth
Da:7:28:
So how many years after 70AD was the prophecy about 70AD in Luke:21:24 written? Not getting the warning in time would have cost how many Christians their lives?
You kind of just proved my point.
Are these first hand accounts?
Evidence that these events occurred, please.
Only if you have no understanding of Quantum Mechanics.
"The term Big Bang, however, is often used (even in a scientific context) in a broader sense, as synonymous with the birth and origin of the Universe as a whole. In other words, this term is used also to indicate the single event from which everything (including space and time themselves) directly originated, emerging from an initial singular state, i.e., a state characterized by infinitely high values of energy, density and temperature.
It doesn't. First, there is work about what was "before" the big bang, and second, physics break down after the big bang. Either way, your conception of "time" doesn't appear until even after the big bang. Same with space.
But God didn't? And if God need not come from somewhere, why need the universe?
So whose to say that the "singularity" behaves like the rock? Or that it isn't "transcendent" (whatever that entails)?
Ok. The singularity was a transcendent entity. Metaphysical problem solved.
Because all our yesterdays have lighted fools/The way to dusty death.
I guess it's turtles, all the way down.
So what you are saying is that were it not for the fact that the universe is the way it is, we wouldn't be here. But we are here, which means it is that way. And if it weren't, we wouldn't be.
Yes, yes, no, and yes. My field involves biology, physics, and mathematics. Cosmology (like many things) I research because I am interested.
Not really. Because the issue isn't what I have degrees in, but what I study and the extent to which I am familiar with particular topics. Likewise for you.
The fact that spacetime requires a particular structure and that this didn't exist even after the big bang.
Sure. Or no. But if you want to say how likely something is, you need to know the probability space.