Differences between research reports and religious scriptures?

[PruePhillip]

The religious have already demonstrated that they'll embrace history and archaeological findings only when they match their personal beliefs.

True, cosmogeny isn't currently understood, but inventing a magical designer doesn't explain anything; it doesn't explain how. The question just regresses to "who designed the designer?" Mythologizing when your baffled by something is not reasonable.

The bible's concept of "prove" isn't what's understood in mathematics. The biblical concept seems more like "convince."

What archaeology of the biblical land and time is being ignored?
In science we say that the concept of something "outside the universe"
is nonsensical. The universe is simply everything. So wondering how a
designer, outside of the universe, came to be is itself a nonsensical
question as we can't comprehend such a designer to even ask the
question of how this designer came to be.
No, the bible is about relationship with God - it deals with the individual
alone, and this individual must prove for him or herself the reality of God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How does a universe create itself? And by universe I mean EVERYTHING
THAT IS. Not just planets and stars but matter, energy, space, time, numbers and physical laws. Something EXTERNAL to this had to create it, otherwise in science language it's simply a "MIRACLE."

I cannot reach Wikipedia at the moment but there are thousands of other sites which discuss "creation of the universe from absolute nothing". Here is one such explanation:

"In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. We have multiple possible pathways to success, but it's very likely that nature only needed one of them to give us our Universe."
How Did The Matter In Our Universe Arise From Nothing?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Scientific review looks to establish credibility, whereas religious review looks to establish compatibility.

I have yet to come across any example of Abrahamic religions where they looked to establish compatibility. In my view, only Eastern religions do that.

I’m not talking about conditions or conclusions. I’m talking about metaphors.

Generally talking about metaphors land us in more confusion. Let us talk straight for a change.

You might have missed my point.

That is what I say. Avoid metaphors.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. the instructions on how to live became more credible by far than I had imagined possible

Even before Bible came about, there were nice people. That we should live peacefully with our neighbors, is it something that Bible invented? Actually, the Bible God asked Moses to kill every man, woman and child of the Canaanites.

 

[Jim]

Ori

Avoid metaphors.

I would agree with that now, with some added punctuation: Avoid “metaphors.” Witthout what I’m calling “metaphors” there would be no knowledge of any kind other than reports of direct experience, and even those would be extremely impoverished and cumbersome. Until now I was thinking that all that was common knowledge, and obvious to everyone, but I see now that it isn’t, so I think now that I will stop using that word.

“What was I thinking?!”

Maybe I’ll try “implicit analogies”?

 

[PruePhillip]

I cannot reach Wikipedia at the moment but there are thousands of other sites which discuss "creation of the universe from absolute nothing". Here is one such explanation:

"In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. We have multiple possible pathways to success, but it's very likely that nature only needed one of them to give us our Universe."
How Did The Matter In Our Universe Arise From Nothing?

Yes, the matter and anti-matter conundrum.
But where did this matter come from?
Maybe from energy as they are equivalent.
But where did energy, and time, and space, and numbers,
and mathematics, and physical laws all come from?
Simply put, science says there is reason for all phenomena,
one thing acting upon another. But when there is no thing
to act on no thing - that's the realm of miracle.
A universe cannot create itself. But oddly, people have
faith in science, even though science cannot even say that
the universe created the universe.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Even before Bible came about, there were nice people. That we should live peacefully with our neighbors, is it something that Bible invented? Actually, the Bible God asked Moses to kill every man, woman and child of the Canaanites.

Not to mention that the Canaanites survived in spite of what the Bible said to the contrary.

It's a good example of why the Bible would not survive peer review.

 

[Skwim]

I have yet to come across any example of Abrahamic religions where they looked to establish compatibility. In my view, only Eastern religions do that.

First of all, please note that I didn't single out the Abrahamic religions. Secondly, compatibility between the various writings, teachings, and tenets in the development of a religion is imperative, as would be expected.

.

 

[PruePhillip]

Not to mention that the Canaanites survived in spite of what the Bible said to the contrary.

It's a good example of why the Bible would not survive peer review.

Depends who's peer review.
Jesus said the Jews would be destroyed, even their children,
and they would be carried off into exile and slavery, and
Jerusalem would be "trampled under the feet of the Gentiles
until the Gentiles time was fulfilled."
Two thousand years of exile, slavery and persecution and
here we are - the Jews are returning home again.

Now, would YOU have "peer reviewed" what Jesus said
about this topic?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, the matter and anti-matter conundrum.
But where did this matter come from?
Maybe from energy as they are equivalent.
But where did energy, and time, and space, and numbers,
and mathematics, and physical laws all come from?
Simply put, science says there is reason for all phenomena,
one thing acting upon another. But when there is no thing
to act on no thing - that's the realm of miracle.
A universe cannot create itself. But oddly, people have
faith in science, even though science cannot even say that
the universe created the universe.

"Based upon Einstein's work, Belgian cosmologist Rev. Georges Lemaître published a paper in 1927 that proposed the universe started out as a singularity and that the Big Bang led to its expansion. ..

Long ago, ancient religious philosophers in India taught that the universe goes through an endless cycle of creation and destruction, in which it evolves from an undifferentiated mass unto the complex reality the we see around us, before destroying itself and starting anew.

But whether it as a Big Bang or a Big Bounce, the question of what existed before our present universe remains an open question. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps another universe or a different version of our own. Perhaps a sea of universes, each with a different set of laws dictating its physical reality."
What Existed Before the Big Bang?

Even earlier than that, some 3,000 years ago, RigVeda declared that there was nothing before the universe cme about and the Gods were later to the production of the universe.

"THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. ..
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?"
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

First of all, please note that I didn't single out the Abrahamic religions. Secondly, compatibility between the various writings, teachings, and tenets in the development of a religion is imperative, as would be expected.

Oh, did you mean that there should be internal compatibility in what the scripture says? Even that is not true.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Depends who's peer review.
Jesus said the Jews would be destroyed, even their children,
and they would be carried off into exile and slavery, and
Jerusalem would be "trampled under the feet of the Gentiles
until the Gentiles time was fulfilled."
Two thousand years of exile, slavery and persecution and
here we are - the Jews are returning home again.

Now, would YOU have "peer reviewed" what Jesus said
about this topic?

Definitely.

I would start with the premise that Jesus never actually existed in the first place and the words are actually allegory as compared with the historicy of Judiasm overall where Jesus is notably absent.

I also would address the origins of the Bible as it relates to the historical record and it's relationship with Constantine.

Last would be the Bibles established history of literary drift and how passages were intentionally adjusted and added in over the course of time to harmonize events in history in attempts to validate it's content.

 

[tas8831]

Actually, the same thing happens sometimes with religious scriptures when they first appear, except that sometimes it isn’t only the scriptures that get brutally ripped to shreds, it’s also the people who promote them.

Examples?

 

[tas8831]

Religious scriptures are mostly about how to live our lives, to bring out the best possibilities in people, in society and in the world around us.

Yeah.. yeah sure...

Hosea 13
16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.​

I am happy not to live my live in accordance with such evil barbarism as a guide.

 

[PruePhillip]

Definitely.

I would start with the premise that Jesus never actually existed in the first place and the words are actually allegory as compared with the historicy of Judiasm overall where Jesus is notably absent.

I also would address the origins of the Bible as it relates to the historical record and it's relationship with Constantine.

Last would be the Bibles established history of literary drift and how passages were intentionally adjusted and added in over the course of time to harmonize events in history in attempts to validate it's content.

Jerusalem was back in Jewish hands in 1967. You think maybe the Gospels were written in the
late 1960's?
I am sure that Psalm 22 and 69, plus Isaiah 53 are speaking directly of Jesus. And Daniel speaks
of the nation, the temple and the Messiah being destroyed by the Romans. Not sure what Constantine
had to do with any of this. He might have helped create a new religion but he didn't dare tamper with
the scriptures.

 

[Valjean]

How does a universe create itself? And by universe I mean EVERYTHING
THAT IS. Not just planets and stars but matter, energy, space, time, numbers
and physical laws. Something EXTERNAL to this had to create it, otherwise
in science language it's simply a "MIRACLE."

You're arguing from incredulity.
It's not known how the universe was created, and before the universe nothing existed to be external to. Externality didn't exist, nor did "before."

It's true, we don't yet know how the universe began, but there is no reason to propose an intentional agent. That's just imposing a stamp of familiarity onto an otherwise baffling phenomenon, for no reason but the discomfiture of bafflement. It also just shifts the question to 'where did the 'external something' come from?

There was a time when we didn't know why the sun crossed the sky, why earthquakes happened, or why people got sick. We made up stories to assuage our uneasiness. We're now doing the same for our cosmgenic discomfiture.

"Miracle" doesn't exist in the language of science. Science looks for natural mechanism, and is not uncomfortable saying "I don't know."

Science follows evidence. Without evidence science has nothing to work with.
There is no evidence for a magical origin of the universe, just as there was once no evidence explaining eclipses.
Science is patient. It doesn't need imaginary 'explanations'. It can wait.

Reality is bizarre; it's not intuitive. Relativity and quantum mechanics describe apparent impossibilities. Deal with it. Follow the evidence, even if it's incredible. Don't make up stories.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yeah.. yeah sure...

Hosea 13
16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.​

I am happy not to live my live in accordance with such evil barbarism as a guide.

So The Question is: did this actually happen?
If it happened, it's a prophecy and you ought to at least respect its accuracy.
If it didn't happen then the argument is moot.

There are MANY prophecies concerning the destruction of Israel and its
exile and persecution - until the Jews can again return to their homeland.
This actually happened. The Big Question ought to be - if the bible was
correct in prophesizing this then the power of the prediction ought to give
pause for thought.
Jesus said, "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led
away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the
Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."
1 - it sounds cruel
2 - it proved to be true.

 

[PruePhillip]

You're arguing from incredulity.
It's not known how the universe was created, and before the universe nothing existed to be external to. Externality didn't exist, nor did "before."

It's true, we don't yet know how the universe began, but there is no reason to propose an intentional agent. That's just imposing a stamp of familiarity onto an otherwise baffling phenomenon, for no reason but the discomfiture of bafflement. It also just shifts the question to 'where did the 'external something' come from?

There was a time when we didn't know why the sun crossed the sky, why earthquakes happened, or why people got sick. We made up stories to assuage our uneasiness. We're now doing the same for our cosmgenic discomfiture.

"Miracle" doesn't exist in the language of science. Science looks for natural mechanism, and is not uncomfortable saying "I don't know."

Science follows evidence. Without evidence science has nothing to work with.
There is no evidence for a magical origin of the universe, just as there was once no evidence explaining eclipses.
Science is patient. It doesn't need imaginary 'explanations'. It can wait.

Reality is bizarre; it's not intuitive. Relativity and quantum mechanics describe apparent impossibilities. Deal with it. Follow the evidence, even if it's incredible. Don't make up stories.

Quote - "There is no evidence for a magical origin of the universe"
There is, by definition, no mechanism for the creation of the universe
because there was nothing - period.
All other phenomena, such as eclipses, falling stars, living creatures,
beams of light, diseases, birth etc all fall under the heading of the
"Natural World." This natural world is fundamentally different to
"What Created The Natural World."

Conceptually and scientifically we say that nothing can exist outside
of the universe. Yet this impossibility created everything. And for
what reason did it create it?
You are left with one of two explanations - the universe was created:
1 - by an agent outside of it.
2 - by magic.

 

[Valjean]

What archaeology of the biblical land and time is being ignored?

The lack of evidence for the Egyptian exodus? The lak of evidence for a worldwide flood?
Both of these would have left extensive evidence.

In science we say that the concept of something "outside the universe"
is nonsensical. The universe is simply everything.

So why is the concept of multiverse treated seriously?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Jerusalem was back in Jewish hands in 1967. You think maybe the Gospels were written in the
late 1960's?
I am sure that Psalm 22 and 69, plus Isaiah 53 are speaking directly of Jesus. And Daniel speaks
of the nation, the temple and the Messiah being destroyed by the Romans. Not sure what Constantine
had to do with any of this. He might have helped create a new religion but he didn't dare tamper with
the scriptures.

That's the beauty of the peer-review process.

You could start with your argument by explaining the question, How do you know that with a degree of certainty?