Differences between research reports and religious scriptures?

[Audie]

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.

The nonsense is from you. Where do you get this but
from making it up? That there may be infinite universes
is a concept well established as a possibility.

 

[Audie]

You are left with one of two explanations - the universe was created:
1 - by an agent outside of it.
2 - by magic.

You outdid yourself here, starting with the false premise
that science says nothing outside the universe, and then
doing the typical fundy black or white, either / or false
dichotomy.

 

[PruePhillip]

The lack of evidence for the Egyptian exodus? The lak of evidence for a worldwide flood?
Both of these would have left extensive evidence.
So why is the concept of multiverse treated seriously?

The "multiverse" is simply a proposed collection of "universes" within
the universe - all of which stem from the Big Bang.

The idea of a tribe emigrating from Egypt and settling in Canaan is
lot easier to believe than a people exiled from their nation for 2,000
years and brought back again in our age. Normally peoples don't
last beyond five generations, let alone two millennium. And taking
back a country now occupied, and forming a Jewish nation whereas
before the Jews were citizens of a hundred or so nations.

I believe where it says the "whole earth" was flooded it meant the
Sumerian earth. Earth meant different things in different ages. In
Jesus day the "whole world" was taxed - but it meant the Roman
Empire, despite other empires being known. In our day the word
"universe" has changed completely.

 

[PruePhillip]

The nonsense is from you. Where do you get this but
from making it up? That there may be infinite universes
is a concept well established as a possibility.

Certainly, an infinite number of universes - but spawned from the event
called the Big Bang. No-one says the Big Bang came out of another
universe, and if it did, we just shift the question back to an earlier period
and ask again - why is there something rather than nothing?

 

[PruePhillip]

You outdid yourself here, starting with the false premise
that science says nothing outside the universe, and then
doing the typical fundy black or white, either / or false
dichotomy.

Here the dichotomy is stark
1 - it created itself, with no resources or reason for doing so.
2 - an agent or entity existing outside of the universe created it for a reason.

I know of no other explanation.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Science has observed things popping into existence from nothing. Things can exist in two places at once. Things can move from one place to another without traversing any intervening distance. things can influence each other at great distances, faster than the speed of light. The universe does not make sense from a Newtonian viewpoint. Our minds can't comprehend it -- but science can.

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."

?????????? -- explain.

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.

That doesn't follow.
Why do you think creation requires a reason? Physics is physics; no purpose, no reason, no magic.

Science will consider magic or a creator as soon as evidence of one or the other is found.

 

[Audie]

When you read the story of the Jews appearing in the
archaeological record of Palestine, the account of the
united monarchy, the house of David, the prophet Isaiah,
the temple mount, the Jews scattered over the face of the
earth etc --- take on board this: you are seeing the bible
lived before you, right now.
For centuries Christian believing people couldn't imagine
a time when the churches would fall or the Jews would
go back to their ancient homeland and resurrect the old
language and culture. The rise of anti-Semitism in the
West will help bring about the prophecy that ALL the
Jews will one day be back in Israel again.
There is no longer any Phillistines, or Edomites, or
Moabites, or Babylonians, or Amalakites - but the Jew
will remain as a symbol of God's people and God's plan.
And the bible says God will do to the Gentile what once
He did to the Jew.

"Take on board" huh?
Take this on board I dont care about Jewish
hisotry. Why should I? Do you care about
the history of the Cambodians?

You cannot be so dumb that you did not
understand what I said in the post to which
you failed to respond.

But if it needs clarifying, here it is:

Some things in the bible check out.
All of those are mundane matters, like
rivers, towns, certain individuals. A few
wars. Etc.

BUT, archaeology and all other applicable
sciences show beyond the doubt of any person
with any brains at all, that there was no exodus
no flood, no 6 day poof.
So then what is the bible even about, since all of
that is a lie?

And those magical events described in the bible
that cannot be disproved (walking on water, say)
left no evidence.

To make it even simpler:

ALL THE BIG MAGIC IN THE BIBLE IS
PROVED PHONY BY SCIENCE

ALL THE REST OF IT IS POINTLESS
WITHOUT THE MAGIC BEING REAL

 

[Audie]

Here the dichotomy is stark
1 - it created itself, with no resources or reason for doing so.
2 - an agent or entity existing outside of the universe created it for a reason.

I know of no other explanation.

Granted that you know nothing of theoretical astrophysics,
and that you are going to do dichotomy anyway,
of course that is how you see it.

But ir you are going to try to insist on them rules-
We remind you that the same same same rules
apply to your "god", whether you play verbal
sleight of hand to get out of it or not.

 

[Valjean]

Here the dichotomy is stark
1 - it created itself, with no resources or reason for doing so.
2 - an agent or entity existing outside of the universe created it for a reason.

I know of no other explanation.

Argument from personal incredulity.
Reality makes no sense at all from our perspective. It's wildly bizarre and incomprehensible. The seemingly impossible happens all the time.
You're trying to fit it into a mold that makes sense to our little minds. We haven't been able to do that since 1905.

 

[Audie]

Certainly, an infinite number of universes - but spawned from the event
called the Big Bang. No-one says the Big Bang came out of another
universe, and if it did, we just shift the question back to an earlier period
and ask again - why is there something rather than nothing?

Absolutely not so. You may as well say that cars run on carrot
juice and show how little you know of cars.

You shame yourself and do no credit to your "Faith"
by trying to support it with such garbage.

 

[Audie]

Argument from personal incredulity.
Reality makes no sense at all from our perspective. It's wildly bizarre and incomprehensible. The seemingly impossible happens all the time.
You're trying to fit it into a mold that makes sense to our little minds. We haven't been able to do that since 1905.

We need to send him to intro to remedial science 088.

 

[tas8831]

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.

So cool how the religionist can always give themselves an out.

Not buying it.

 

[Audie]

So cool how the religionist can always give themselves an out.

Not buying it.

Of course there is always an out, because
the creo is incapable of admitting he is wrong.


There was this flood-believer.
So I said, what about Antarctic ice?

He is, well, sure it floated but it stayed
at the south pole; circumpolar current, you know.
Then it settled back down and there it is!

So I said, it went back just exactly where it
had been? Lots of mouuntains and valleys
to take into account.

Ohhhh.... (here we thought maybe maybe we
had a creo who could be mistaken...)

Then he decided it did not float.
Coz it is stuck down like ice on the sidewalk!

I calculated for him the upward buoyancy on
one square foot of ice, two miles thick.

If you applied this force to some ice on the sidewalk,
you think it would stay there? Can we hang a safe
from a hook in some ice stuck to the underside
of a bridge, with you standing under it?

He insisted that it was stuck down, and could not
have floated, facts versus my theory!
For lo, the ice is still there, you can see it did not float!

 

[halbhh]

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.

The best way to live is set by human nature: how we are -- the human characteristics we all share that are in our genes -- because this common set of characteristics is fixed, then there is a best way for us to live together: a best overall set of rules/laws, out of all competing possible sets of rules/laws for how best to live life together.

Of course, people will often discover some of the best rules in every place, every time and every culture and nation around the world.

Do not murder.
Do not steal.

Basic rules that turn out to help us thrive together as humans. Make it possible for us to do better, with less death, and more thriving.

It's not even that hard to find many of these best ways/rules/laws, and we should expect that these 'truths' -- best ways to live among all competing ways -- will be found over and over and over.

Right?

So, when someone says any one of the central, basic best rules/ways of life, we shouldn't make the error of thinking: you got that from China, or India or you got that from Plato, etc., when it's a straightforward truth about how best to live.

It's not an original work of art, which someone first created. It's not a wheel or a hammer.

It's an objectively best solution to how humans best thrive given our fixed nature in our genes.

So, whenever anyone says one of these truths, they are not originating it, but instead discovering or conveying a truth that already exists.

Yes? Do you agree with all of that?

I'm not saying the deeper insights of Christ or Lao Tzu aren't in fact profound discoveries.... No, they are quite profound discoveries, those more subtle, less obvious best ways about more complex questions and challenges of life.

 

[tas8831]

Of course there is always an out, because
the creo is incapable of admitting he is wrong.


There was this flood-believer.
So I said, what about Antarctic ice?

He is, well, sure it floated but it stayed
at the south pole; circumpolar current, you know.
Then it settled back down and there it is!

So I said, it went back just exactly where it
had been? Lots of mouuntains and valleys
to take into account.

Ohhhh.... (here we thought maybe maybe we
had a creo who could be mistaken...)

Then he decided it did not float.
Coz it is stuck down like ice on the sidewalk!

I calculated for him the upward buoyancy on
one square foot of ice, two miles thick.

If you applied this force to some ice on the sidewalk,
you think it would stay there? Can we hang a safe
from a hook in some ice stuck to the underside
of a bridge, with you standing under it?

He insisted that it was stuck down, and could not
have floated, facts versus my theory!
For lo, the ice is still there, you can see it did not float!

Pseudocertainty is so cool.

Pity that it seems to reside predominantly, if not solely, in one camp...

 

[Audie]

Pseudocertainty is so cool.

Pity that it seems to reside predominantly, if not solely, in one camp...

A pity that it resides anywhere, but, if reside it must,
it resides the only place it really can.
And there it does yeoman's work to discredit the
"faith" to all not already deep in the cult.

 

[halbhh]

Of course there is always an out, because
the creo is incapable of admitting he is wrong.


There was this flood-believer.
So I said, what about Antarctic ice?

He is, well, sure it floated but it stayed
at the south pole; circumpolar current, you know.
Then it settled back down and there it is!

So I said, it went back just exactly where it
had been? Lots of mouuntains and valleys
to take into account.

Ohhhh.... (here we thought maybe maybe we
had a creo who could be mistaken...)

Then he decided it did not float.
Coz it is stuck down like ice on the sidewalk!

I calculated for him the upward buoyancy on
one square foot of ice, two miles thick.

If you applied this force to some ice on the sidewalk,
you think it would stay there? Can we hang a safe
from a hook in some ice stuck to the underside
of a bridge, with you standing under it?

He insisted that it was stuck down, and could not
have floated, facts versus my theory!
For lo, the ice is still there, you can see it did not float!

The details of how big the flood was, what size region, etc. are very much a red herring (sorry, I love using color occasionally for a humor effect), but I only know that from chasing that squirrel up a tree a few times in my own youth, thinking I could fix someone's lack of understanding of scale and physics.

Thing is, it hardly matters (sorry about 90% of people that argue on this one...), because the very account we are talking about, which is from Genesis chapter 6, 7 clearly isn't at all about how big the flood is much, though of course obviously it seems it stretches out to all their known world, all the local hills they thought of as 'mountains', but that's a triviality.

Instead, the only meaning in the story is the far more important radical, astounding claim or information about the situation of the culture. That is if a person reads and notices.

Most do not.

The astounding claimed situation:

Genesis 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time.

Which has words that we know are not true today.... "every", "only" or "altogether", "all the time"

!

Meaning, if one noticed the words, that they had arrived into what would seem to be at least a regional (involving many 'nations' (small kingdoms one might suppose, or small warlord territories, but all within many days of travel it would seem)) of...

...zero love, and zero compassion.


Not even sometimes. Not normal life. Not some love, some violence. No -- no love. Zero love.

So, only violence, murder, pillage, rape, theft. Nothing but these.

Could that happen?

Well, we know such a thing can happen to at least tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people in a nation, temporarily, or something very close, such as when there is a sudden tipping into genocide, like happened in Rwanda, or Cambodia.

But this wording seems....more, doesn't it?

Could it happen?

Only in my more recent years, with a deeper understanding of human nature, do I realize that yes, it could happen.

When such a regional culture of only-violence became so ingrained, what could change it?

 

[Audie]

The details of how big the flood was, what size region, etc. are very much a red herring (sorry, I love using color occasionally for a humor effect), but I only know that from chasing that squirrel up a tree a few times in my own youth, thinking I could fix someone's lack of understanding of scale and physics.

Thing is, it hardly matters (sorry about 90% of people that argue on this one...), because the very account we are talking about, which is from Genesis chapter 6, 7 clearly isn't at all about how big the flood is much, though of course obviously it seems it stretches out to all their known world, all the local hills they thought of as 'mountains', but that's a triviality.

Instead, the only meaning in the story is the far more important radical, astounding claim or information about the situation of the culture. That is if a person reads and notices.

Most do not.

The astounding claimed situation:

Genesis 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time.

Which has words that we know are not true today.... "every", "only" or "altogether", "all the time"

!

Meaning, if one noticed the words, that they had arrived into what would seem to be at least a regional (involving many 'nations' (small kingdoms one might suppose, or small warlord territories, but all within many days of travel it would seem)) of...

...zero love, and zero compassion.


Not even sometimes. Not normal life. Not some love, some violence. No -- no love. Zero love.

So, only violence, murder, pillage, rape, theft. Nothing but these.

Could that happen?

Well, we know such a thing can happen to at least tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people in a nation, temporarily, or something very close, such as when there is a sudden tipping into genocide, like happened in Rwanda, or Cambodia.

But this wording seems....more, doesn't it?

Could it happen?

Only in my more recent years, with a deeper understanding of human nature, do I realize that yes, it could happen.

When such a regional culture of only-violence became so ingrained, what could change it?

clearly isn't at all about how big the flood

Really. Then unless it is purely a cautionary tale
with no intent of being taken any more seriously than
goldilox and the three bears, it is vital for the flood
to have been world wide or nothing is accomplished.
And, ftm, it very clearly does say everything.

Id steer clear of the whole thing, if i were to believe in
"god" and wanted to show some respect.
For lo, the story portrays him as a psycho monster.

Id not want to face a maker who might not like
me spreading such falsehoods.

 

[halbhh]

clearly isn't at all about how big the flood

Really. Then unless it is purely a cautionary tale
with no intent of being taken any more seriously than
goldilox and the three bears, it is vital for the flood
to have been world wide or nothing is accomplished.
And, ftm, it very clearly does say everything.

Id steer clear of the whole thing, if i were to believe in
"god" and wanted to show some respect.
For lo, the story portrays him as a psycho monster.

Id not want to face a maker who might not like
me spreading such falsehoods.

Forgive me. There is a far more important issue there.

Quite a bit deeper. In other words, I'm suggesting to ignore those stuck in ignorance (at least for the moment), and look instead at the real meaning in that story, which is far more interesting, fraught. Meaningful.

Or not. It's up to you, and you might today, a year from now, or never, as you choose.

 

[viole]

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

Ok. With metaphors everything goes, I guess.

ciao

- viole