Religious People are Not Stupid

[Truly Enlightened]

I was just trying to say that reality is not completely objective, which I think is in line with QM. It's along the lines of, "we don't know what we don't know." Is the wave an absolute reality and we simple collapse it to see that cast in stone reality, or is the wave more fuzzy and we, the observer, give it a veneer of reality by our observation?

I understand QM is not the "final proof" of Biblical truth. To me, the Bible itself is all that is required for that.

Mark 11:23

For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
​

That's a bold statement to make. What do we do with it? Simply pass it off as fantasy? There's certainly a lot at stake. Why is my life the way it is? According to this verse (and others) I am where I am because of what I have believed. Furthermore, I will be where I will be because of what I believe. If true, it certainly behooves me to be aware of what I believe. I have come to the conclusion that the things written in the Bible are my best shot at living a fulfilled life, both now and the future. I've not seen anything with more or better promises than the scriptures. But what if I'm wrong? Will that mean I somehow loose out on something better? I don't see very much of a possibility that I could end up worse off for believing the Bible over any other piece of literature, sacred of not.

On another note, I wasn't particularly using QM to prove miracles, although many have. But I've never heard that QM disproves miracles though. I may be wrong, but I think you even implied that classical physics offers a better proof for miracles. I'm very interested. Could you give me more info on that?

Take care...

Thank you again. Your beliefs are very important to you. My understanding of reality is very important to me. I prefer to rely more on what I do know than what I don't know. I also tend to avoid over-generalizing the use of not knowing something, especially, used as an argument against knowing something. What we don't know, we simply don't know. What we are specifically referring to is the nonmaterial, metaphysical, spiritual, supernatural, miracles, and anything that is not affected by the laws of nature. We are not talking about anything that naturally occurs in nature, or is created by man. There is no justification for believing in anything that may exist outside of the nature of our reality, without evidence. Since the claim is extraordinary, the evidence must also be extraordinary. Claiming that one should keep an open mind, is unfortunately not an example of extraordinary evidence. This is only a conscious choice, influenced by many external, social, emotional, educational, and internal factors, other than intelligence. The problem is that most believers do not simply claim that they believe in the existence of the supernatural, they claim that they KNOW that the supernatural exists. They claim that they just can't prove it because it is beyond their understanding. Top-down logic is just presupposition in disguise. The burden of proof must always be shifted, to avoid responsibility.

Reality is completely objective. It does not require our presence to exist. However, we certainly do. If we could "mind melt" with every creature or person on the planet, we would fall short of knowing what our objective reality looks like. Fortunately, we are trapped within our own subjective perspective. I really don't think that we can realistically relate QM with miracles and beliefs. In QM we are talking about disturbances in the fabric of spacetime. In miracles we are talking about interpretations and beliefs. Many scientist believe that QM will be our final proof that explains what reality is, and how it works. The String Theory seems to be the best candidate. It we could find the Graviton, we would be even closer to the Theory of Everything. The wave function you mentioned, is not a wave like we see on the surface of a pond. It is a wave of probability, since all particles(by convention) can be in different positions at once. When you collapse the wave by measuring the particle's position, the particle simple demonstrate only one of those states. These problems do not exist in the classical world, where objects behave predictably, and smoothly. For any miracle to happen, many of the natural laws must be violated or suspended. This simply can't happen, or our entire Universe would cease to exist. How many natural laws must be suspended, for the Earth or time to stop, objects to float or appear, or any future events to be controlled or observed?

If there does exist another form of reality, it has no effect on the laws of nature in our 4 dimensional Universe. Therefore, it can't be directly or indirectly detected, measured, or observed, anymore that we can see our true image through our own eyes. Therefore irrelevant. Thank you again.

 

[viole]

We all know that donkeys and snakes don't literally speak to humans. We all know that dead people don't revisit their loved ones, or return to work after their own funeral. We all know that the physical laws in nature can't be dismissed, suspended, or ignored. We all know that even the most complicated ideas, lifeforms, natural or man-made creations, are all rooted in some simpler form. So, why is it that perfectly intelligent humans can believe in ghost, angels, demons, a flat earth, intelligent design, original sin, heaven and hell, or the existence of the supernatural? I guess the simplest answer is, "..that's just how humans are". Humans unfortunately, are just not entirely rational creatures, including the most intelligent and educated among us. Sometimes our rational understandings are replaced by superstition, subjectivity, confirmation and cognitive bias. Science is aware of how our emotions, experiences, prejudice, and personal interest, can affect our ability to critically think. Hence, the need for the scientific method of inquiry to avoid these problems. So why do people succumb? Is it a "response bias(gullible)", or a defective änterior cingulate cortex(B.S. detector)"?

I believe that intelligence is compartmentalized, or partitioned as a normal function of our brain. This allows for even the greatest minds to be totally inept in the intricacies of social interactions. These minds may use the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art tools of their field, but may get their theories for an unrelated field, from places like the Institute for Creation Research. Which have stopped putting out new theories since the late Bronze Age. We should also never give a person who is distinguished in one field of research, the same level of authority in another field that they don't deserve("halo effect").

I believe that even the most intelligent person will believe in any nonsense if you start young enough. An argument could be made that human reasoning only serves to rationalize and validate the emotional content that is already in place in their psyche from their earliest years. In other words, "We think in order to rationalize what we already believe". Our knowledge base and critical thinking skills would, at best, only circumvent this early belief structure, and not challedge it. It is very difficult to challenge our inner core beliefs, that were in place before our critical thinking skills were ever developed.

I also believe that the religious notion of sin and human brokenness, only instills the idea that we must distrust ourselves. We are taught indirectly, even before we could read of write, that human reasoning cannot be trusted. "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure" (Jeremiah 17:9). "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts"(Isaiah 55:9). There are many, many other similar quotes. We even learn from an early age that whenever our powers of logic and reasoning conflict with the teachings of the Bible, God must always trump human logic and reasoning. Since it would be impossible to disagree with the word of God.

Finally, I believe that it is the social pressures to remain faithful that keeps people from freely embracing their own cognitive dissonance. The social need to belong to or identify with a group, is a very powerful security blanket. Many would prefer death to excommunication or exclusion. When your entire life is built around any idea, challenging that idea might threaten the core belief of who you are, both psychologically and socially. For some, it may even threaten their entire world.

No, religious people are not stupid. They are just human.

Of course religious people are not stupid.

If they were, that would entail that I have been stupid most of my life. Which is suboptimal.

Ciao

- viole

 

[rrobs]

Thank you again. Your beliefs are very important to you. My understanding of reality is very important to me. I prefer to rely more on what I do know than what I don't know. I also tend to avoid over-generalizing the use of not knowing something, especially, used as an argument against knowing something. What we don't know, we simply don't know. What we are specifically referring to is the nonmaterial, metaphysical, spiritual, supernatural, miracles, and anything that is not affected by the laws of nature. We are not talking about anything that naturally occurs in nature, or is created by man. There is no justification for believing in anything that may exist outside of the nature of our reality, without evidence. Since the claim is extraordinary, the evidence must also be extraordinary. Claiming that one should keep an open mind, is unfortunately not an example of extraordinary evidence. This is only a conscious choice, influenced by many external, social, emotional, educational, and internal factors, other than intelligence. The problem is that most believers do not simply claim that they believe in the existence of the supernatural, they claim that they KNOW that the supernatural exists. They claim that they just can't prove it because it is beyond their understanding. Top-down logic is just presupposition in disguise. The burden of proof must always be shifted, to avoid responsibility.

Reality is completely objective. It does not require our presence to exist. However, we certainly do. If we could "mind melt" with every creature or person on the planet, we would fall short of knowing what our objective reality looks like. Fortunately, we are trapped within our own subjective perspective. I really don't think that we can realistically relate QM with miracles and beliefs. In QM we are talking about disturbances in the fabric of spacetime. In miracles we are talking about interpretations and beliefs. Many scientist believe that QM will be our final proof that explains what reality is, and how it works. The String Theory seems to be the best candidate. It we could find the Graviton, we would be even closer to the Theory of Everything. The wave function you mentioned, is not a wave like we see on the surface of a pond. It is a wave of probability, since all particles(by convention) can be in different positions at once. When you collapse the wave by measuring the particle's position, the particle simple demonstrate only one of those states. These problems do not exist in the classical world, where objects behave predictably, and smoothly. For any miracle to happen, many of the natural laws must be violated or suspended. This simply can't happen, or our entire Universe would cease to exist. How many natural laws must be suspended, for the Earth or time to stop, objects to float or appear, or any future events to be controlled or observed?

If there does exist another form of reality, it has no effect on the laws of nature in our 4 dimensional Universe. Therefore, it can't be directly or indirectly detected, measured, or observed, anymore that we can see our true image through our own eyes. Therefore irrelevant. Thank you again.

Thanks for the discussion. I can't say anything you said is not true, at least as far as I know. Science is science after all. I think you are wise to live by what you know and not what you don't know. Seems like it would be "interesting," to say the least, to live life based on things one does not know. I can't even picture such an existence in my mind.

Here's a couple of things that may be relevant:

Is life itself something that can be put into a test tube and analyzed? We can mix all the naturally occurring chemicals that compose an amoeba, but I don't think we can make it alive. Life seems to be outside the realm of materialism and yet nobody who is alive doubt it exists. I think maybe they have been able to make something wiggle around a bit, but nothing that reproduces itself which is a fundamental feature of life. To be sure, I don't read the latest scientific journals, so maybe somebody other then Dr. Frankenstein has created life in a test tube, but I would think it would have made it on evening news, so I'm thinking not.

That's a bit of science, but here's another angle from the Bible.

1Cor 12:7-10,

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another [divers] kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
​

Spirit, like life, can not be put into a test tube and analyzed because it is outside the realm of our 5 senses. It is via the 5 senses that we make sense of our material world. We see or hear something and we know it exists. But spirit is different. Spirit can't be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. That is the reason God can't be proven to exist via the senses world, which is where we all live and science resides. However, according to the verses above, it is possible for the spirit to manifest itself into the material world. Count them and you will see there are nine different ways it can be brought into the senses world.

I consider that as proof enough that God exists. I understand it doesn't meet the rigorous guidelines of science. Others may want that concrete scientific proof, but they will never find it with their 5 senses, which is the realm science deals with. I will never argue that God can be proven via science. But I don't think it is necessary to do so. After all, making scientific conformity a requirement to prove God exists makes science itself a god, it makes science the final authority on reality.

If science is taken as the yardstick of reality, reality has changed much throughout history. The world used to be flat, but it became round when science changed it's model. No! Reality has always dictated that it be round. Science was wrong about it being flat. I'm sure it's wrong about a lot (at least a few?) of things. Time will tell.

It is common to assume that God has to conform to science or he doesn't exist. Ayn Rand's "check your premise" may come into play though. Take care...

 

[Sunstone]

Religious people are stupid? No, people are stupid, religious people are no exceptions.

 

[rrobs]

Religious people are stupid? No, people are stupid, religious people are no exceptions.

By what authority do you say that? I know you didn't get it from the Bible because it claims quite the opposite. I don't think Kenko, WIlde, Rumi or Kant said it either, so I'm curious as to how you can make such a sweeping claim. Are you yourself that enlightened so as to proclaim all people stupid? But wait, wouldn't that make you yourself stupid and therefore not enlightened enough to claim you know anything about reality?

To be sure, I don't think you are stupid, but perhaps you didn't think things through to the end. No big deal. I've been known to do that myself. Probably did it just yesterday. Maybe even a few times!

Take care...

 

[Audie]

Thanks for the discussion. I can't say anything you said is not true, at least as far as I know. Science is science after all. I think you are wise to live by what you know and not what you don't know. Seems like it would be "interesting," to say the least, to live life based on things one does not know. I can't even picture such an existence in my mind.

Here's a couple of things that may be relevant:

Is life itself something that can be put into a test tube and analyzed? We can mix all the naturally occurring chemicals that compose an amoeba, but I don't think we can make it alive. Life seems to be outside the realm of materialism and yet nobody who is alive doubt it exists. I think maybe they have been able to make something wiggle around a bit, but nothing that reproduces itself which is a fundamental feature of life. To be sure, I don't read the latest scientific journals, so maybe somebody other then Dr. Frankenstein has created life in a test tube, but I would think it would have made it on evening news, so I'm thinking not.

That's a bit of science, but here's another angle from the Bible.

1Cor 12:7-10,

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another [divers] kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
​

Spirit, like life, can not be put into a test tube and analyzed because it is outside the realm of our 5 senses. It is via the 5 senses that we make sense of our material world. We see or hear something and we know it exists. But spirit is different. Spirit can't be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. That is the reason God can't be proven to exist via the senses world, which is where we all live and science resides. However, according to the verses above, it is possible for the spirit to manifest itself into the material world. Count them and you will see there are nine different ways it can be brought into the senses world.

I consider that as proof enough that God exists. I understand it doesn't meet the rigorous guidelines of science. Others may want that concrete scientific proof, but they will never find it with their 5 senses, which is the realm science deals with. I will never argue that God can be proven via science. But I don't think it is necessary to do so. After all, making scientific conformity a requirement to prove God exists makes science itself a god, it makes science the final authority on reality.

If science is taken as the yardstick of reality, reality has changed much throughout history. The world used to be flat, but it became round when science changed it's model. No! Reality has always dictated that it be round. Science was wrong about it being flat. I'm sure it's wrong about a lot (at least a few?) of things. Time will tell.

It is common to assume that God has to conform to science or he doesn't exist. Ayn Rand's "check your premise" may come into play though. Take care...

Two things.
1) PLEASE, get it that there is no such thing as
"scientific proof". A ything under that heading is
gubberish.

2) On "life" you seem to be describing a "vital force".

Perhaps there is. In investigating if this is so, do
we not need to know what life is, at least so far
as to distinguish, precisely, the difference between
that which is alive, and that which is not.

You seem quite sure of yourself, so could you
explain this vital detail to us?

 

[oldbadger]

Thank you again. .......................... It doesn't matter how much new spacetime is being created during the Universe's expansion. The density ratio between matter and energy will always remain constant.

Yes, the ratio remains constant, but you've missed the point which researchers tell us, that the matter/energy is not being diluted in any way by the expansion, which means that somehow energy and matter is being produced ....... or created.

Well, Remember, energy is not a thing. It can't be diluted, thinned, created, or destroyed.

Well, Remember what researchers are wondering about in connection with the above, because somehow energy and matter is being brought into existence during the expansion.

............. So no, the density of matter(not energy), relative to the expansion of spacetime, would always remain constant.

That contradicts your earlier point that energy cannot be created. In an expanding Universe where energy and matter levels remain constant, this means that they are being magicked from somewhere, somehow. Supernatural..... beyond normal nature.

Suppose you were born on an Island,............

....suppose you faced this condition as observed and researched by specialists.......

 

[rrobs]

Two things.
1) PLEASE, get it that there is no such thing as
"scientific proof". A ything under that heading is
gubberish.

2) On "life" you seem to be describing a "vital force".

Perhaps there is. In investigating if this is so, do
we not need to know what life is, at least so far
as to distinguish, precisely, the difference between
that which is alive, and that which is not.

You seem quite sure of yourself, so could you
explain this vital detail to us?

As to the first point, I think it is a bit nit-picky, but consider me as having rescinded that sentence from the post. I don't see it as having much of an impact on my basic sentiment anyway, so delete as desired.

As to the second point, I would be more than happy to explain the details. Explaining the Bible is my bread and butter. I can't get enough of it. How much time do you have?

 

[Audie]

As to the first point, I think it is a bit nit-picky, but consider me as having rescinded that sentence from the post. I don't see it as having much of an impact on my basic sentiment anyway, so delete as desired.

As to the second point, I would be more than happy to explain the details. Explaining the Bible is my bread and butter. I can't get enough of it. How much time do you have?

It seems like nitpick to you, buecause you've not
thought it thru. But never mind, you will take my
suggestion, or not.

My q was about distinction between life
and non life. About a "vital force", presumably
something supernatural needed to make life
Alive.

The bible is of very little interest or concern to
me but if you can find this info there, go
for it!

Side note about why anyone would assume their
god has to tinker and meddle to get life going.

Presumably it rains, glaciers grind, mountains
rise and erode away w/o every particle being
told what to do.

Some reason to object to god being smart enough
to create a universe that brings forth life as well
as pulsars and ice moons, no micromanaging
needed?

 

[Thief]

Some reason to object to god being smart enough
to create a universe that brings forth life as well
as pulsars and ice moons, no micromanaging
needed?

and maybe He DID know......the churning of the planet
would not be in sync with the chemistry development of Man

so the garden event was part of the plan

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Thanks for the discussion. I can't say anything you said is not true, at least as far as I know. Science is science after all. I think you are wise to live by what you know and not what you don't know. Seems like it would be "interesting," to say the least, to live life based on things one does not know. I can't even picture such an existence in my mind.

Here's a couple of things that may be relevant:

Is life itself something that can be put into a test tube and analyzed? We can mix all the naturally occurring chemicals that compose an amoeba, but I don't think we can make it alive. Life seems to be outside the realm of materialism and yet nobody who is alive doubt it exists. I think maybe they have been able to make something wiggle around a bit, but nothing that reproduces itself which is a fundamental feature of life. To be sure, I don't read the latest scientific journals, so maybe somebody other then Dr. Frankenstein has created life in a test tube, but I would think it would have made it on evening news, so I'm thinking not.

That's a bit of science, but here's another angle from the Bible.

1Cor 12:7-10,

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another [divers] kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
​

Spirit, like life, can not be put into a test tube and analyzed because it is outside the realm of our 5 senses. It is via the 5 senses that we make sense of our material world. We see or hear something and we know it exists. But spirit is different. Spirit can't be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. That is the reason God can't be proven to exist via the senses world, which is where we all live and science resides. However, according to the verses above, it is possible for the spirit to manifest itself into the material world. Count them and you will see there are nine different ways it can be brought into the senses world.

I consider that as proof enough that God exists. I understand it doesn't meet the rigorous guidelines of science. Others may want that concrete scientific proof, but they will never find it with their 5 senses, which is the realm science deals with. I will never argue that God can be proven via science. But I don't think it is necessary to do so. After all, making scientific conformity a requirement to prove God exists makes science itself a god, it makes science the final authority on reality.

If science is taken as the yardstick of reality, reality has changed much throughout history. The world used to be flat, but it became round when science changed it's model. No! Reality has always dictated that it be round. Science was wrong about it being flat. I'm sure it's wrong about a lot (at least a few?) of things. Time will tell.

It is common to assume that God has to conform to science or he doesn't exist. Ayn Rand's "check your premise" may come into play though. Take care...

Thank you as well. My friend, your entire argument is based on the presupposition that the spiritual and metaphysical world are real, and exist as a part of our reality. You then make another assumption that the metaphysical, supernatural, and spiritual worlds can't be detected because it is beyond the abilities of 4 dimensional science. You also make more inductive and composition errors, by claiming that since our physical senses are unable to sense this alternate reality, God is beyond the range of our senses. Your premises seem self-serving to support you own presupposition. This is hardly logical, but I understand it is necessary. You are basically saying that "If you can't prove me wrong, that I certainly can be right".

The problem exist in our level of understanding of the physical world, and the laws that govern it. The more we can observe, predict, explain, and understand natural phenomena, the less we need to observe, predict, explain, and understand unnatural phenomena. It is exactly BECAUSE there is no evidence to support the existence of any alternate reality, not WHY there is no evidence, that scientist can't validate the supernatural. There is no evidence to support the flying spaghetti monster, Ghost/spirits, Bigfoot, or alien abductions. Therefore, these beliefs are not rational beliefs, and are certainly not scientifically valid. You simply can't argue that there is no evidence, because the evidence simply can't be detected in our reality. I think you can see how self-serving and convenient that might appear.

Since the advent of the scientific method of inquiry, and without the threats from established religious doctrines and local superstitions, scientific knowledge and discoveries have grown exponentially. During the Dark Ages and before, superstitions, beliefs, myths, and the supernatural, existed mainly to control how the masses think. During the new age of discovery, the shackles of scientific ignorance were removed. This evidence produced was enough to overwhelm many of the establish belief systems. Since knowledge is gained off the backs of previous knowledge, mistakes are certainly allowed. This is actually how we learn. Have you ever wondered why, if 99 people tell you that you are a wonderful person, you will only remember that one person that says you're not?

We are all human, and not always logical. Sometimes our fears, and our evolutionary need for answers can lead us down an irrational path. This path can lead us to become like chronic alcoholics, "tissue dependent". Or in this case, 'belief/spiritually dependent". That is, we can reach a point that accepting any rational explanation that challenges our core beliefs, is impossible to even contemplate. The problem is of course, at this point does the evidence even matter anymore? What evidence would you need to change your core beliefs? I know what would change my core beliefs. Many believe that once our intuitive logic goes, so does our rationale. What do you think?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Yes, the ratio remains constant, but you've missed the point which researchers tell us, that the matter/energy is not being diluted in any way by the expansion, which means that somehow energy and matter is being produced ....... or created.


Well, Remember what researchers are wondering about in connection with the above, because somehow energy and matter is being brought into existence during the expansion.


That contradicts your earlier point that energy cannot be created. In an expanding Universe where energy and matter levels remain constant, this means that they are being magicked from somewhere, somehow. Supernatural..... beyond normal nature.


....suppose you faced this condition as observed and researched by specialists.......

Thank you. You are correct, I must be missing the point. I know that the 1st law of thermodynamics can't be violated. Energy can't be created, destroyed, diluted, etc. I also know that the Universe is not only expanding, but also accelerating. You have stated that scientist have told us that , "the matter/energy is not being diluted in any way by the expansion". So my question is why would you think that this "...means that somehow energy and matter is being produced ....... or created". Why would there need to be a creation of new matter or energy?

 

[PureX]

It seems like nitpick to you, buecause you've not
thought it thru. But never mind, you will take my
suggestion, or not.

My q was about distinction between life
and non life. About a "vital force", presumably
something supernatural needed to make life
Alive.

The bible is of very little interest or concern to
me but if you can find this info there, go
for it!

Side note about why anyone would assume their
god has to tinker and meddle to get life going.

Presumably it rains, glaciers grind, mountains
rise and erode away w/o every particle being
told what to do.

Some reason to object to god being smart enough
to create a universe that brings forth life as well
as pulsars and ice moons, no micromanaging
needed?

I think there are several good points in this comment.

The expression of transcendence exemplified by matter becoming 'alive', and by life becoming self-aware is one of the most profound and mysterious exemplifications of the 'divine' in nature. This is why they are nearly always being attributed to the God/gods. And yet all we have as a means of "explaining" these examples of divine transcendence are intellectual artifice: stories, songs, presumptions and platitudes. Our representations fall far short of illuminating the actuality of this divine transcendence. And we need to recognize this, as we recognize the profound mystery that this transcendent reality presents us with. Something I see both religionists and materialist desperately trying to run away from at every opportunity.

The other point of note is the irrational assumption that the only acceptable evidence of the "divine" is supernatural meddling. When it is clear that the divine does not define nature, but FULFILLS it! Natural existence becomes self-aware through the conscious beings it has generated by natural means. Such transcendency is not "supernatural" at all. In fact, it's the culmination of all natural process. And there may well be examples of further transcendency that we humans are as yet completely unaware of. And they, too, will have been the result of "natural process". Such that whatever "God" is, it is NOT "supernatural" in it's expression. It does not meddle with or in natural process. In fact, it is being expressed THROUGH natural process.

 

[rrobs]

You seem quite sure of yourself, so could you
explain this vital detail to us?

The bible is of very little interest or concern to
me but if you can find this info there, go
for it!

Do you make it a habit of asking someone to teach you about something and then tell tell them you have no interest or concern in the subject matter? Hardly motivating to the teacher. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[rrobs]

Thank you as well. My friend, your entire argument is based on the presupposition that the spiritual and metaphysical world are real, and exist as a part of our reality. You then make another assumption that the metaphysical, supernatural, and spiritual worlds can't be detected because it is beyond the abilities of 4 dimensional science. You also make more inductive and composition errors, by claiming that since our physical senses are unable to sense this alternate reality, God is beyond the range of our senses. Your premises seem self-serving to support you own presupposition. This is hardly logical, but I understand it is necessary. You are basically saying that "If you can't prove me wrong, that I certainly can be right".

The problem exist in our level of understanding of the physical world, and the laws that govern it. The more we can observe, predict, explain, and understand natural phenomena, the less we need to observe, predict, explain, and understand unnatural phenomena. It is exactly BECAUSE there is no evidence to support the existence of any alternate reality, not WHY there is no evidence, that scientist can't validate the supernatural. There is no evidence to support the flying spaghetti monster, Ghost/spirits, Bigfoot, or alien abductions. Therefore, these beliefs are not rational beliefs, and are certainly not scientifically valid. You simply can't argue that there is no evidence, because the evidence simply can't be detected in our reality. I think you can see how self-serving and convenient that might appear.

Since the advent of the scientific method of inquiry, and without the threats from established religious doctrines and local superstitions, scientific knowledge and discoveries have grown exponentially. During the Dark Ages and before, superstitions, beliefs, myths, and the supernatural, existed mainly to control how the masses think. During the new age of discovery, the shackles of scientific ignorance were removed. This evidence produced was enough to overwhelm many of the establish belief systems. Since knowledge is gained off the backs of previous knowledge, mistakes are certainly allowed. This is actually how we learn. Have you ever wondered why, if 99 people tell you that you are a wonderful person, you will only remember that one person that says you're not?

We are all human, and not always logical. Sometimes our fears, and our evolutionary need for answers can lead us down an irrational path. This path can lead us to become like chronic alcoholics, "tissue dependent". Or in this case, 'belief/spiritually dependent". That is, we can reach a point that accepting any rational explanation that challenges our core beliefs, is impossible to even contemplate. The problem is of course, at this point does the evidence even matter anymore? What evidence would you need to change your core beliefs? I know what would change my core beliefs. Many believe that once our intuitive logic goes, so does our rationale. What do you think?

You are presupposing I have presuppositions about the Bible. Allow me to offer an alternative.

I once thought exactly like yourself. Then one day someone talked to me about the Bible and it peaked my interest. Admitting I new nothing about it I proceeded to see what it said for myself. Assuming that to be the case (I have no reason to lie to you), it is axiomatic that I had no presuppositions. But that's not all. After my own study I discovered that what we all "know" i.e. presuppositions, about the Bible were not at all what the book itself said.

You can't dismiss the fact that most of what you "know" about the Bible did not come from your own in depth research. What you "know" about the Bible is church doctrine, which is more often than not at odds with the scriptures. I guess, not having done your own research, you have to take my word for that. In any case, I don't see how you are in any position to tell me what the Bible says. I don't mean to say I'm smarter or better than you. Indeed you seem a to be a very intelligent individual. But the fact remains, you've not studied the Bible for yourself. Probably because it is you that has the presuppositions about what it says and you simply don't believe what you think it says. On that point, given that what you know is church doctrine and not biblical, I can't say as I blame you. The churches have screwed up the message to the point where any logical person like yourself would reject it. I did.

I've seen it from both sides. I wasn't born with a Bible in my hands. I learned plenty of science (private school and then Georgia Tech) before I learned the Bible. After having acquired some knowledge in both arenas I choose to focus my efforts on the Bible. But at least I, unlike yourself, was equipped to make an informed decision on the matter.

I am condemning you in any way. I am simply stating the obvious. It doesn't make you any less of a human being. As I said, I am in no way better than you or anybody else in the world. Would I be considered a slug because I never studied music? Of course not, I just haven't studied it. No big deal. However, I don't think it would be wise for me to tell Beethoven how to write music. That is what happens all the time with the Bible, more than any other field of knowledge. People who have never really read, let alone did an in depth study, of the Bible are always telling me why it's wrong.

It could get interesting if you have in fact studied it at great lengths for yourself (not church or seminary) and came to your conclusion. That would blow my whole argument to bits! But I don't think that is the case. Anybody who approaches the Bible with and open and clear mind, puts the work into it (like Physics 201) will inevitably come away with a new found belief on the nature of life and reality. That's my experience. However, biblically, experience is no guarantee for truth. So I'll put it this way,

Rom 10:17,

So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
​

In other words, study the word of God and you will end up believing it. Not that it matters, but it looks as though my experience lines up with the book itself.

Take care...stay cool or dry, depending on which side of the country you live in!

 

[ecco]

But the fact remains, you've not studied the Bible for yourself.

Studying something can only give you partial knowledge. You also have to study about the something. In order to make determinations you have to know who the creators/authors are. You have to know their qualifications. You have to know how they came upon their knowledge. You have to understand their agendas. You have to take into consideration other things, both complimentary and critical, that have been written about the subject.

 

[rrobs]

Studying something can only give you partial knowledge. You also have to study about the something. In order to make determinations you have to know who the creators/authors are. You have to know their qualifications. You have to know how they came upon their knowledge. You have to understand their agendas. You have to take into consideration other things, both complimentary and critical, that have been written about the subject.

Well, all that may be true for most areas of academic study, but the Bible is unique in that regard (and many others as well). Until you've not done your own research of the Bible, you will not understand what I'm saying.

The book actually does answer to all of your assertions. It tells who wrote it, what their qualifications were, how they came by their knowledge, and their agenda. But you've not studied it so how could you know those things? The fact that you bring all that up is proof enough you don't really understand that which you are claiming to understand.

Like I told Truly Enlightened, not having studied music I would never suppose to tell Beethoven how to write a symphony. I don't know music, so I keep my mouth shut. If I ever get serious about learning music, I'll ask someone who has studied it already to teach me.

 

[rrobs]

Studying something can only give you partial knowledge.

Good point. Nobody knows everything about anything.

 

[oldbadger]

Thank you. You are correct, I must be missing the point. I know that the 1st law of thermodynamics can't be violated. Energy can't be created, destroyed, diluted, etc. I also know that the Universe is not only expanding, but also accelerating. You have stated that scientist have told us that , "the matter/energy is not being diluted in any way by the expansion". So my question is why would you think that this "...means that somehow energy and matter is being produced ....... or created". Why would there need to be a creation of new matter or energy?

.......... because as the Universe expands we might expect the energy and matter within it to 'thin out' but we are told that this is not so...... ergo, energy and matter seem to be produced as the Universe expands. Researchers don't yet have any ideas about how this works. Ergo, it does seem like a departure from natural laws...... supernatural?

 

[ecco]

Well, all that may be true for most areas of academic study, but the Bible is unique in that regard (and many others as well).

In your opinion.

The book actually does answer to all of your assertions. It tells who wrote it...

So, who wrote the Gospels?