Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[cynic]

Ah but if that equation were in the first paragraph of Genesis with the subtext that the reason why will be revealed over time as man comes to better understand God's creation, wouldn't that have gone a long way to proving the Bible was the word of God. Instead we get stories of talking snakes and burning bushes, proving beyond doubt that it was the work of simple herdsmen lacking any understanding of pretty much everything.

How could the equation for kinetic energy, have any relevance to a material existence, prior to the manifestation of that existence?

Surely the manifestation of the material world, would need to occur, prior to delineation of such physical laws.

Just because contemporary science is yet to grasp the phenomenon giving rise to material existence, doesn't entitle disavowal and ridicule of symbolic references to the manifestation, and/or transformation, of consciousness/spirit, into matter, accordant to Kabbalistic principles.

 

[Wysiwyg]

How could the equation for kinetic energy, have any relevance to a material existence, prior to the manifestation of that existence?

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

The correct answer is no for physiology. The vibrations are emitted irrespective of human presence but if there is no one there to 'receive' them then the wave of vibrations through the air is all that took place. No sound.

The correct answer is yes for physics. The audible waves took place and a tape recorder could verify this.

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it emit a vibration" would cover both as yes.

 

[cynic]

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

The correct answer is no for physiology. The vibrations are emitted irrespective of human presence but if there is no one there to 'receive' them then the wave of vibrations through the air is all that took place. No sound.

The correct answer is yes for physics. The audible waves took place and a tape recorder could verify this.

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it emit a vibration" would cover both as yes.

That's great Wysiwyg.

How is this, relevant absent the existence of trees, forest, air, or matter of any form?

Are you suggesting that the attendant physical laws, predated the origination of the physical matter they now govern?

 

[Wysiwyg]

That's great Wysiwyg.

How is this, relevant absent the existence of trees, forest, air, or matter of any form?

No sound? One would have to listen to all that internal dialogue. Let's pray the tapes are all optimistic.

Are you suggesting that the attendant physical laws, predated the origination of the physical matter they now govern?

Have yet to see an egg appear without a chicken.

 

[cynic]

No sound? One would have to listen to all that internal dialogue. Let's pray the tapes are all optimistic.


Have yet to see an egg appear without a chicken.

So from which egg, did the world's first hen emerge? And likewise, from which egg, emerged the first rooster?

 

[Wysiwyg]

So from which egg, did the world's first hen emerge? And likewise, from which egg, emerged the first rooster?

You would need to ask any one of the many gods available. I am but a simple being with a conditioned mind.

 

[Wysiwyg]

So from which egg, did the world's first hen emerge? And likewise, from which egg, emerged the first rooster?

It may have been a slow evolutionary event beginning with micro organisms that evolved differently to each other pending location on the planet (temperatures, pressures and other environmental differences). Over millions of years, the originals reproduced and materialised into vastly different appearances. The first chicken would have looked nothing like those of today. It is not like they simply appeared out of thin air but evolved from the original life sources.

Evolution will happen in any part of the Universe given the necessary ingredients.

 

[cynic]

It may have been a slow evolutionary event beginning with micro organisms that evolved differently to each other pending location on the planet (temperatures, pressures and other environmental differences). Over millions of years, the originals reproduced and materialised into vastly different appearances. The first chicken would have looked nothing like those of today. It is not like they simply appeared out of thin air but evolved from the original life sources.

Again that's great, but of course the origin of the originators, remains cloaked in mystery, suggesting your chosen line of enquiry to be infinitely regressive.

So, in the absence of a conclusively sound scientific explanation, where is the harm in spending time considering the merits of explanations offered by alternative philosophies?

The book of Genesis symbolically touches on at least a few profoundly insightful concepts, and it continues to amaze me just how quickly some of its critics have gravitated to erroneous conclusions about the relevance and meaning of its content.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Again that's great, but of course the origin of the originators, remains cloaked in mystery, suggesting your chosen line of enquiry to be infinitely regressive.

There is also the possibility that seeds were always present, there was no first seed like there was no beginning of time.

The book of Genesis symbolically touches on at least a few profoundly insightful concepts, and it continues to amaze me just how quickly some of its critics have gravitated to erroneous conclusions about the relevance and meaning of its content.

In my opinion (lol) the bible authors made a critical error in naming a god as the source of all things sensed and not sensed. It is blatantly obvious that a presence so able would not allow human being (mind) to have destructive capability. As we observe in nature there is a balance where one does not proliferate and consume unchecked. No godly presence evident with the programmed balance of nature.

 

[cynic]

In my opinion (lol) the bible authors made a critical error in naming a god as the source of all things sensed and not sensed. It is blatantly obvious that a presence so able would not allow human being (mind) to have destructive capability. As we observe in nature there is a balance where one does not proliferate and consume unchecked. No godly presence evident with the programmed balance of nature.

Perhaps if you take the time and effort to understand (as opposed to misunderstand) the meaning of certain content contained within the first three chapters in the book of Genesis, maybe you'll come to realise that the critical error is more likely an imagining, pursuant to your opinion, rather than a perpetration of the authors, whom, to my understanding, have provided a reasonably sound and logical explanation for the source of mankind's ills.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Perhaps if you take the time and effort to understand (as opposed to misunderstand) the meaning of certain content contained within the first three chapters in the book of Genesis, maybe you'll come to realise that the critical error is more likely an imagining, pursuant to your opinion, rather than a perpetration of the authors, whom, to my understanding, have provided a reasonably sound and logical explanation for the source of mankind's ills.

Pass on the perhaps and maybe and please don't attempt conversion again. "To my understanding" (lol) it is nonsense perpetuated ad infinitum.

 

[cynic]

Pass on the perhaps and maybe and please don't attempt conversion again. "To my understanding" (lol) it is nonsense perpetuated ad infinitum.

I am not out to convert you, nor anyone else for that matter, to any particular religion, and voice my objection to any suggestion to the contrary.

My understanding is that many (such as Richard Dawkins, along with multitudes of his zealous acolytes) have, rather than making a sincere effort to more fully digest scriptural content for the purposes of better understanding that which was actually being espoused, deliberately chosen to gravitate to the easiest available opportunities for misunderstanding.

As you are probably already aware, my patience with those engaging in such behaviour, is somewhat limited. Especially when I witness such individuals hastily rubbishing the unknown authors of writings which were/are indicative of an intellect far superior to that of the modern man!!!

 

[Tisme]

How could the equation for kinetic energy, have any relevance to a material existence, prior to the manifestation of that existence?

Surely the manifestation of the material world, would need to occur, prior to delineation of such physical laws.

Just because contemporary science is yet to grasp the phenomenon giving rise to material existence, doesn't entitle disavowal and ridicule of symbolic references to the manifestation, and/or transformation, of consciousness/spirit, into matter, accordant to Kabbalistic principles.

Well there is that and the fact that Bibles outsell scientific journals for a reason. It's not like Newtonian physics is the guide to life's lessons, however the Bible was the spiritual map of choice for people like Kelvin, Marconi, Buridan, Pasteur, Newton, Bacon, Galileo, Lavoisier, Ampere, Faraday etc and including Mr Nuclear physics himself Rutherford.

The Bible never killed anyone, people do? And not only that, but Christians are just like anyone else and failing the need for a plebiscite and a 60% approval rating they deserve to be treated compassionately equally and allowed to marry too.

 

[Value Collector]

So from which egg, did the world's first hen emerge? And likewise, from which egg, emerged the first rooster?

From the egg of it’s mother, which if you go back far enough down the evolutionary line eventually wouldn’t be considered a hen.

 

[cynic]

From the egg of it’s mother, which if you go back far enough down the evolutionary line eventually wouldn’t be considered a hen.

And I am tempted to agree that may well have been the case.

However, our grasp of science isn't yet sufficiently evolved for 100% confidence, which is one of the several reasons, I, with just a little reticence, choose to allow creationism, and its advocates, a modicum of space for pursuit of their chosen line of enquiry.

 

[grah33]

Which part is god like?

Yes, a lot of it does resemble a God and is very original. It also seems to be copied by all the top films. Take Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark film. Just so you know I believe in that Biblical story, that there really was an ark, covered in gold, with the tablets and jar of manna, and other historical items the Jews carried for centuries before it was placed in the temple Solomon built. It seems to me that it is still looked for today. This would be the greatest archaeological find ever. Before the Babylonians destroyed that temple, Jeremiah collected the ark and hid it somewhere. They have tried to find it, unsuccessfully. I also felt very excited when on holiday in Israel and the tour guide pointed out to me the potential location of the 'Holy of Hollies ' chamber where that yearly sin sacrifice once took place. It was fascinating to ponder what once took place there. The psalms in the Bible seem to have many songs based on what it was like visiting and worshiping in that glorious temple. The blessings that came from there, and the experience of God's presence was a reality for those people of the OT. Amazingly enough the Jewish people already have detailed plans for building another temple (worship here is critical for their religion and identity), which happens to be next door to the Islamic mosque... So yes, although I follow the NT, I'm intrigued very much by the OT.

 

[bellenuit]

Yes, a lot of it does resemble a God and is very original.

A lot of the Old Testament is just a rehash of myths that had being part of other religions before that, that Christians then and now say were false religions.

To name a few:

The story of the Garden of Eden
Heaven and Hell
The virgin birth.
The Holy Trinity (God being in 3 parts)
The Flood (Noah)
Parts of the Book of Proverbs
Angels and Demons and their hierarchy.

 

[Value Collector]

Yes, a lot of it does resemble a God and is very original. It also seems to be copied by all the top films. Take Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark film. Just so you know I believe in that Biblical story, that there really was an ark, covered in gold, with the tablets and jar of manna, and other historical items the Jews carried for centuries before it was placed in the temple Solomon built. It seems to me that it is still looked for today. This would be the greatest archaeological find ever. Before the Babylonians destroyed that temple, Jeremiah collected the ark and hid it somewhere. They have tried to find it, unsuccessfully. I also felt very excited when on holiday in Israel and the tour guide pointed out to me the potential location of the 'Holy of Hollies ' chamber where that yearly sin sacrifice once took place. It was fascinating to ponder what once took place there. The psalms in the Bible seem to have many songs based on what it was like visiting and worshiping in that glorious temple. The blessings that came from there, and the experience of God's presence was a reality for those people of the OT. Amazingly enough the Jewish people already have detailed plans for building another temple (worship here is critical for their religion and identity), which happens to be next door to the Islamic mosque... So yes, although I follow the NT, I'm intrigued very much by the OT.

What about it couldn’t have been written by a man? It doesn’t seem special to me

 

[Value Collector]

And I am tempted to agree that may well have been the case.

However, our grasp of science isn't yet sufficiently evolved for 100% confidence, which is one of the several reasons, I, with just a little reticence, choose to allow creationism, and its advocates, a modicum of space for pursuit of their chosen line of enquiry.

None of the evidence points towards any of the creation stories.

 

[cynic]

None of the evidence points towards any of the creation stories.

That's quite a courageous claim!

None of what evidence?!!

I don't know if you've ever seen that film entitled : "The Atheist Delusion"

It featured a creationist interviewing various people, many of whom identified as atheists. The creationist challenged their current beliefs about evolution, by posing a series of simple questions which ultimately stumped them. (As a cynic, I would of course be interested to see any footage that ended up on the cutting room floor!)

Needless to say it was apparent, from the approach taken, that the film was made for the purpose of conveying a message validating creationism, whilst at the same time invalidating atheist opposition to same.

From my recollection the presented argument, essentially favouring creationism over evolution, did hold some logical merit, and didn't strike me as the sort of thing one could readily dismiss without further enquiry.

Anyhow, evidence is a fascinating concept, and worthy of discussion in its own right.

So I suppose it might be helpful to define what the word evidence is understood to actually mean when people invoke it!

I have witnessed many an anti-theist, boldly declaring the absence of any evidence for the existence of God! And yet, as a theist, I am encountering evidence (not proof) virtually everywhere I go, every single day!

A creationist could rightly argue that they consider written historical testimony as evidence (not proof) for their chosen belief system. Whilst I do not share all of their literal (as opposed to symbolic) interpretations of certain biblical passages, I try to respect their right to pursue their chosen avenue of enquiry.

Records of an event, could be argued to constitute evidence (although not proof) granting some support to the notion of the existence of the event. Whether those records are sufficiently dependable to make a confident determination of the veracity, or lack thereof, of the event so recorded, is another matter, rendering their acceptance as very much subject to the opinion of their examiner.

Some examples might be, a book about a boy wizard, known to be a work of fiction, told for the purposes of entertaining children whilst conveying some allegorical moral themes.
Or a tome on medical procedures, intended for instructive use when written, but subsequently rendered obsolescent due to advances in biological understanding. (Would the examiner have sufficient experience to employ the necessary considerations when assessing the merits of these works? Some may, others may not!)

The "Bible" is not a single book, but essentially a library of books, each of which has its very own context!
Some questions one might choose to consider when perusing its contents are:

(i)Who authored the book?

(ii)What was the purpose for which the book was written?

(iii)Who was the intended audience?

(iv)Was the intended message being conveyed literally, allegorically, symbolically, (something else entirely!!)?

(v) When and in what language was it first written, and what was its subsequent history of translation/s?

(vi) What was the environment,(political,cultural, technological), at the time of writing?

Understandably, conflicting understandings of the intention behind, and/or reliability, of some of the passages, found therein, are to be expected.

Anyhow getting back to the concept of evidence, if people are discussing a thing (even if that thing hasn't been proven to truly exist) the discussion alone counts as a form of evidence(although not proof)!

Whatever belief system one may happen to prefer, they cannot rightly claim the total absence of evidence for anything that has been recorded or discussed!!!