|
Post by rational on Dec 1, 2014 13:26:12 GMT -5
If we last long enough, we will become extinct... An interesting turn of a phrase! So if we don't last long enough we will not become extinct? Is this NathanB writing???
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 1, 2014 13:31:01 GMT -5
Quote - " I think Dawkins does a decent job of dealing with the notion of "Non-overlapping Magesteria." (NOMA) I tend to agree with the assertion that NOMA is driven by the lack of scientific evidence of God, and that if any scientific evidence were to be found, theologians would quickly drop NOMA. Science has more and more to say about human impulses and behavior and has started delving into the scientific underpinnings of human morality. The pattern I see is that religion and science "do not overlap" until science encroaches and the theologians scramble to adjust.
I do not need a theologian or philosopher to imagine the possibility that there is no point and no particular "goal" behind our existence or behind the existence the universe. (Can the experience of being alive, here and now, not be enough?)"I take the opposite point of view that there IS a NOMA. Saying there's a lack of evidence for God, therefor there's no NOMA is a classic circular argument. There's no evidence for God because God exists outside this Magesterium. Yes, there's all sorts of human impulses etc.. The bible acknowledges these CONSTANTLY. In fact if you read the various stories about brothers, ie Isaac and Ishmael, or Jacob and Essau, these are metaphors for the duality of our nature - that which is of the flesh, and that which is of the spirit. The Big Danger with evolution ALONE is that people increasingly take their behavioral standards from the natural world. One group of theologians, for instance, were shown footage of bonobos to "show" them how "natural" human sexuality is. As if the bible wasn't aware of this! And that's not all - where do you go after doing it bonobo-style? How about chimp violence, animal infanticide etc..All of which humans have done forever. Even when the world was supposedly inherently religious. They are finding out more and more about chimps and bonobos and how very similar they are to humans. Recent studies seem to suggest that chimps do understand death and have respect for their dead. Doesn't mean they also can't be violent just like we are. Even the religious are violent. It seems belief in a God doesn't make any difference when it comes to violence.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 1, 2014 13:32:18 GMT -5
If we last long enough, we will become extinct... An interesting turn of a phrase! So if we don't last long enough we will not become extinct? Is this NathanB writing??? LOL shows just how my brain has been working lately. Maybe it's catching... yikes!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 13:46:42 GMT -5
The theory of evolution imprisons its believers, like cons serving a life term. They've got nothing but time, time, time! The Theory of evolution explains so much Ram. Bert obviously has a working understanding of it. He still tries to attribute it to the bible and the Hebrew God, but really, there is no way to do that. Evolution has no direction really. It's just how the various mutations work best in the survival business. Dinosaurs evolution worked well until it didn't. Humanity could very easily go that way too. If we last long enough, we will become extinct unless we find a way to get off earth and into a different galaxy with a younger sun. Speaking of nothing but time, what do you think your eternity is? Even an eternity of a good thing would become hell I'm sure. My "nothing but time" remark was in reference to it being the god of evolution. The eternity that I hope for is the one promised in the Bible which will never be hell because of the enduring goodness that will be there.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 1, 2014 14:17:57 GMT -5
Emotional or not, he is really giving an very biased view of the book.
It has been quite awhile since I read the book but I know he isn't doing the book or Dawkins justice.
He is obviously looking at it from the standpoint of being a Christian, which is his right, but he isn't even trying to look at any differing evidence from Dawkins.
Is his view also possibly from being a 2x2?
And Dawkins isn't biased? Evidence about what from Dawkins? IMO 2x2 isn't a factor. Unless someone wants to accept something weird like 2x2s are brainwashed to not read books and if they do to automatically not believe them. My mention of the "2x2 factor "was in answer to Bert's post where he stated,
"Do you think only so-called "2x2's" defend the idea of God? My own objections would be shared by many others."
Jesse, have you read Dawkins book , The God Delusion?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 1, 2014 14:47:00 GMT -5
find it "interesting" that when we atheists talk we are labeled as "spouting off."
Also, Can you explain what this sentence meant? "I never heard of anything good happening from a bomb going off." Maybe I'm just a dumb atheist but I don't understand what that was suppose to mean & why it should "shut up" the atheist.
Was it you on the radio? Boy you get around! Obviously not all atheists are spouty. The guy on the radio in that conversation was. He wanted everyone to know he was right and that anyone who didn't agree was wrong.The bomb is the big bang, the atheist's equalivant of God. One British atheist explained it to me this way, he had a 156 IQ so he must have been right; Void, big bang, evolution, life as we know it, death, return to the void. Did you actually hear the atheist on the radio or were you hearing the conversation from your friend's POV?
If you didn't actually hear the atheist, how do you know that, "the guy on the radio in that conversation was. He wanted everyone to know he was right and that anyone who didn't agree was wrong."
Isn't your friend going to present to you what his perception of the atheist meant? (That is not the same as lying, -it is just how people perceive an event)
1) The big Bang is NOT the atheist's "equalivant of God!"
The "big bang", is a scientific view of the beginning of the universe.
2) You quoted a British atheist who explained the big bang to you. Was he also a scientist?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 1, 2014 15:01:22 GMT -5
The Big Danger with evolution ALONE is that people increasingly take their behavioral standards from the natural world. One group of theologians, for instance, were shown footage of bonobos to "show" them how "natural" human sexuality is. As if the bible wasn't aware of this!
And that's not all - where do you go after doing it bonobo-style? How about chimp violence, animal infanticide etc.. People don't take their their behavioral standards from the natural world. They are simply beginning to realize how their own behavior is like the others in the animal world.
They don't need to copy "chimp violence, animal infanticide etc.." from the others of the animal kingdom. They have been copying VIOLENCE & INFANTICIDE from their GOD from the beginning of the BIBLE!
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 1, 2014 15:16:30 GMT -5
....and before the bible. who did we copy from ,or it "started" there? Alvin
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 1, 2014 15:46:01 GMT -5
....and before the bible. who did we copy from ,or it "started" there? Alvin I think it is all inherently human behavior, though not a universal expression of human social structure, culture or of universally acceptable human behavior. The God of the Old Testament reflects, reinforces and "justifies" the social structure, culture and behavior of that particular nomadic tribe in the context of their particular struggle for survival. Others here can speak more knowledgably about how the Hebrew people chose to devote themselves to one god (a god of War) from what I believe previously had been an array of gods.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 17:46:26 GMT -5
Quote - "The problem with this idea is that "something" has to "explode" in a given "time" and a given "place." None of these attributes are available in the "void." In "outer space" there is "space", ie distance, dimensions etc. Plus there's a vacuum, energy, radiation, gamma rays, hydrogen atoms etc.. The "void" this guy is speaking of is a void beyond comprehension. And beyond science, too. You can't have a Big Bang in a "void."
I am aware that "space" is supposed to have been created in the Big Bang, so I should not have said a Big Bang cannot occur in a void, but if there's NO geometric space it stretches science (let alone the imagination) to "explain" how (again) "Something came from Nothing"
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 1, 2014 18:13:44 GMT -5
The Theory of evolution explains so much Ram. Bert obviously has a working understanding of it. He still tries to attribute it to the bible and the Hebrew God, but really, there is no way to do that. Evolution has no direction really. It's just how the various mutations work best in the survival business. Dinosaurs evolution worked well until it didn't. Humanity could very easily go that way too. If we last long enough, we will become extinct unless we find a way to get off earth and into a different galaxy with a younger sun. Speaking of nothing but time, what do you think your eternity is? Even an eternity of a good thing would become hell I'm sure. My "nothing but time" remark was in reference to it being the god of evolution. The eternity that I hope for is the one promised in the Bible which will never be hell because of the enduring goodness that will be there. I wouldn't be too sure about that Ram. That's where we differ I guess. I can't imagine doing anything forever and it not becoming endlessly boring. If I have to live after I die, I would much rather prefer the reincarnation belief to be true. At least it would never be boring because you'd be doing something different all the time. And if Nathan is right, we can reincarnate on other planets and be different creatures, now wouldn't that be more fun!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 1, 2014 18:19:58 GMT -5
Quote - "The problem with this idea is that "something" has to "explode" in a given "time" and a given "place." None of these attributes are available in the "void." In "outer space" there is "space", ie distance, dimensions etc. Plus there's a vacuum, energy, radiation, gamma rays, hydrogen atoms etc.. The "void" this guy is speaking of is a void beyond comprehension. And beyond science, too. You can't have a Big Bang in a "void." I am aware that "space" is supposed to have been created in the Big Bang, so I should not have said a Big Bang cannot occur in a void, but if there's NO geometric space it stretches science (let alone the imagination) to "explain" how (again) "Something came from Nothing"Bert, quantum physics tells us that something comes from 'nothing' all the time. However, I don't believe there is ever 'nothing' nor has there ever been 'nothing'. We have erroneously thought there is a void. We are slowly understanding that isn't true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 18:27:59 GMT -5
Quote - "Bert, quantum physics tells us that something comes from 'nothing' all the time. However, I don't believe there is ever 'nothing' nor has there ever been 'nothing'. We have erroneously thought there is a void. We are slowly understanding that isn't true."
Some confusion here. The "void" to some people is the "nothingness" of outer space, the vast and deep black chasm which separates us from other planets, stars and galaxies. This isn't a "void" in the true sense - it is the "fabric" of Einstein's "space time" and a vast sea of broiling radiation and high speed particles. WITHIN this space time so-called "virtual particles" pop in and out of existence. We can "see" them by the way electrons, which orbit atomic nuclei, "bump" into these fleeting particles.
But the "void" referred to here has no space whatsoever - there's no "distance" no "time" no nothing at all.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 1, 2014 18:41:13 GMT -5
Quote - "Bert, quantum physics tells us that something comes from 'nothing' all the time. However, I don't believe there is ever 'nothing' nor has there ever been 'nothing'. We have erroneously thought there is a void. We are slowly understanding that isn't true." Some confusion here. The "void" to some people is the "nothingness" of outer space, the vast and deep black chasm which separates us from other planets, stars and galaxies. This isn't a "void" in the true sense - it is the "fabric" of Einstein's "space time" and a vast sea of broiling radiation and high speed particles. WITHIN this space time so-called "virtual particles" pop in and out of existence. We can "see" them by the way electrons, which orbit atomic nuclei, "bump" into these fleeting particles.
But the "void" referred to here has no space whatsoever - there's no "distance" no "time" no nothing at all.
Would the singularity qualify?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 18:46:28 GMT -5
I am WAY out of my depth here - but my understanding of the "singularity" is that it is EVERYTHING in a "single" point. I am not sure how the pencil heads in theoretical physics explain this.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Dec 1, 2014 18:56:56 GMT -5
The assertions you made about Dawkins, You really lambasted Dawkins and suggested he hadn't read the bible....now you are backpedaling and suggesting the Bible is mixed up. What I was saying Bert doesn't do, watch how often he uses words like "you" the same way in his posts. It's like never, and when others use words like that to make it personal about Bert instead of the topic he never does it back. Just an observation.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 1, 2014 19:04:38 GMT -5
I am WAY out of my depth here - but my understanding of the "singularity" is that it is EVERYTHING in a "single" point. I am not sure how the pencil heads in theoretical physics explain this. Singularity has infinite density and the laws of physics cease to apply. Certainly something I can't even comprehend. Totally interests me though.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Dec 1, 2014 19:08:13 GMT -5
Jesse, have you read Dawkins book , The God Delusion?
Parts of it, not really interested enough to read the whole thing. Not "afraid" of it either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 19:10:06 GMT -5
Yes, it's the entire universe in a space VASTLY smaller than an atom. It's "only a theory" (I do hate that saying!) and there are alternate theories. Some theories get you so far, and then have to be abandoned. Whilst science recognizes that SOMETHING expanded the universe, it might not be a "big bang." Other theories which are getting a bit shaky now include "dark matter" and the "standard model" of atomic physics. But its important to know these current theories are simply the best we have at the moment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 19:15:48 GMT -5
My "nothing but time" remark was in reference to it being the god of evolution. The eternity that I hope for is the one promised in the Bible which will never be hell because of the enduring goodness that will be there. I wouldn't be too sure about that Ram. That's where we differ I guess. I can't imagine doing anything forever and it not becoming endlessly boring. If I have to live after I die, I would much rather prefer the reincarnation belief to be true. At least it would never be boring because you'd be doing something different all the time. And if Nathan is right, we can reincarnate on other planets and be different creatures, now wouldn't that be more fun! Gone will be our human nature Snow. We will only have the divine nature of God. That takes care of boredom. It's a human thing. Creative people are never bored. They always find something to do. That's how God combated boredom. He became very creative. I can only experience reincarnation if I visit America twice as I haven't been once yet. You see, America has been described as the "Car Nation" and I have never been "in car nation" so in order to experience "re in car nation" I would have to visit America once and then to make at least one further visit to experience "re in car nation."
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 1, 2014 19:18:33 GMT -5
The assertions you made about Dawkins, You really lambasted Dawkins and suggested he hadn't read the bible....now you are backpedaling and suggesting the Bible is mixed up. What I was saying Bert doesn't do, watch how often he uses words like "you" the same way in his posts. It's like never, and when others use words like that to make it personal about Bert instead of the topic he never does it back. Just an observation. OK. I am trying to resolve what appear to be inconsistencies in the arguments Bert is using to attack Dawkins' work. Do you have a suggestion?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 1, 2014 19:34:03 GMT -5
I wouldn't be too sure about that Ram. That's where we differ I guess. I can't imagine doing anything forever and it not becoming endlessly boring. If I have to live after I die, I would much rather prefer the reincarnation belief to be true. At least it would never be boring because you'd be doing something different all the time. And if Nathan is right, we can reincarnate on other planets and be different creatures, now wouldn't that be more fun! Gone will be our human nature Snow. We will only have the divine nature of God. That takes care of boredom. It's a human thing. Creative people are never bored. They always find something to do. That's how God combated boredom. He became very creative. I can only experience reincarnation if I visit America twice as I haven't been once yet. You see, America has been described as the "Car Nation" and I have never been "in car nation" so in order to experience "re in car nation" I would have to visit America once and then to make at least one further visit to experience "re in car nation." Lol you really need to visit the states I guess. Come to Canada. It's beautiful. Just don't come in the winter. Human nature. Well it's all the 'nature' I know of so it's all I can base an endless existence on isn't it. No one really has explained to me what they will be doing in heaven and what that will be like. Do you know other than 'it won't be boring'? Also, if it takes a creative nature to not be bored, will you be creating in heaven also? So many questions so few answers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 19:46:07 GMT -5
Ram, my understanding of the bible is that those who have not loved God are destined forever to KEEP their human nature. This is my reading of what Jesus said about the worm never dying and the thirst never quenched. If we don't love God then we are destined to keep the nature we loved, and forever crave for the things we once lived for.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 1, 2014 19:53:27 GMT -5
....and before the bible. who did we copy from , or it "started" there? Alvin Who did we copy from before the bible? Well, Abraham came from the city of Ur in Mesopotamia.
What he knew would have had to came from the culture there. He brought with him the myths & legends of that area.
Also, as I'm sure that you know, there are two versions of the first two chapters Genesis .
"The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity.[1] It is made up of two parts, roughly equivalent to the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis.
In the first part, Genesis 1:1-2:3, Elohim, the Hebrew generic word for God, creates the heaven and the earth in six days, starting with darkness and light on the first day, and ending with the creation of mankind on the sixth day. God then rests on, blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.
In the second part, Genesis 2:4-2:24 God, now referred to by the personal name "Yahweh", creates the first man from dust and breathes life into him. God then places him in the Garden of Eden and creates the first woman from his rib as a companion.
A common hypothesis among modern scholars is that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with Deuteronomy) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC (the Jahwist source) and that this was later expanded by other authors (the Priestly source) into a work very like the one we have today.[2] (In the creation narrative the two sources appear in reverse order: Genesis 1:1–2:3 is Priestly and Genesis 2:4–24 is Jahwistic).[3]
Borrowing themes from Mesopotamian mythology, but adapting them to Israel's belief in one God,[4] the combined narrative is a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation: Genesis affirms monotheism and denies polytheism.[5]
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 1, 2014 20:02:18 GMT -5
Jesse, have you read Dawkins book , The God Delusion?
Parts of it, not really interested enough to read the whole thing. Not "afraid" of it either. Then perhaps you should read Dawkins book, The God Delusion before you just accept what is interpreted by Bert, -or anyone for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 1, 2014 20:05:31 GMT -5
Quote - "Genesis makes specific reference to fruit trees. I am not aware of the possibility of fruit trees that are not advanced pollinating plants. You really lambasted Dawkins and suggested he hadn't read the bible....now you are backpedaling and suggesting the Bible is mixed up." Again, Genesis account is symbolic. Some might criticize Revelations because it says "to the seven churches in Asia." In fact there were a lot more churches, some even mentioned in the same bible. Seven was symbolic. It is up to the reader to decide just what is, and what isn't, symbolic. I have the owner of the Dawkins book here beside me - she believes the entire account of Jesus is symbolic (ie the man never existed, but his story is one for all mankind.) I like what an archaeologist said about the bible, "Once everyone believed all of the bible. Then they believed none of the bible. Now we take a more nuanced approach - the bible is not history, but it isn't myth either."Finally, I can "like" something Bert writes! It is up to me to decide what is symbolic in the bible. That, I can live with.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 1, 2014 20:09:41 GMT -5
Oh okay... Without going back into my own notes. The Genesis account is symbolic of what plausibly happened. If it says there were plants, and then animals - that doesn't mean there were no pollinators. It means that plants came first (I am getting tired...) Advanced pollinating plants came a lot later, and animals were quite advanced by the time this happened. And in any case, some of the days are out of sequence in Genesis. OMG, You are kidding! ?
You say, "Some of the days are out of sequence? in Genesis?"
Aren't you afraid that statement is bordering on heresy?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 1, 2014 20:14:13 GMT -5
Quote - "Genesis makes specific reference to fruit trees. I am not aware of the possibility of fruit trees that are not advanced pollinating plants. You really lambasted Dawkins and suggested he hadn't read the bible....now you are backpedaling and suggesting the Bible is mixed up." Again, Genesis account is symbolic. Some might criticize Revelations because it says "to the seven churches in Asia." In fact there were a lot more churches, some even mentioned in the same bible. Seven was symbolic.
It is up to the reader to decide just what is, and what isn't, symbolic.
I have the owner of the Dawkins book here beside me - she believes the entire account of Jesus is symbolic (ie the man never existed, but his story is one for all mankind.) I like what an archaeologist said about the bible, "Once everyone believed all of the bible. Then they believed none of the bible. Now we take a more nuanced approach - the bible is not history, but it isn't myth either."Finally, I can "like" something Bert writes! It is up to me to decide what is symbolic in the bible. That, I can live with. Yes! Gene! I was also glad that Bert is allowing us permission "to decide just what is, and what isn't, symbolic."
|
|