God was behind Big Bang, pope says

page: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Ok, I'm going to spell it out slowly. In the case of one universe, that is a single sample, we can only draw one conclusion:

It is possible for the early conditions of our universe and the physical constants to be as they are.

We are unable to speculate on whether or not there could have been possible differences that would require fine tuning as we have no evidence that these things could be any different than they are in our universe.


But your question above from your second last post is a baited question. You used the phrase and I quote “we have no evidence that these things could be any different than they are in our universe.” The question itself clearly implies the possibility of another universe.



Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
For the last time, and literally the last time as I'm done debating this point with you as I keep seeing myself replaced with the multiversal strawman, I never assumed anything about other universes. I'm asking you to show an empirical basis for the claim that there could be other values for the values which are currently observed in this universe.


But I keep telling you the values are a secondary concern, it’s the conditions the values are in, which is more important for developing a living universe.

And again you have used a baited question similar to the one above. The phrase “…which are currently observed in this universe” is again implying the possibility of another universe.



Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
No, I'm not. I'm saying that you have no empirical basis for your claims. Where am I talking about different universes?

I'm seriously done with this discussion because I thought you were here for a logical discussion, yet you keep trying to say that I'm in favor of a position I specifically divorced myself from with relation to this discussion.


But I’m not making any outlandish claims from my first post onwards!

What claims do you think I have made? I merely pointed out that some people have come to believe in a God due to the cosmic coincidences that have been observed by science, they may of course have extra reasons for believing in a God/creator.

The questions you have asked me, that I have pointed out above, are all implying, between the lines, that there are other universes.



Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Again with the multiple universes. Stop bringing them up! It's both a red herring and a straw man. I'm not discussing them, yet you keep bringing them up. This is fairly basic stuff: We have no evidence to show that the conditions of the earl universe could have been any different, thus your claim is not based in empiricism


Where, in my replies to you so far, have I claimed that the conditions of an early universe could be different?




Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Again, I'm not appealing to the multiverse, at all. And your description of appeals to the multiverse covers your appeals to the possible difference in the state of the early universe without any evidence that it could have been any different.

But I'm done. I've made multiple replies to your posts, yet you ignore every single one of my points and merely keep attacking multiverse theory. Screw that theory. I'm not defending it, I'm not saying it's even required to make fine tuning look silly, so drop it.


You say above that your not appealing to the multiverse but the 2 questions I have pointed out in this post, were all assuming between the lines, that another universe may exist. Maybe you didn’t intend it that way, but I think you are going to have to read those 2 questions again carefully.

Here they are again…



Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
We are unable to speculate on whether or not there could have been possible differences that would require fine tuning as we have no evidence that these things could be any different than they are in our universe.




Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
I'm asking you to show an empirical basis for the claim that there could be other values for the values which are currently observed in this universe.


Both of the above questions, infer the possibility of another universe.



Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
The simple fact is that you're assuming that the state of our early universe could be different than it was. There is no evidence for this


Where, in my replies to you so far, have I claimed that the conditions of an early universe could be different?

The only thing I have suggested, is that if things were different, then our universe would more than likely have ended up, being a dead lifeless universe.


- JC




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
The Big Bang was born out of the See of Rome, why wouldn't the Pope embrace the churches creation?
Sources listed below the Wiki article: Georges Lemaitre
Sorry to bust the expanding universe bubble, but it is just another lie foisted on the human race. The Universe is endless and without a beginning.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Smack because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-1-2011 by Smack because: Links are bugged for some reason.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Smack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Smack
 


The Big Bang was born out of the See of Rome, why wouldn't the Pope embrace the churches creation?

Lemaitre was an astronomer, doing astronomy. He wasn't parroting some Vatican line, as you imply.


Sorry to bust the expanding universe bubble, but it is just another lie foisted on the human race.

By whom, and for what purpose?


The Universe is endless and without a beginning.

Could you please show us the evidence for either of these claims? As far as I know, neither has been verified.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


The idea that the universe is expanding due to unverified/unknown reason directly piggybacks on the big bang theory and is seen by many as an attempt to bypass the the idea of a higher power calling their creation into existence. (ie Genesis 1:1)

What reason? The answer is simple enough, its just that the majority dont want to admit to it:
Lets just use the bible as an example...
If there is an absolute power in the universe that establishes its authority over its creation there might be rules to be followed in order to reap the benefits of obedience.
Look at todays world, if we had to enforce the biblical principles (principles, not every example given in the bible but the principles behind them) on everyone, it would conflict with their agenda at an unimaginable level. The world as we know it would be turned upside down.

I strongly believe that either:
The Pope has agreed just to satisfy the public or pressure of conflict between science and religion.
The Pope chooses not to believe in the Creation Doctrine completely and literally
Or that the Pope just doesnt know what to believe and chooses to believe in what seems more acceptable by others... since everyone believes in it, the Pope must also. (that kind of thinking gets people in trouble)

But if you think about the reason why they universe seems to be expanding.. as far as - matter moving from an assumed central point... well it probably is... but for what reason? expansion due to a big bang? well i disagree
I would say that it was designed that way on purpose.
Think about it, if you just placed everything in space from the beginning, it would all be nearing a collapse from the start. Or maybe its not actually expanding, maybe it is revolving around itself in order to sustain stability and to prevent a self collapse that would otherwise be initiated from the start.

Just my thoughts on the matter, perhaps something to chew on.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 





The idea that the universe is expanding due to unverified/unknown reason directly piggybacks on the big bang theory and is seen by many as an attempt to bypass the the idea of a higher power calling their creation into existence. (ie Genesis 1:1)


Quite the opposite. The core of big bang theory is that universe as we know it had a beginning, something christians were saying long before this theory was proposed. It contradicted previously held theories that the universe was eternal, and there was no creation at all. If anything, the big bang theory (indirectly) supports the creationist views and the existence of something more than our space-time. Thats why it is widely accepted among theists.

Of course, it may be a problem for young-Earth creationists to accept, but those people cant even explain why we can see stars at night without claiming that god did it...
edit on 13/1/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


Links to the vast knowledge of the Pope's research?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
It seems like whatever is discovered and proven through science, the pope will then pop up and say, "oh yeah!, God made that happen."

As to those that say god DID create the universe, where is the proof?

You can only ever say you believe he did.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Just too correct you




something christians were saying long before this theory was proposed.


Its something the JEWS ie; the HEBREW bible has said, thousands of years before it was confirmed by the big bang theory.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 



Originally posted by Joecroft
But your question above from your second last post is a baited question. You used the phrase and I quote “we have no evidence that these things could be any different than they are in our universe.” The question itself clearly implies the possibility of another universe.


This is where my experience in the field of teaching English comes in handy. The use of the possessive pronoun "our" rather than the article "the" doesn't imply plurality, it implies ownership. You can say "my", "our", "his", "her", "your", or "their" for any object that is unique, you're just highlighting who the owner is. I'm highlighting that this is our universe.

And again, I may be open to the possibility, but I'm excluding the possibility from the argument. The argument hinges on the sample size, 1. If there is 1 universe, the sample size is 1. If there are other universes as of yet undiscovered, the sample size is still 1. It doesn't play a single factor.

The point in using "our" when referring to the universe is because I was trying to highlight that I was referencing only one universe, the one we reside in, the only universe we are aware of existing.





Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
For the last time, and literally the last time as I'm done debating this point with you as I keep seeing myself replaced with the multiversal strawman, I never assumed anything about other universes. I'm asking you to show an empirical basis for the claim that there could be other values for the values which are currently observed in this universe.


But I keep telling you the values are a secondary concern, it’s the conditions the values are in, which is more important for developing a living universe.


And what evidence is there that the conditions could be any different than they are? That's the whole point I'm trying to make! Where's the evidence that the universe could be different than it is? Where's the evidence that the universe didn't have to expand at the rate it did?



And again you have used a baited question similar to the one above. The phrase “…which are currently observed in this universe” is again implying the possibility of another universe.


I'm trying to highlight that I'm not talking about a hypothetical universe, I'm talking about a concrete one. You're playing a really silly and dishonest semantics game. Saying 'the universe' repeatedly would get boring to read, so I spiced up my language with 'this' and 'our'.





Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
No, I'm not. I'm saying that you have no empirical basis for your claims. Where am I talking about different universes?

I'm seriously done with this discussion because I thought you were here for a logical discussion, yet you keep trying to say that I'm in favor of a position I specifically divorced myself from with relation to this discussion.


But I’m not making any outlandish claims from my first post onwards!


Yes, you are.



What claims do you think I have made? I merely pointed out that some people have come to believe in a God due to the cosmic coincidences that have been observed by science, they may of course have extra reasons for believing in a God/creator.


You're asserting that it's a logical idea to hold because apparently it's based in empiricism, even though the entire basis of the argument is that the universe could possibly be different in any way on a fundamental levels. There is no evidence that the universe could be any different than it is now on the most fundamental levels.



The questions you have asked me, that I have pointed out above, are all implying, between the lines, that there are other universes.


No, you've pointed out that I used a possessive pronoun and a 'pointing' word. This universe, the concrete one we know about, the only universe I'm aware of. Our universe, the one we reside in rather than a hypothetical one.

If by 'pointing out' you mean 'playing a silly semantics game', you're correct, you're playing one to dodge my questions. I'm asking you point blank if there's any evidence that the universe could be any different on the most fundamental levels, yet you're dodging it by saying that I'm implying it.

At most, I'm open to the idea, though I'm open in the scientific sense that I'll accept it if there's more evidence for it than the other hypotheses





Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Again with the multiple universes. Stop bringing them up! It's both a red herring and a straw man. I'm not discussing them, yet you keep bringing them up. This is fairly basic stuff: We have no evidence to show that the conditions of the earl universe could have been any different, thus your claim is not based in empiricism


Where, in my replies to you so far, have I claimed that the conditions of an early universe could be different?


By saying that it is an empirically sound, logical position to think that the reason the universe can support life due to the seeming coincidences of its formation are due to a deity possibly tinkering around. You're saying that the 'fine tuning' argument has empirical basis, then stepping away and saying "But maybe people have other reasons for believing in a deity"





Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Again, I'm not appealing to the multiverse, at all. And your description of appeals to the multiverse covers your appeals to the possible difference in the state of the early universe without any evidence that it could have been any different.

But I'm done. I've made multiple replies to your posts, yet you ignore every single one of my points and merely keep attacking multiverse theory. Screw that theory. I'm not defending it, I'm not saying it's even required to make fine tuning look silly, so drop it.


You say above that your not appealing to the multiverse but the 2 questions I have pointed out in this post, were all assuming between the lines, that another universe may exist. Maybe you didn’t intend it that way, but I think you are going to have to read those 2 questions again carefully.


You're either ignorant of usage of the English language (as many are, even native speakers), deliberately dishonest, or way too caught up in semantics games. Saying the universe constantly sounds boring. Anyone meaning to write interesting posts on this website should refrain from using definite articles like "the" obsessively for accuracy unless they're on the debate forum. It's just good writing. I substituted a possessive pronoun and "this", which is not implying that there's another universe, nor is it necessarily implying that another could exist. If someone puts forth an unproven hypothetical other universe I can still say "Well, I'm worried about this universe" in quite the condescending tone.



Here they are again…



Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
We are unable to speculate on whether or not there could have been possible differences that would require fine tuning as we have no evidence that these things could be any different than they are in our universe.



Yes, we are members of this universe. It is ours. It may or may not be the only one, but for the sake of this discussion it is the only one.

And again, where in my question does it hinge on that possessive pronoun? The possessive pronoun is not the thrust, nor does it change the meaning of the question. Whether or not we live in one universe on its own or one amongst many, my question is equally valid. There is no evidence that shows us that this universe, our universe, the universe could have been different on a fundamental level that would disallow life.





Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
I'm asking you to show an empirical basis for the claim that there could be other values for the values which are currently observed in this universe.


Both of the above questions, infer the possibility of another universe.


No, they don't. And you're playing a semantics game to distract from the questions I've asked you.





Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
The simple fact is that you're assuming that the state of our early universe could be different than it was. There is no evidence for this


Where, in my replies to you so far, have I claimed that the conditions of an early universe could be different?



Originally posted by Joecroft
Scientists are aware through predominantly that of empiricism, that our universe has a large number of cosmological constants, which if slightly off by a fraction, would result in us not existing.



Here you are implying that the cosmological constants could be different, or else the statement would be meaningless. It would be like stating "Well, if the color blue was an orangutan, then we could fly to the moon!", it would be nonsensical. The implication that there could be different values is the crux of the argument.

And I've already provided a source that shows that our universe could be life sustaining without one of the four fundamental forces of the universe, so the statement is a bit silly.


Originally posted by Joecroft
It is well known to science through empiricism, that had our universe expanded to fast, or to slow, by a tiny fraction, then conditions would not have been right for the creation/happening of the elements on the periodic table and life as we know it. This knowledge, has led some to believe, that there could be a creator/God, which although is a rationalist jump, it is at least based on empiricism.


It's in bold, which I added to highlight it. You're implying, and this implication is the crux of the statement, that the universe could have expanded faster or slower by a fraction of a second.

Both of these are in the very first post.



The only thing I have suggested, is that if things were different, then our universe would more than likely have ended up, being a dead lifeless universe.


And by saying "If things were different" you're implying that they could be different. That there is the actual possibility that they could be different. This is no more or less incorrect than an individual stating "If there exists more than one universe" as we have no examples of other universe or of instances in which things could be different in the universe.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
This, along with the announcement concerning the acceptance of extra terrestrials, seems a little odd to me for various reasons.

It's almost as if they are back peddling, trying to change their story to stay relevant to current changes.

I can't wait to see their reaction if string theory gets close to being proven. What then? The Pope will claim God created all these dimensions as well?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I didnt mean to say that the theory implies that there was no beginning. Just attempts to infer a "natural" means by which is came in existence. The big bang theory does not support the idea of a supernatural being or Deity and if often used as the alternative to creationism theories.

Creationists (young and old earth) as well as the hardcore evolutionist both have questions that cannot be answered without assuming:
Creationists point the finger at God and say that He did it somehow.
And the Evolutionists say that it had to have happened since we are here... or they throw large amounts of time int there...
Both are untestable and cannot be observed or demonstrated.
All we can do it put our theories together that support what we observe using the principles behind that which we can observe, test, demonstrate.

To my knowledge, all we have observed in the universe, as far as expansion, is the red/blue shift - lights Doppler Effect. Which in any case is not an exact science yet, just an idea that is used to support the theory. a principle... but it seems that it is stretched beyond its limits.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
This is where my experience in the field of teaching English comes in handy. The use of the possessive pronoun "our" rather than the article "the" doesn't imply plurality, it implies ownership. You can say "my", "our", "his", "her", "your", or "their" for any object that is unique, you're just highlighting who the owner is. I'm highlighting that this is our universe.


Here’s part of your first question again…

“we have no evidence that these things could be any different than they are in our universe.”

The key word here is not the possessive pronoun “our” but the use of the phrase “no evidence that these things could be any different”. “different” and “evidence” being the key words. Where else could we possible find evidence for things being different, except in another universe.

But like I said in my last post, maybe you didn’t intend it that way, but surely you can see how easily it could be misconstrued?




Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
And again, I may be open to the possibility, but I'm excluding the possibility from the argument. The argument hinges on the sample size, 1. If there is 1 universe, the sample size is 1. If there are other universes as of yet undiscovered, the sample size is still 1. It doesn't play a single factor.

The point in using "our" when referring to the universe is because I was trying to highlight that I was referencing only one universe, the one we reside in, the only universe we are aware of existing.


Ok, I see your point now, but hopefully you can see how easily it was to misconstrue both of your questions.



Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
And what evidence is there that the conditions could be any different than they are? That's the whole point I'm trying to make! Where's the evidence that the universe could be different than it is? Where's the evidence that the universe didn't have to expand at the rate it did?


There is no evidence that it could have been any different lol




Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
I'm trying to highlight that I'm not talking about a hypothetical universe, I'm talking about a concrete one. You're playing a really silly and dishonest semantics game. Saying 'the universe' repeatedly would get boring to read, so I spiced up my language with 'this' and 'our'.


Well, like I said above, hopefully you can see how easily it was to misconstrue the question being asked and that I wasn’t trying to be dishonest or use semantic games. In fact, that is what I thought you were doing, until I read your last post.



Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
You're asserting that it's a logical idea to hold because apparently it's based in empiricism, even though the entire basis of the argument is that the universe could possibly be different in any way on a fundamental levels. There is no evidence that the universe could be any different than it is now on the most fundamental levels.


Science is aware, that if any slight variable had been a tiny bit different, then our universe would more than likely result in a dead lifeless one. So your point appears to be moot!



Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
By saying that it is an empirically sound, logical position to think that the reason the universe can support life due to the seeming coincidences of its formation are due to a deity possibly tinkering around.


No, I never said it proved there was a God/creator, you are leaping to conclusions here. I only said, it had led some people to believe there was a God/creator, but that it may not be the only factor in any individual’s belief.



Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Saying the universe constantly sounds boring. Anyone meaning to write interesting posts on this website should refrain from using definite articles like "the" obsessively for accuracy unless they're on the debate forum. It's just good writing


Well, in the time I been on ATS, I find you just never know the ability of each individual posters vocabulary skills. For many ATS user’s, English is there second language. So generally speaking, I try to use language as simply, and as easily understandable as possible. Although if I get to know I particular poster well enough, I may start to use a wider variety words.

Anyway thanks for the advice, but I will write how I wish to write.



Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
And I've already provided a source that shows that our universe could be life sustaining without one of the four fundamental forces of the universe, so the statement is a bit silly.


I’ve been pretty busy, I haven’t gotten around to reading it yet.



Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
And by saying "If things were different" you're implying that they could be different. That there is the actual possibility that they could be different. This is no more or less incorrect than an individual stating "If there exists more than one universe" as we have no examples of other universe or of instances in which things could be different in the universe.


No. Saying "If things were different" is purely hypothetical reasoning based on our knowledge of our own universe, and therefore it is not implying, that they could be different.


- JC



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Its a good job he was not in front of it, that could of been painful.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


It was a 50/50 chance. Either the universe had a beginning or it didn't...I'm not too impressed when it could have gone either way.

Also, other creation myths existed that were unrelated to the Hebrew one. In fact, Genesis 1 is known by most world religions scholars to have actually come from the period of the Babylonian captivity, in which they were exposed to the almost identical Babylonian creation myth.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Really? Considering the ancient cultures unanimously thought differently; of a eternal universe, while the Jews stood alone insisting for thousands of years that the universe was created, I think that deserves a little more merit than being 50-50.. Show me another example of such ridiculous peer pressure where a group still refuses to be swayed by the collective will or opinion for that duration of time.

The idea of a created universe is also counter-intuitive. Other peoples spoke of an eternal cyclical nature of destruction and prosperity. An essentially pointless universe.

Also, theres no valid basis for believing the enuma elish is older than the Genesis epicin the Torah.

Again. A popular "academic" opinion generated by political correctness is enough for you to be considered "truth"..
edit on 13-1-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


What about Egypt? Or the story contained in the Rigveda? And again, it's a coin toss, 50/50. Getting that right isn't all that big of a deal, even if everyone else disagrees with you. Now, if they had gotten something specific about the creation of the universe correct, as the entire creation myth in the Hebrew scriptures is incorrect.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by css1981
If the pope is right,

Why can't we read it in the bible then ?

"on the first day God created the heaven and earth..."

It should have said something else like : "on the first day God created time and space... or God created the expansion of heaven...

Don't you wonder why Moses never wrote that ?


Who's to say that what people back in that time believed Time and space, was what they called 'Heaven and the earth'
I mean this was 2000+ years ago.
Not last year they wrote this :|



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You should realize that the Hebrew scriptures are allegorical.

The Jewish sages, unlike their christian theologian counterparts, always interpreted their scriptures allegorically. Even when commenting on the exegetical nature of Torah, they speak in allegory. The entire array of Rabbinic writings is thus written in a type of metaphysical code which can only be interpreted orally (that is, passed on from teacher to student)...

An amazing explanation of the book of genesis is found in the commentrary of the 13th century Rabbi Moshe Ben Nachman (known as Nachmanides) to the Torah.

You have to look at the details; the language used, why a certain term was used as opposed to another. anamolous grammar, letter roots, gematria etc

The fact that a man like Isaac Newton, who invented Calculus and established Newtonian mechanics found enough reason to study Torah (which he did daily for many hours. Infact, his other more secular interests took a back seat to this study..implying a greater priority in the metaphysical which is how he derived his physical principals. So your cursory study of kabbalah, which requires much more than mcgregor mathers translations but a thorough understanding of Hebrew, Aramaic and kabbalistic exegesis doesnt suffice in you rejecting it. .Kabbalah is very coherent. much more than eastern or gnostic mystic traditions. Some jews are actually offended when people refer ot kabbalah as mysticism.... cause in many ways its like a science) should say somehing about the magnitude of its study.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You should realize that the Hebrew scriptures are allegorical.


Ah, really? So where's the allegory in the massive list of genealogies? Where's the allegory in all of the laws on slavery? Where's the allegory in the calls for genocide? Where's the allegory in the mass rape of the survivors of genocide? Where's the allegory in hygiene habits for when you touch a woman who happens to be menstruating?

Now, I'll give that a few of the books are clearly allegorical, but they're most definitively not all allegorical.



The Jewish sages, unlike their christian theologian counterparts, always interpreted their scripturein, s allegorically.


Except when they referred to laws and "history".



Even when commenting on the exegetical nature of Torah, they speak in allegory.


Again, laws and "history"



The entire array of Rabbinic writings is thus written in a type of metaphysical code which can only be interpreted orally (that is, passed on from teacher to student)...


Hey another instance of special pleading!



An amazing explanation of the book of genesis is found in the commentrary of the 13th century Rabbi Moshe Ben Nachman (known as Nachmanides) to the Torah.


Which...you're not providing here. So...I'll have to tack your word for it?



You have to look at the details; the language used, why a certain term was used as opposed to another. anamolous grammar, letter roots, gematria etc


Anomalies in error are actually well known to have arisen from multiple sources within individual books, as we can identify multiple author groups for the Hebrew scriptures.



The fact that a man like Isaac Newton, who invented Calculus and established Newtonian mechanics found enough reason to study Torah (which he did daily for many hours. Infact, his other more secular interests took a back seat to this study..implying a greater priority in the metaphysical which is how he derived his physical principals.


Please, demonstrate a single instance of Newton actually producing anything from his study of the Torah. Just one thing. Was it calculus? Then how did Leibniz independently come up with calculus after Newton without the Torah? Was it gravitation?

Honestly, I know that Newton studied those things, but this is a fallacy of the argument from authority. Newton did a few really great things and was brilliant, but that doesn't mean all of his interests were correct or that his priorities were straight.

He also thought he could turn lead into gold, and we all know how silly that belief is.



So your cursory study of kabbalah, which requires much more than mcgregor mathers translations but a thorough understanding of Hebrew, Aramaic and kabbalistic exegesis doesnt suffice in you rejecting it.


Logical fallacy: special pleading.

Here's a crazy thing, I actually have quite a good level of comprehension proficiency with Aramaic. But that's not all that hard, as I'm a speaker of a semitic language to begin with.
But, obviously, instead of explaining things simply and even the most complicated scientific concepts, which are far more complex than any of the silliness found in the Kabbalah, can be explained simply with a long enough explanation.

Please, validate the Kabbalah with a single example.



Kabbalah is very coherent. much more than eastern or gnostic mystic traditions.


Again, prove its coherence. And no, saying I won't understand it isn't going to cut it as an excuse.



Some jews are actually offended when people refer ot kabbalah as mysticism.... cause in many ways its like a science) should say somehing about the magnitude of its study.


No, it should say that some Jews don't know what science is. Please, explain to me how Kabbalah follows the scientific method or has produced any useful knowledge for humanity.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


omg you have the number 666 for your flag total
im giving you one to change that number asap


now its 667


better
lol

Edit .. im approaching the evil number myself :O

in 7 flag im DOOM
edit on 1/13/2011 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join