It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science fails to exclude God

page: 40
29
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
It is unwise to insist upon a literal interpretation of figurative statements of which the inaccuracy may, at any moment, be rendered evident by the progress of scientific discovery; but the fundamental propositions of religion, so far from having anything to fear from the discoveries of science, are strengthened and ennobled by being brought into harmony with those discoveries. And it is only when the religious sentiment shall have been enlightened by its union with scientific truth that religious belief, thus rendered invulnerable to the attacks of skepticism, will take the place of skepticism in the minds and hearts of men.

www.spiritwritings.com...

edit on 19-7-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


The Bible also tells us that the world was created in six days, and fixes the epoch of this creation at about 4000 years before the Christian era. Previously to that period the earth did not exist. At that period it was produced out of nothing. Such is the formal declaration of the sacred text, yet science, positive, inexorable steps in with proof to the contrary. The history of the formation of the globe is written in indestructible characters in the worlds of fossils, proving beyond the possibility of denial that the six days of the creation are successive periods, each of which may have been of millions of ages. This is not a mere matter of statement or of opinion. It is a fact as incontestably certain as is the motion of the earth, and one that theology itself can no longer refuse to admit, although this admission furnishes another example of the errors into which we are led by attributing literal truth to language which is often of a figurative nature. Are we therefore to conclude that the Bible is a mere tissue of errors? No; but we must admit that men have erred in their method of interpreting it.
edit on 19-7-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


Here is some thought for food

edit on 19-7-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


You wrote:

["People who dont want to believe in God usually are the people who blamed god for their ugly looks, lack of friends, money, or real joy. To get back at their twisted version of God they deny him...lol"]

By using the same kind of homebrewed logic.

I who believe in the flying spaghetti monster (admittedly only since last week and only on probation.....but it functions retro-actively) am rich, handsome, intelligent, have very good friends and am at peace with existence. So it pays to be a pastafarian.

Quote: ["Believers: Know this is the time. There will many people who boast about their ignorance."]

And as usual 'ignorance' is defined as disagreeing with one or the other type of the christianities. You guys show a remakable restraint, when it comes to delusions of grandeur. It can hardly be seen.

Quote: ["Your job is not to convert them. Worry about yourself."]

I'll second that.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


You wrote:

["The history of the formation of the globe is written in indestructible characters in the worlds of fossils, proving beyond the possibility of denial that the six days of the creation are successive periods, each of which may have been of millions of ages. This is not a mere matter of statement or of opinion."]

No, the scientific part is probably correct, and by turning the whole argument upside down you try to surf on it.

Quote: ["It is a fact as incontestably certain as is the motion of the earth, and one that theology itself can no longer refuse to admit, although this admission furnishes another example of the errors into which we are led by attributing literal truth to language which is often of a figurative nature."]

Everybody can ofcourse see the direct connection between the earth's movement and theology, not least after applying symbolic interpretations along the process. There can't possibly be anyone NOT seeing this.

Quote: ["Are we therefore to conclude that the Bible is a mere tissue of errors? No; but we must admit that men have erred in their method of interpreting it"]

And maybe not for the last time. But it was a nice try.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





PS: I also don't blame unicorns for stuff...


You would if a rhino gord you in the buttocks.

Or stamped out your campfire.
edit on 20-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 




Presently not in a standard empirical scientific way, no. But that's what I'm saying also. Are you now resorting to filling knowledge gaps with theist speculations?


Yes i am ( But i am not saying god is a person).
I am allowed to have thoughts about what i read. I am also allowed to express my thoughts. Call it a way to fill the missing gaps. But my thoughts can easily be replaced if there are facts that can fill the gaps.

I am very flexible






Quote: ["Mathematically: How far is it from 1 to 0 (the end)?"]

Unless one uses irrational or imaginary numbers (as they are defined in mathematics, where they exist and are functional, and not to be confused with other uses of the concepts irrational or imaginary), it is 1.


I was hoping you were going to bring up Planck epoch or something like that since you are a scientist?
Max Planck would not have agree with your answer. We talked about him earlier as well.





Quote: [" You say its relative to suppose that a absolute vacuum or a relative vacuum exists."]

I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Could you please rephrase it, before I answer.


This is what you said:




We also don't know, if this trans-cosmic existence is an absolute vacuum, or a relative vacuum, though it's reasonable to suppose that it's relative.


Doesn't this mean you are speculating?



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 





I am very flexible


Definetly a quality I've noticed. And one that is easily admired.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


You wrote:

["Yes i am ( But i am not saying god is a person)."]

Personally I think it is a more realistic approach, not making up details prematurely.

Quote: ["I am allowed to have thoughts about what i read. I am also allowed to express my thoughts. Call it a way to fill the missing gaps."]

Blind faith, speculation, belief, working hypothesis, hypothesis, theory, tested theory...all presented in this rising degree of approximate truth and under free speech and met there. Ofcourse no objections.

Quote: ["But my thoughts can easily be replaced if there are facts that can fill the gaps."]

Unfortunately not everybody can do that, so you really have a good thing there.

Quote: ["I was hoping you were going to bring up Planck epoch or something like that since you are a scientist? Max Planck would not have agree with your answer. We talked about him earlier as well."]

My highest eduction was in social sciences, so I can't be said to be more than a well-informed lay-person concerning hard science. As to 0 to 1, it wasn't clear, what perspective you wanted.

Sure. I speculate a lot, and construct all kinds of scenarios. From the available data and methods one can form constellations, patterns, structures in different combinations. That or those with the highest 'truth' probabilities I use as working hypothesis and follow them up by searching further information. On occasion it has taken me up to 15 years to refine an idea to something I trust. It's intellectual fun.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
It is unwise to insist upon a literal interpretation of figurative statements of which the inaccuracy may, at any moment, be rendered evident by the progress of scientific discovery; but the fundamental propositions of religion, so far from having anything to fear from the discoveries of science, are strengthened and ennobled by being brought into harmony with those discoveries. And it is only when the religious sentiment shall have been enlightened by its union with scientific truth that religious belief, thus rendered invulnerable to the attacks of skepticism, will take the place of skepticism in the minds and hearts of men.

www.spiritwritings.com...

edit on 19-7-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


The Bible also tells us that the world was created in six days, and fixes the epoch of this creation at about 4000 years before the Christian era. Previously to that period the earth did not exist. At that period it was produced out of nothing. Such is the formal declaration of the sacred text, yet science, positive, inexorable steps in with proof to the contrary. The history of the formation of the globe is written in indestructible characters in the worlds of fossils, proving beyond the possibility of denial that the six days of the creation are successive periods, each of which may have been of millions of ages. This is not a mere matter of statement or of opinion. It is a fact as incontestably certain as is the motion of the earth, and one that theology itself can no longer refuse to admit, although this admission furnishes another example of the errors into which we are led by attributing literal truth to language which is often of a figurative nature. Are we therefore to conclude that the Bible is a mere tissue of errors? No; but we must admit that men have erred in their method of interpreting it.
edit on 19-7-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)




The only thing this type of nonsense can help us understand is how and why charlatans like Blavatsky et al make up imaginary friends or "channell" head noises from their own subconscious mind and delude themselves that it must contain knowledge.

That it might legitimise on some way a book of nonsense or some imaginary six days and invisible spaghetti monsters using magic is complete unfounded opinion. A rather superstitious and naive opinion at that. Though the scientific part seems to no doubt substantiate the commonly accepted and obvious fact of evolution.


There are as many interpretations of this primitive superstitious book as there are charlatans. What they seem to have in common is the requirement to completely abandon common sense. Using known facts and common sense it is easy to see the truth of the bible. Nonsensical fairy stories for the easily fooled.

Strange that one academic off shoot of clergy and the church calls themselves biblical "scholars", as if to infer in some way the word "scholar" makes it sound legitimate. There is no better definition of an oxymoron. Perhaps "pseudo scholar" could be more appropriate. Really all they seem for most part is a group of brainwashed followers who try to prove fables. Historically speaking, in a quite dishonest way also. A very good example of why education and intelligence don't always mean the same thing. They have about the same legitimacy and relevance that a " Marvel Comic Book Scholar" would have. Perhaps less than that.



edit on 20-7-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
I am a metaphysicist, actually SOMEWHAT having the same direction as theists.

So I would be very glad, if science eventually could find evidence for something trans-cosmic (or 'super-natural') and even make out the details. I'm just not so impatient, that I throw out the useful tool of rational reasoning and invent metaphysical postulates in the meantime.


Fair enough. Nothing wrong with being skeptic or even challenging certain claims. However, when doing so I don't think it's fair for anyone to say that either side is a fairy tale, since neither side really has any hard core evidence to prove that it is true or false. Thanks for clarifying your position.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


You wrote:

["Fair enough. Nothing wrong with being skeptic or even challenging certain claims. However, when doing so I don't think it's fair for anyone to say that either side is a fairy tale, since neither side really has any hard core evidence to prove that it is true or false."]

You put up a situation concerning ultimate 'truth' which gives the options of either it's there or it isn't. And as no-one (except fanatics) claim to have found ultimate truth, you arrive at a relativistic position of: Then everything is/can be true.

As I've said many times before: Apply that philosophy to gravity, and ignore it as being one reality-option amongst many. Start from a kitchen-chair, there's no need to hurt yourself.

(This example refers to claims of walking on water. Part of a fairytale, or mythology as I prefer to call it).



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





As to 0 to 1, it wasn't clear, what perspective you wanted.


From this perspective your answer is right. But i asked what the distance was from 1 to 0 (The end), that is not the same thing.
The distance from 0 to 1 is not = to the distance between 1 and 0. Because your observation reference is at a different location. From 0 you can observe 1. But from 1 you can not observe 0 (the end).

If you were to measure the length of our universe from your location (1) to 0 (the end of our cosmic - universe). What would the exact distance be?

It would be the same as trying to find the exact decimal number that 1 has to change in order to become 0 in the end.

By this you will know two things. 1, Our universe is expanding. 2, Our universe is infinite.

Only one of these are right.

Our universe is expanding so only number 1 can be right. Our universe can not be infinite. Our cosmic - universe can only be a finite universe within a infinite universe.

This also explains why the distance from 1 to 0 is infinite. Our universe is a compressed density which is expanding and becoming thinner. This also results in a faster expansion, which is also confirmed by science.

Do you agree to any of this?



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


This direction seems interesting, but unfortunately I'm short of time presently building a new house, so as the subject probably would turn out to be extensive, and I would need to re-acquaint myself with much of the material, I must refrain from going further for the time being.

There will most likely be later possibilities to take it up again.



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Excellent post as usual!

Just a few things I'd like to add - when science considers God in the equation of things then only then the picture or for that matter the equation not ONLY becomes complete but simply becomes elegant!

It answers the most important question of all! WHY?

Science can show us the how, what, where and when but can't provide a satisfactory answer to WHY?

Why do we exist?

Why do atoms exist?

Why do colors exist?

Why is there a spiritual side of man - a yearning to touch the "face" of God?

Why do such wonderful attributes as Love, Mercy, Kindness, Happiness, Tenderness, etc exist?

At the same time sadness and pain exist (for now) - why do such emotions exist?

Without considering God - science - no matter how many time it attempts to explain these will always come short.

To unbelievers the answer and meaning is skin deep - a product of "scientific chance" - "scientific accident" nothing more nothing less - superficial.

But to believers - a purposeful life.


s&f



edit on 23-7-2011 by edmc^2 because: few things to add



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Science can tell us many things, it can not tell us what ought to be done.

Arthur Edington



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


im thinking in the same frame of mind as you, but the other way round. i personly dont beleive in a god, other people can beleive what they want. but why does every one try to force their veiws on everyone else??



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DaveNorris
 


Dave I think it really only appears that way on both sides. I know I never hold a gun to anyones head and always feel that I'm on the defensive. If I seem to attack it's always because I feel offended or that I need to show that evrything you can believe or disbelieve can be made to sound ridculous. So why does any one waste their time trying to make any thing sound ridiculous. It's all of fairytale quality because we don't know anything subjectively.
Objectively ? I do know.
edit on 1-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


"Why" is a very human response. We want to understand and know that there's some purpose to it all. After all, there's purpose behind everything we do. The universe "is", it doesn't have to have a "why". A rock is a rock, we can understand why they form but there's no "reason" or "motivation" for them being there. They are merely a by product of a geological processes, not part of some great mystery or master plan.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 





So why does any one waste their time trying to make any thing sound ridiculous. It's all of fairytale quality because we don't know anything subjectively.
Objectively ? I do know.


You're mixing up "subjectively" and "objectively"





ob·jec·tive/əbˈjektiv/
Adjective: (of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.





sub·jec·tive/səbˈjektiv/
Adjective: Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.


Objectively, you don't have a clue...just like the rest of us. But subjectively, you believe to know, with an emphasis on BELIEVE.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You are right X I thank you.


I wonder if you and I can reach an agreement at this point. At least on the matter of ridicule. Would it be possible for us to negate the ridicule of each others .......... Well basically we are ridiculing each others lives when you get down tto brass tax. I would love not to see any more ridicule from you. I guarantee I don't like ridiculing yours. Possible ? I really don't like the hate it brings me. I'm not backing down but would welcome a truce of some sort. I don't expect you to give up your quest. I'm just positive you can do it without ridicule. As I know I can also.




edit on 1-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You are right X I thank you.


I wonder if you and I can reach an agreement at this point. At least on the matter of ridicule. Would it be possible for us to negate the ridicule of each others .......... Well basically we are ridiculing each others lives when you get down tto brass tax. I would love not to see any more ridicule from you. I guarantee I don't like ridiculing yours. Possible ? I really don't like the hate it brings me. I'm not backing down but would welcome a truce of some sort. I don't expect you to give up your quest. I'm just positive you can do it without ridicule. As I know I can also.




edit on 1-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


LOL - a creationist surrender? Randy, no offense meant at all, but your constant pushing of religion over science doesn't give you an equal voice. Each time you shout louder, you loose credibility. Try to actually read what you argue against, you'll be in a far more knowledgable position to do so...

Peace!



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join