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.

 

Theosophy and Christianity

page: 27
14
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 



The theoretical models you chose to argue against do not incorporate any of the more cutting edge theories such as super-string theory which has the possibility of replacing inflation.

I wasn't choosing to shed light on the inflation, merely pointing out how convoluted additions are made to the model to explain away the lack of observed data. Perhaps you would like to outline Super-string theory and M-brane theory can better explain horizon and monopole problems as well as where the additional energy comes from into the system to sustain it.


The serious flaw in the arguement was that the Big Bang was an explosion, it was an expansion of space. Nothing 'blew up' or 'exploded', this is a typical creationsist arguement from the point of ignorance.

Where is the scientific logic here that everything 'expanded' at tremendous speed out of nothing from nowhere and without a cause. There was no expansion of space, that would imply a beginning already. The 'singularity' says no space (and no known physical laws to test the situation). Is this the quality of thought and answer given to use by our mainstream?


the Bible is static while scientific theory looks further into issues for a possible answer to the question


The Bible told of the Earth being a sphere long before secular science thought of the idea and the Bible told of the Pleiades being a stable galaxy and Orion, an unstable disintegrating galaxy long before 'scientific theory' knew which way was up.

Do you have any comments about the lack of anti-matter which can fully explain the issue naturally?




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


Why do you keep banging on about the Bible, when we've already showed that the Bible was ripped off from many other traditions and texts? You feel the need to prove that the Bible is the only truth created by God; when in reality that is the farthest thing from the truth.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


so that I fully understand your position, you believe the Bible to be 100% accurate?

And if only the new testament, please explain why?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


so that I fully understand your position, you believe the Bible to be 100% accurate?

And if only the new testament, please explain why?


So far in all my searching in science, archaeology, geology, history (prophecy fulfillment) ect....no aspect of doctrine (like the genesis creation account) or certain historical events recorded have been proven to be false. Even when evidence in the past has not been available to proved a certain in a story right then, whether it being the existence of a place or a reigning king, new discoveries (in archeology) have confirmed them later on. This is why I plan to go through the evidence slowly. The idea that the evidence is overwhelming in counteracting the Biblical account is simply not true and I wish to show this particularly from the fields of science. The idea that is promoted in Theosophy and atheistic beliefs is that Christianity is somehow backward, devoid of scientific reality and holding back the progress of humankind.

People have given me flak on this thread suggesting such things so I am going to settle the score. I think that by going through the scientific evidence it will not only uphold the young-earth creationists view but by deduction it will show which belief systems spreading false scientific concepts are ultimately false themselves (New Age and Theosophy seem to be very much correlated to holding 'evolution' as a fact)

Out of the whole talk on the science behind our various phases of origin the only thing remotely associated with evolution is this natural variations that occur between kinds. This process though is not evolutionary because it is either just a rearranging (different expression) of existing data or a lose of information (mutation). The evolutionary theory is predicated on an increase in genetic complexity occurring. The whole process simply doesn't exist. If anyone cares to have a serious look into more recent discoveries into micro-biology and molecular science, there is tremendous evidence now that confirms intelligent design and shows that organic and macro-evolution are impossible. The book 'Icons of Evolution' shows very well that the supposed evidence used to support evolution is contrived and often proved a fake or similar.

The idea that someone dismisses Christianity based on science or the historical record is simply a bad conclusion. The evidence is there to support it and its divine inspiration and to show that it is Truth above every other taught religion/belief system around. The idea that I am getting snide comments about my religion that I can prove is true (given enough time of course) pisses me off, although it is mostly just a case of a lack of information from those making such comments so I try not to take it too personally. If people here want to make comments dismissing comments still then I am all to happy to show them through science and history just how shaking the foundation they stand on is.

What we are doing here first is to look honestly at holes in the conventional thinking of origins given to us as categorical truth by the media and others. If your belief system can stand up to this general scrutiny then all well and good, but if it can't maybe you'll be provoked to find something way more firm.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


Why do you keep banging on about the Bible, when we've already showed that the Bible was ripped off from many other traditions and texts? You feel the need to prove that the Bible is the only truth created by God; when in reality that is the farthest thing from the truth.


I am going through the evidence slowly from the beginning...are you afraid that the facts won't fall in your favour? Would you be happy knowing that the Truth of what you follow is devoid of reality and is offering a fairytail to you which has been actually sinisterly designed to keep you from Truth and your only hope. Would you rather not know that the foundations of Theosophy are not based on complete BS so you can remain blissful in it?

The exploration of the science of our origins will lead you to greater Truth, by becoming more knowledgeable, one way or another.

If you want to hold on to your beliefs in the evolution that Theosophy promotes though then I suggest you leave the thread because by the time I get through debunking organic and macro evolution, such beliefs are going to have no legs to stand on.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


ummm......how about this,

yes

no





Please use crayon to circle the one that best describes the answer to this question:


Do you believe the new testament to be 100% factual?

After you circle the one that best describes your answer, please tell us what word your circled.

I hate to be such a smart ass, but you never even came close to answering me.
edit on 28-8-2012 by network dude because: Augustusmasonicus is a beer hoarder. A crime of the highest level. Justice must be served!!



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic


The Bible told of the Earth being a sphere long before secular science thought of the idea


Wrong. The Bible does not claim that the earth is spherical. Ancient Hebrew cosmology held that there was a primordial ocean, and that God created land from primeval chaotic matter. The concept of earth as a planet among other planets in a solar system did not exist in the Bible.


and the Bible told of the Pleiades being a stable galaxy and Orion, an unstable disintegrating galaxy long before 'scientific theory' knew which way was up.


Wrong. The concept of galaxies is not found in the Bible. Again, the Bible writers had no concept of the existence of "outer space".



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
Perhaps you would like to outline Super-string theory and M-brane theory can better explain horizon and monopole problems as well as where the additional energy comes from into the system to sustain it.


Many comologists do not feel that there is even a monopole problem to begin with. No known physical phenomenon is unaccounted for by the absence of monopoles from Maxwell's equations. In the absence of monopoles, the magnetic field is a the relativistic manifestation of the electric field. Monopoles will bring symmetry and parity to electric and magnetic phenomenon. However, these are aesthetic considerations rather than scientific ones. If you disagree please feel free to submit an example or two of what the absence of monopoles effect is on the universe at large.

As for the horizon problem, the inflationary big bang theory which accounts for the homogeneity issues and the flatness problem as well. Guth's model predicted very small observable differences in cosmic microwave radiation that was later confirmed by satellite.


Where is the scientific logic here that everything 'expanded' at tremendous speed out of nothing from nowhere and without a cause.


That would be where M-Theory's cyclic model has the ability to explain such issues as heat death, entropy, flatness and homogeneity. As the universe cycles through each successive permutation the observable universe begins with its physical characteristics reset. While there are still issues to be resolved with any of the theories there is the prediction of observable phenomenom that can either prove or disprove each of the models.


There was no expansion of space, that would imply a beginning already.


The singularity itself can, at this time, be neither proved nor disproved, as we are unable to go further back before the Planck epoch with our current technology. Moving forward from that point it is obvious, by the cosmic background radiation, that an expansion occured as this was predicted prior to discovering this remanant of the Big Bang.


The Bible told of the Earth being a sphere long before secular science thought of the idea and the Bible told of the Pleiades being a stable galaxy and Orion, an unstable disintegrating galaxy long before 'scientific theory' knew which way was up.


Where?


Do you have any comments about the lack of anti-matter which can fully explain the issue naturally?


The baryogenesis theory, while unproven, offers a possible method of explaining the matter/anti-matter phenomenom.



edit on 28-8-2012 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


You are being ridiculous...Some invisible man in the sky isn't the source of creation...Spin is...Which I explained earlier....Theosophy is based upon the same mystery school type teachings as freemasonry originally was, that was out-casted by the same Roman Catholic church you are trying to say they are in cahoots with...How does that even remotely begin to make sense? Secondly; there is much evidence that you haven't even begin to study the occult through an unbiased filter without the veil of Christianity clouding your eyes.

The same two opposing but equal forces that created spin, which I explained, is analogous to the same creative force within all of us. The word God literally means Creator; only God can create life. Yet when the two opposing but equal forces of man and woman come together; they create life, a child.

This was the purpose of the Sun and Moon art I pointed out to you, and my use of quotes from the Gospel of Thomas.. You are the source of your own divinity; not the church...




(105) Jesus said, "He who knows the father and the mother will be called the son of a harlot."


The Sun and the Moon, have been called the father and mother in esoteric traditions for millennia.



106) Jesus said, "When you make the two one, you will become the sons of man, and when you say, 'Mountain, move away,' it will move away."








If I remember correctly, it was you who posited that angels were androgynous beings...Mind denying this now? I'll keep going...













Now does it make sense?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


YES, I believe both NT and OT are 100% factual. I have not read every aspect of the Bible and can confirm it ALL though but as a general belief I believe He kept the integrity of His Word intact.

I am still going through the secular framework on the origins of life, so I would appreciate questions on the NT to be held off from derailing the current discussion.
edit on 28-8-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 



The Bible told of the Earth being a sphere long before secular science thought of the idea



Job 26:10 He has drawn a circle on the waters at the boundary where the day and night come together.

written circa 2000 B.C


Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in:

written in the 700s BC

Both texts long before Pythagoras in 570-500 B.C


Wrong. The concept of galaxies is not found in the Bible. Again, the Bible writers had no concept of the existence of "outer space".



Job 38:31 Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades, Or loose the cords of Orion?

circa 2000 B.C

How about the concept that the Earth floats through space with nothing holding it up

Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth on nothing.


These are actually some examples of how the Bible is of Divine inspiration because even the conventional wisdom of the day did not follow the concepts yet these things were proved much later on.
edit on 28-8-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic

Wrong. The concept of galaxies is not found in the Bible. Again, the Bible writers had no concept of the existence of "outer space".



Job 38:31 Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades, Or loose the cords of Orion?

circa 2000 B.C


Neither the Pleiades or Orion are galaxies, they are constellations of stars within our own galaxy.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


Thank you. Now I understand where you are at.

Do you believe God has human weaknesses? Such as envy, greed, or malice?
and yes, I am going where you think I am with that.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Thank you for the correction...I was sloppy with the terminology. The main point of what I was referring to of divine intelligence behind the biblical writer there is still valid though. Do you have any thoughts on those verses and whether you think the Bible was trying to get across the idea of the Earth being a sphere and other astronomical concepts against the conventional wisdom as well though?
edit on 28-8-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


Thank you. Now I understand where you are at.

Do you believe God has human weaknesses? Such as envy, greed, or malice?
and yes, I am going where you think I am with that.


I think God has human like emotions but He isn't able to sin. He doesn't act out of vengeance or spite ect...I think God longs for His creation to find, recognize and know Him personally because He desires for us to form a close relationship with Him above everything else. You might find some of those adjectives in the Bible somewhere. If so, they would probably describe a situation of longing.

We have God request Abraham to go sacrifice his son Isaac as a typology of the kinds of emotions God the Father would be going through sending His only Son into the world knowing He was sent to be a living sacrifice. Oh course God was never going to let Abraham kill his promised son but the scenario is real to Abraham and through it we can learn that the heart of God is much like our own. I think this is also what it means to be 'made in God's image', having emotions is one aspect of it. Is sadness or anger a weakness....maybe there is a bit of a fine line between what a godly emotion is and one that isn't appropriate. God wants us to learn this aspect about Him, to understand His actions and to see the intent behind it.

Do you have any thoughts on this framework of going through the science behind our origins though to see if various belief systems are compatible with what is observed and tested? Is it not important to know that a god/divine concept confined to creation (matter) could not have explained our existence? I think it is
edit on 28-8-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
The main point of what I was referring to of divine intelligence behind the biblical writer there is still valid though. Do you have any thoughts on those verses and whether you think the Bible was trying to get across the idea of the Earth being a sphere and other astronomical concepts against the conventional wisdom as well though?


Being that the original word used in the Hebrew texts was 'gwj' which has been translated by Stadleman in 1970 to roughly mean 'horizon' I would have to say no. This can be further understood as in Jobs 26:10 and 26:14 the same word is used to mean both the horizon (or possibly the terminator line) and to mean both the vault of heaven as well as the Earth.

A good source for accurate Bible translations from the original Hebrew and unburdened by the errors of later translations is The Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
I think God has human like emotions but He isn't able to sin. He doesn't act out of vengeance or spite ect...You might find some of those adjectives in the Bible somewhere. If so, they would probably describe a situation of longing.



Ezekiel 25:17 KJV And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them.


It sure sounds like God is about to get all Samuel L. Jackson on someone's a**.

Not exactly what I would term a 'longing' situation.




edit on 28-8-2012 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


It is difficult to take you seriously when you base your "facts" on the english translation of a storybook bastardized by numerous influences throughout the past 1500 years.
If we are to believe the origin date of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 150 BCE – 70 CE, then that would force us to believe the carbon dating of these scrolls. If carbon dating is sufficient for these, then why would the carbon dating of everything, say, 5-10,000 yrs. old not hold up to your scrutiny?



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 



In the absence of monopoles, the magnetic field is a the relativistic manifestation of the electric field. Monopoles will bring symmetry and parity to electric and magnetic phenomenon. However, these are aesthetic considerations rather than scientific ones.


For me, I don't know the science enough to say whether it is aesthetic or a more fundamental issue. From what I have read, the tremendous heat thought to have happened in the big bang suggests monopoles would be created in that process. The line of argument I am trying to raise is the idea of how much heat was actually present. I have a couple of lines of argument that indicate a cooler 'creation' event (support of some details of day 2 in Genesis) which I would like to have contrasted with the high heat in the traditional big bang model. You say many cosmologist don't think the monopoles are an issue, well, many cosmologists also do think it is an issue as well.

Another key thought that I am trying to get across with this look at the cosmology is that the science on the issue is far from solved because the thought that was going out on this thread was that the science across many fields were all agreeing with each other. By looking at each of these fields closer I hope to show that this idea that everything the mainstream suggests that things are locked away already as fact is simply not the case. At the moment we are discussing a few different models around the big bang theory, some cyclic, some highly speculative (string-theory still mostly theoretical). The idea that science has agreed on a particular model, can show how all observations and lack of observations are explained in the model through naturalistic means purely and have high confidence to make out to the public it is a fact is deceitful. We are up to 2012 and science is still far from putting together a complete and coherent model to rule out the supernatural source form the picture.

Would you agree with that assessment, that each model has its pros and cons, there are still many major issues to be resolved and nothing unifying is set in stone at this stage?

I am somewhat familiar with the cyclic model, that is why I said in the heat death scenario that we would then be on a shrinking universe. My readings on the cyclic model suggest that each expansion get bigger and bigger implying that there is a beginning, that the system is not infinite or eternal.


This is a discussion that picks up on the topic of alternative models in a book called, 'The Case for a Creator' (2004) in Chapter 5 with an investigative journalist (Lee Strobel) interviewing William Lane Craig .


"Well, several problems with the Oscillating Model have been well known for decades," he replied. "For one thing, it contradicts the known laws of physics. Theorems by Hawking and Penrose show that as long as the universe is governed by general relativity, the existence of an initial singularity-or beginning-is inevitable, and that it's impossible to pass through a singularity to a subsequent state. And there's no known physics that could reverse a contracting universe and
suddenly make it bounce before it hits the singularity. The whole theory was simply a theoretical abstraction. Physics never supported it.

"Another problem is that in order for the universe to oscillate, it has to contract at some point. For this to happen, the universe would have to be dense enough to generate sufficient gravity that would eventually slow its expansion to a halt and then, with increasing rapidity, contract it into a big crunch. But estimates have consistently indicated that the universe is far below the density needed to contract, even when you include not only its luminous matter, but also all of the invisible dark matter as well.

"Recent tests, run by five different laboratories in 1998, calculated a ninety-five-percent certainty that the universe will not contract, but that it will expand forever. In fact, in a completely unexpected development, the studies indicated that the expansion is not decelerating, but it's actually accelerating. This really puts the nails in the coffin for the Oscillating Model.
....
"-that the Oscillating Model itself implies the beginning of the universe which its proponents sought to avoid. That's right," Craig said.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 

cont-

"But," I pointed out, "permutations of his theory are being proposed even today." I removed a newspaper article from my briefcase and read the headline to Craig: Princeton Physicist Offers Theory of Cyclic Universe.

"This cosmologist says the Big Bang is not the beginning of time but a bridge to a pre-existing era," I said. "He says the universe undergoes an endless sequence of cycles in which it contracts with a big crunch and reemerges in an expanding Big Bang, with trillions of years of evolution in between. He says mysterious `dark energy' first pushes the universe apart at an accelerating rate, but then it changes its character and causes it to contract and then rebound in cycle after cycle."

Craig was familiar with the concept. "This model is based on a certain version of string theory, which is an alternative to the standard quark model of particle physics," he explained.

"The scenario postulates that our universe is a three-dimensional membrane in a five-dimensional space, and that there's another three dimensional membrane which is in an eternal cycle of approaching our membrane and colliding with it. When this happens, it supposedly causes an expansion of our universe from the point of collision. Then our universe retreats and repeats the cycle again, and on and on.

"The idea is that this five-dimensional universe is eternal and beginningless. So you have a cyclic model of our universe that is expanding, but nevertheless this larger dimensional universe as a whole is eternal."

Though difficult to conceptualize, this idea had a certain amount of appeal. "What do you think of this model?" I asked.

"Well, this isn't even a model, it's just sort of a scenario, because it hasn't been developed.
The equations for string theory haven't even all been stated yet, much less solved. So this is extremely speculative and uncertain. But let's consider it on its merits," he said.

"This cyclic scenario is plagued with problems. For one thing, it is inconsistent with the very string theory it's based on! Nobody has been able to solve that problem. Moreover, this is simply the five-dimensional equivalent of a three-dimensional oscillating universe. As such, it faces many of the same problems that the old oscillating model did.

"But more interesting is that in 2001, inflation theorist Alan Guth and two other physicists wrote an article on how inflation is not past eternal. They were able to generalize their results to show that they were also applicable to multidimensional models, like the one in this newspaper article. So it turns out that even the cyclical model in five dimensions has to have a beginning."


From this exchange, it seems like the cyclic model and string theory have some very serious problems to deal with at least from that time of writing in 2004. Has there been significant changes in solving those problems outlined in that time?



The baryogenesis theory, while unproven, offers a possible method of explaining the matter/anti-matter phenomenom.

Yes, it provides a possible escape but nowhere near proven, it is a question of whether the explanations are reasonable enough to the person holding purely naturalistic beliefs. Whenever an addition or variation is made to the model you have to question whether it is reasonable to make it or if something higher is at work here.

What are your thoughts on the lack of population III stars and the impacts on the naturalistic model from this?


edit on 29-8-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join