Did Noahs Arc Really Happen

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Do a google search? LOL. Okay, that’s your reference? It sounds like you formed an OPINION. Far as I know, string theory is still seriously studied. I know what it is. I have picked up a book or two. I have never read anything that suggested it is “dead” or hit a dead end. And there is a reason why there is zero experimental evidence. I’m curious; where did you earn your physics degree?
[/quote]

It’s just so broadly excepted by everyone in the field now, I don’t think a couple of references would do it justice. No doubt, there are those still trying to “save it”, just like I’m sure there was a lot of heartbreak by the alchemists when if was shown that you couldn’t turn lead into gold.

I don’t want this to turn into an ad hominem argument so I’m a little leery about giving you “credentials” as you’re just as likely as not to either attack them or dismiss them since you seem to already have your mind made up.

The way science works, is you need to prove something, or at least show evidence for it, to have your idea taken seriously. Can you present a single shred of evidence for string theory? Again, history has shown us a number of elegant, complete, and ultimately unsuccessful “systems”.

How did we get here from Noah’s Ark?[/quote]

Atheists jumped in mocked us and said there is no God. These things always go down this path when that is introduced.[/quote]

I think they mocked the Bible - or more accurately, some group’s interpretation of the Bible. Now I’m sure you have an agenda.[/quote]

Of course I do, and you don’t? Your basically telling me that I should take on these theories and the people who came up with them 'cause they’re really smart. That’s an agenda, wouldn’t you say?

203

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I haven’t run across any theists in the theoretical physicist that are theist, though I am sure some exist. It seems that many of them go into it as a means to disprove the existence of God. As if haunted by the question itself.
I agree searching for a unifying theory isn’t necessarily a mission to disprove the first cause, but I just see obvious things that their missing when they report things like null theory or interference patterns. Rather than report the facts they use incomplete examples as proof of randomness and it’s not.
I don’t think we’ve butchered these theories at least I have strove to report them as they are. If I got something wrong, please correct me. I don’t need a Phd to understand the concepts, the math behind it, yes, but not the concepts. I am interested in philosophy, what I need to do my job is the bottom line from the sciences. Those are my tools. I need to understand the concepts to make sure the conclusions aren’t made up, but I don’t necessarily need the intricacies. However, if I do become a millionaire for some reason I would love to study these disciplines in far greater detail…I’d like to be the only theoretical physicist and philosopher in the 1000 lb club. [/quote]

I think you’re seeing what you want to see or, you are paying attention to those that attempt to highjack the science with their agenda. I have seen many a physicist acknowledge the “order” to things. Even considering “randomness”, the universe appears to follow certain laws. Life as we know it exists within a very narrow range of variables. And there are many scientists that acknowledge this. You might even label their quest an attempt to understand God as much as anything.

And by the way, we are talking the brightest people on the planet. Period. People who reach a relatively early peak (not many are part of discoveries in their later years). It’s not a field of fame or riches. I’m sure they went into their field with a bit more than just a desire to disprove God. Sounds like you have an agenda.

If we ever do unravel the mysteries of how it all began, it does not disprove the notion of “God”. Would you suggest that the first amateur Vulcanist sought to unravel the mysteries of the Volacano with the sole purpose of diproving God?

Finally, “you” see “obvious” things the brightest people in the world are “missing”. I salute you sir. You are either among them and superior, or delusional. No disprespect or flame - just an observation.[/quote]

What does rank have to do with anything? If someone is of higher stature and misses an obvious point, does their stature make that point actually not exist? I am neither better or worse, smarter or dumber. I take what I observe and report on it, if somebody brilliant misses a point, is it still not a point?
Scientists such as Hawking or Kruass who specifically say that they are trying to put forth a view of the universe “…where we don’t need God”. That’s pretty direct agenda.
I am not comparing myself to anyone, it’s not important to do so. They are atheists trying to disprove God with their science. I, as a theist have to prove them wrong. I am not afraid to take on anybody on the topic, brilliant or not.
I am just a regular dude, who is interested in answers to the big questions. I have a passion for philosophy. My arguments are not my own, they are all borrowed from many places.[/quote]

To think a laymen such as yourself can take exception to anything on the subject of PHYSICS with a group of PHYSICISTS is delusional. That you think the most brilliant minds in the world are missing something that you are not, is delusional.

204

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

I’m not sure people are denying God per se. I think most people’s problem, mine included, is religion. [/quote]

Then maybe it would serve you well to look within…and beyond religion. You start doing the throw the baby out with the bathwater thing and you lose. Not God.[quote]

Surely the God you describe as being outside space, energy, matter, time, etc., is not a jealous petty God as described in various relgious texts. When I read those texts, I see man, not God. [/quote]

I’m not being antagonistic when I say this but I hesitate to believe you when you say read religious texts. My suspicion is you give lip service to reading these texts.

On the other hand certain passages of Scripture will indeed describe God in human terms. How else would you expect it to appear when indeed a human scribe had to put the words in a human language so that humans could comprehend it? Does that somehow absolve you of listening to and learning about your Creator?[quote]

Those traits are hallmarks of (in)humanity. And those traits and outright hypocracies are impossible to ignore by many of us. [/quote]

Not when read in context.[quote]

My feeling is that God does not require an emissary, a spokesperson or an author. [/quote]

How can you trust your “feelings” when by your own admission they are tainted by presuppositions that God has done an inadequate job of revealing Himself to you? Your feelings can be manipulated. Your feelings can’t necessarily become arbiters of Truth if you have shackled them so as to exclude Him.[quote]

I for one don’t deny “God”, in the sense of a first cause, a prime mover, an architect, a spark of light in all of us - I’m just a firm skeptic of the God described by people not far removed from living in caves. [/quote]

You might do just as well if not better to be a firm skeptic of those who are well removed from living in caves that tell you in their pseudo-infinite wisdom that God can be nothing more than a first cause, a prime mover, and architect.[quote]

But I do respect your right to believe and follow whatever religion you desire as it must bring you comfort…[/quote]

It may or may not have to do with comfort. However, your statement can easily be reversed: “I do respect your right to believe and follow whatever non-religion you desire as it must bring you comfort.” The condescending “comfort” deal works both ways.

You see…you really don’t somehow gain a superior philosophical position because you think you claim the lack of a “crutch” to get you through the day…or through your life on this earth - which incidentally has no meaning whatsoever if it precludes a Creator or a responsibility to one.[quote]

but I am also mindful of the discrimination, war and destruction that has been caused by it.
[/quote]

If you think about it you have no need to be mindful of discrimination, war, and destruction without the belief in a Creator who is the antithesis of those “evils”. With your philosophy those attributes of Man become…Natural. You can’t condemn them; they are simply basic instincts inherited from your simian ancestors. There is no Good. There is no Evil. There is no Right. There is no Wrong. Why lobby for or against those things? They have been rendered meaningless.
[/quote]

I have no desire to debate with you - I simply do not care. I have heard your arguments before, and I am now reading your assumptions about me. I simply do not care. However, I will give you the respect of one decent reply:

  1. I didn’t throw the baby out with the bath water. You do not know what I believe. You do not even know how I feel about the scripture or any book for that matter. What I think, know and feel on this subject cannot be intelligently discussed or debated within the confines of this medium;

  2. Lip service? I am a philalethian at heart sir. I have read the bible as well as apocryphal works, and other religious texts. I am familiar with how the bible was put together. I have studied other religions. I have not dismissed anything in my personal search for truth;

  3. You accept that a human scribe was directly translating the creator. I do not. No amount of debate will resolve that. However, if you believe like I do that a spark of the divine exists within us all, then you will understand that I do not wholesale reject scripture, or other religious texts for that matter;

  4. I am not tainted as you say by any presuppositions. You are relying upon the bible as the unadulterated word of God. I do not. Therefore, your argument is circular. And therefore, God has not as you say, done a poor job of revealing himself to me. I could just as easily say he has failed you because you accept a book that I do not. :);

  5. I do not need anyone to tell me what God is. I have arrived at my personal opinions on that subject as have you. I do not need guidance from a scientist, a preacher, priest or you. I am sure - and I hope - as I acquire even greater wisdom, my personal understanding will change and grow with whatever knowledge I continue to gather;

  6. I didn’t mean to be condescending. Thank you for respecting my right to believe that truth with which I am comfortable - even though I doubt you were sincere. I was;

  7. I never claimed a superior philosophical position. Do you and your position have an inferiority complex? Neither did I deny God, a creator, etc.;

  8. Your closing paragraph is just a conclusion based on assumptions which I have refuted above. Again, a full and fair treatment of our respective positions cannot be done here.
    But I hope I at least gave you pause before you make your next assumption about what I know, believe or feel.

206

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
…Now I’m sure you have an agenda.[/quote]

Don’t fool yourself, EVERYONE has an agenda.[/quote]

mine is to form a harem

207

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I quoted you and directly responded to what you said you knew, believed, and felt.[/quote]

You may have quoted me, but your response was pregnant with as many false assumptions to the point of rendering your reply pretty meaningless :slight_smile: I wish I could say I enjoyed the exchange. I love the topic, as well as physics, and theoretical physics. Unfortunately, trying to discuss it here leads to frustration so I won’t try. These things are best discussed over a beer.

208

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
…Now I’m sure you have an agenda.[/quote]

Don’t fool yourself, EVERYONE has an agenda.[/quote]

mine is to form a harem[/quote]

That sir, is a worthy agenda.

209

[quote]horsepuss wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]horsepuss wrote:

so would time exist without poeple to measure it.
[/quote]

Well, yeah, but it wouldn’t mean much to us…[/quote]

I thought about this question after I posted it and thought to myself what a stupid fucking question.Its just like the question about wether or not a tree in the woods would make a noise if it fell and no one was around to hear it. [/quote]

That is a ko-an.

It is not meant to have a definitive answer, it is meant to make you question thing you take for granted.

It is a philosophical tool and if you use it the wrong way it is like trying to loosen a screw witzh a hammer, it is hardly tehe hammers fault if you do not know how it is meant to be used.

210

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I haven’t run across any theists in the theoretical physicist that are theist, though I am sure some exist. It seems that many of them go into it as a means to disprove the existence of God. As if haunted by the question itself.
I agree searching for a unifying theory isn’t necessarily a mission to disprove the first cause, but I just see obvious things that their missing when they report things like null theory or interference patterns. Rather than report the facts they use incomplete examples as proof of randomness and it’s not.
I don’t think we’ve butchered these theories at least I have strove to report them as they are. If I got something wrong, please correct me. I don’t need a Phd to understand the concepts, the math behind it, yes, but not the concepts. I am interested in philosophy, what I need to do my job is the bottom line from the sciences. Those are my tools. I need to understand the concepts to make sure the conclusions aren’t made up, but I don’t necessarily need the intricacies. However, if I do become a millionaire for some reason I would love to study these disciplines in far greater detail…I’d like to be the only theoretical physicist and philosopher in the 1000 lb club. [/quote]

I think you’re seeing what you want to see or, you are paying attention to those that attempt to highjack the science with their agenda. I have seen many a physicist acknowledge the “order” to things. Even considering “randomness”, the universe appears to follow certain laws. Life as we know it exists within a very narrow range of variables. And there are many scientists that acknowledge this. You might even label their quest an attempt to understand God as much as anything.

And by the way, we are talking the brightest people on the planet. Period. People who reach a relatively early peak (not many are part of discoveries in their later years). It’s not a field of fame or riches. I’m sure they went into their field with a bit more than just a desire to disprove God. Sounds like you have an agenda.

If we ever do unravel the mysteries of how it all began, it does not disprove the notion of “God”. Would you suggest that the first amateur Vulcanist sought to unravel the mysteries of the Volacano with the sole purpose of diproving God?

Finally, “you” see “obvious” things the brightest people in the world are “missing”. I salute you sir. You are either among them and superior, or delusional. No disprespect or flame - just an observation.[/quote]

What does rank have to do with anything? If someone is of higher stature and misses an obvious point, does their stature make that point actually not exist? I am neither better or worse, smarter or dumber. I take what I observe and report on it, if somebody brilliant misses a point, is it still not a point?
Scientists such as Hawking or Kruass who specifically say that they are trying to put forth a view of the universe “…where we don’t need God”. That’s pretty direct agenda.
I am not comparing myself to anyone, it’s not important to do so. They are atheists trying to disprove God with their science. I, as a theist have to prove them wrong. I am not afraid to take on anybody on the topic, brilliant or not.
I am just a regular dude, who is interested in answers to the big questions. I have a passion for philosophy. My arguments are not my own, they are all borrowed from many places.[/quote]

To think a laymen such as yourself can take exception to anything on the subject of PHYSICS with a group of PHYSICISTS is delusional. That you think the most brilliant minds in the world are missing something that you are not, is delusional. [/quote]

I am not discussing physics with physicists, you can’t fucking read obviously. I haven’t done that and I won’t. I didn’t say they miss the objects of physics, I am saying that extrapolating the results of physics to prove God doesn’t exist is not accurate. There’s more to it than that. I don’t argue with physicists, to think I was doing anything of the sort is delusional. I use their results, I don’t argue their results are incorrect. I cannot imagine where the fuck you got that idea.
Rather than mock me, why don’t you prove me wrong? All my arguments are out there for all to see. While your at it, why don’t you copy and paste for me any statement I made where I said the results of physicists are wrong.

211

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I haven’t run across any theists in the theoretical physicist that are theist, though I am sure some exist. It seems that many of them go into it as a means to disprove the existence of God. As if haunted by the question itself.
I agree searching for a unifying theory isn’t necessarily a mission to disprove the first cause, but I just see obvious things that their missing when they report things like null theory or interference patterns. Rather than report the facts they use incomplete examples as proof of randomness and it’s not.
I don’t think we’ve butchered these theories at least I have strove to report them as they are. If I got something wrong, please correct me. I don’t need a Phd to understand the concepts, the math behind it, yes, but not the concepts. I am interested in philosophy, what I need to do my job is the bottom line from the sciences. Those are my tools. I need to understand the concepts to make sure the conclusions aren’t made up, but I don’t necessarily need the intricacies. However, if I do become a millionaire for some reason I would love to study these disciplines in far greater detail…I’d like to be the only theoretical physicist and philosopher in the 1000 lb club. [/quote]

I think you’re seeing what you want to see or, you are paying attention to those that attempt to highjack the science with their agenda. I have seen many a physicist acknowledge the “order” to things. Even considering “randomness”, the universe appears to follow certain laws. Life as we know it exists within a very narrow range of variables. And there are many scientists that acknowledge this. You might even label their quest an attempt to understand God as much as anything.

And by the way, we are talking the brightest people on the planet. Period. People who reach a relatively early peak (not many are part of discoveries in their later years). It’s not a field of fame or riches. I’m sure they went into their field with a bit more than just a desire to disprove God. Sounds like you have an agenda.

If we ever do unravel the mysteries of how it all began, it does not disprove the notion of “God”. Would you suggest that the first amateur Vulcanist sought to unravel the mysteries of the Volacano with the sole purpose of diproving God?

Finally, “you” see “obvious” things the brightest people in the world are “missing”. I salute you sir. You are either among them and superior, or delusional. No disprespect or flame - just an observation.[/quote]

What does rank have to do with anything? If someone is of higher stature and misses an obvious point, does their stature make that point actually not exist? I am neither better or worse, smarter or dumber. I take what I observe and report on it, if somebody brilliant misses a point, is it still not a point?
Scientists such as Hawking or Kruass who specifically say that they are trying to put forth a view of the universe “…where we don’t need God”. That’s pretty direct agenda.
I am not comparing myself to anyone, it’s not important to do so. They are atheists trying to disprove God with their science. I, as a theist have to prove them wrong. I am not afraid to take on anybody on the topic, brilliant or not.
I am just a regular dude, who is interested in answers to the big questions. I have a passion for philosophy. My arguments are not my own, they are all borrowed from many places.[/quote]

To think a laymen such as yourself can take exception to anything on the subject of PHYSICS with a group of PHYSICISTS is delusional. That you think the most brilliant minds in the world are missing something that you are not, is delusional. [/quote]

I am not discussing physics with physicists, you can’t fucking read obviously. I haven’t done that and I won’t. I didn’t say they miss the objects of physics, I am saying that extrapolating the results of physics to prove God doesn’t exist is not accurate. There’s more to it than that. I don’t argue with physicists, to think I was doing anything of the sort is delusional. I use their results, I don’t argue their results are incorrect. I cannot imagine where the fuck you got that idea.
Rather than mock me, why don’t you prove me wrong? All my arguments are out there for all to see. While your at it, why don’t you copy and paste for me any statement I made where I said the results of physicists are wrong.
[/quote]

I suggest you go back and read what you wrote. Perhaps your writing skills lack? I don’t need to cut and paste. Go back and read what you wrote. If you say they didn’t miss the object of physics, but something else, you were unclear in how you expressed that. Interspersed with that opinion was some conjecture of yours about various theories.

And seriously, why don’t you provide references for these theoretical physicists that are attempting to disprove God? I’m not implying I’m an expert, but I’m interested in both TP and Religion and I read alot. I think I would have taken notice of this big movement in the TP community to deny “God”.

I’m not tryin to mock you. You’re awfully sensitive.

212

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I suggest you go back and read what you wrote. Perhaps your writing skills lack? I don’t need to cut and paste. Go back and read what you wrote. If you say they didn’t miss the object of physics, but something else, you were unclear in how you expressed that. Interspersed with that opinion was some conjecture of yours about various theories.

And seriously, why don’t you provide references for these theoretical physicists that are attempting to disprove God? I’m not implying I’m an expert, but I’m interested in both TP and Religion and I read alot. I think I would have taken notice of this big movement in the TP community to deny “God”.

I’m not tryin to mock you. You’re awfully sensitive. [/quote]

I know what I wrote. I stand by it. What I stated as opinion was just that. It was an extrapolation based on my personal experience. I can’t prove it, and I won’t try. It’s just something that I noticed. That has nothing to do with proving anything.
Now where I specifically took exception was with Null Theory as being a theory of something from nothing. From a physicist’s point of view, a vacuum is a sufficient nothing, but when you expand that to be a philosphical, something from nothing, it’s not. In said vacuum, there are always two things present particles and energy; add that to the fact that the vacuum occupies space and the activities of said particles occur in time. This is a minimum of 4 distinct properties…I ask you, is that nothing? If they are using this to make a theory of God not existing then that’s misplaced. I don’t take exception with their knowledge of physiscs, nor am I saying they are wrong about that. When you try to use Quantum Mechanics as a proof that there is no God, then it is quite frankly misplaced. I even asked directly Dr. Krauss if something could exist out of a true definition of nothingness and even he said no. I gave you the link, go read what I wrote. Then you will know exactely what I said which is not what you think I said.
Famous TP who were athiests: Peter Higgs, Steven Weinberg, Leonard Susskind, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, etc…

The reason I suggest you prove me wrong is because you accuse me of being delusional. Well there is one sure fired way to prove that, prove me wrong. If I am wrong then I am, in fact delusional because I believe something to be true which is not. Now, if I am right, am I delusional? It’s as simple as that.

213

I haven’t read the entire thread but I have a question to ask about the ‘comfort’ comment.

My faith includes the fact that I’ll be held responsible for my every action after I leave this body. How exactly is that a comforting thought? It would be far more comforting to think that none of it mattered, that when I die, it’s just ‘over’.

214

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I haven’t read the entire thread but I have a question to ask about the ‘comfort’ comment.

My faith includes the fact that I’ll be held responsible for my every action after I leave this body. How exactly is that a comforting thought? It would be far more comforting to think that none of it mattered, that when I die, it’s just ‘over’.[/quote]

Thats when the real fun begins isn’t it? We all meet up in some celestial theme park… And have to stay there forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever.

215

Were you trying to answer my question? Or were you just trying to be condescending because of some arrogant sense of superiority?

216

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Were you trying to answer my question? Or were you just trying to be condescending because of some arrogant sense of superiority?[/quote]

The latter…

The whole faith as an “opaite for the masses” is a bunch of horseshit. If anything, the religious have chosen the harder path. Yet further proof Karl Marx was an idiot…He was wrong about everything, and yet, some still believe him…Wierd.

217

If anything I am not superior to you. It could seem my answer is what is said to happen after one dies in some religions, you’ve been in this “heaven” for 999999999999999999 years and you are not past the beginning.

Chances are, we are lucky and we are gone when we die.

218

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I suggest you go back and read what you wrote. Perhaps your writing skills lack? I don’t need to cut and paste. Go back and read what you wrote. If you say they didn’t miss the object of physics, but something else, you were unclear in how you expressed that. Interspersed with that opinion was some conjecture of yours about various theories.

And seriously, why don’t you provide references for these theoretical physicists that are attempting to disprove God? I’m not implying I’m an expert, but I’m interested in both TP and Religion and I read alot. I think I would have taken notice of this big movement in the TP community to deny “God”.

I’m not tryin to mock you. You’re awfully sensitive. [/quote]

I know what I wrote. I stand by it. What I stated as opinion was just that. It was an extrapolation based on my personal experience. I can’t prove it, and I won’t try. It’s just something that I noticed. That has nothing to do with proving anything.
Now where I specifically took exception was with Null Theory as being a theory of something from nothing. From a physicist’s point of view, a vacuum is a sufficient nothing, but when you expand that to be a philosphical, something from nothing, it’s not. In said vacuum, there are always two things present particles and energy; add that to the fact that the vacuum occupies space and the activities of said particles occur in time. This is a minimum of 4 distinct properties…I ask you, is that nothing? If they are using this to make a theory of God not existing then that’s misplaced. I don’t take exception with their knowledge of physiscs, nor am I saying they are wrong about that. When you try to use Quantum Mechanics as a proof that there is no God, then it is quite frankly misplaced. I even asked directly Dr. Krauss if something could exist out of a true definition of nothingness and even he said no. I gave you the link, go read what I wrote. Then you will know exactely what I said which is not what you think I said.
Famous TP who were athiests: Peter Higgs, Steven Weinberg, Leonard Susskind, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, etc…

The reason I suggest you prove me wrong is because you accuse me of being delusional. Well there is one sure fired way to prove that, prove me wrong. If I am wrong then I am, in fact delusional because I believe something to be true which is not. Now, if I am right, am I delusional? It’s as simple as that.
[/quote]

let me get this on track. please provide the links/references to the TPs that you conclude are athiests. And by athiests, do you mean a rejection of organized religion (then I too am most certainly an athiest) or, do you mean an outright denial of a Supreme/Divine source? I’ve read works by both Hawking and Susskind and I didn’t perceive any agenda to disprove God. I think you refer more to the athiest using TP and such in their attempt to disprove God.

219

I don’t pretend to have any idea of what heaven actually is. I know what I hope it is, but I’m not sure I could properly describe it (though I’ve never tried).

My question was more about the relative comfort of knowing that everything you do is important and will be taken into account vs. knowing that nothing you do matters at all and your only concerns are what repercussions you’ll face while you’re alive.

Moral responsibility is a heavier load to bear than legal and/or physical consequence.

220

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I haven’t read the entire thread but I have a question to ask about the ‘comfort’ comment.

My faith includes the fact that I’ll be held responsible for my every action after I leave this body. How exactly is that a comforting thought? It would be far more comforting to think that none of it mattered, that when I die, it’s just ‘over’.[/quote]

Because most people find comfort in “faith” and most religions have some form of redemption and forgiveness and an afterlife in heaven.

I think the chances of you being held accountable for every action in your life is a terribly narrow view of the universe and a grandiose and ultimately arrogant human ideal and that in the grand scheme of things, your actions are probably no more important than those of a frog.

And I think the average person would find no comfort at all in the prospect of it being “over” after they die. Seriously?