Oh, thought this was about the potentially (if verified) significant physics news. My bad.
[quote]colt44 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say next to a passage “Read, but don’t take this literally” or “don’t worry about this it didn’t happen, but consider it a good lesson, as it has a good meaning behind it” or “this really did happen” or any other similar scenario.
It either has to be read as 100 percent true, or none of it can be read as true…
Stop the cherry-picking[/quote]
Have you read it?[/quote]
If your child were to ask you where he came from, and you told him he was born from the love between you and your spouse, did you lie to your child. Could you scientifically verify that he was caused by sex, thereby disproving being born of love?
That’s the kind of nonsense you end up arguing with the “100% true and has to be all literal or its all wrong” crowd.[/quote]
I really just stems from people wanting just to prove that their point of view is superior and that you should think like them or your a dumb ass. In other words it’s all chocked up to ego.
Ironically a lot of these same people are major science advocates and who use the conclusions of scientific theories to prove the bible is completely false because it did not consider quantum mechanics in the creation story. Where as this article you posted, if true are going to flush many of these theories right down the toilet because they require speed of light being an absolute threshold to be be true.
“Oooooo look, the bible didn’t consider this scientific theory, which is now proven false, so the spirituality to which the Bible speaks to is wrong.”
The bible is also not a science book, but don’t let that stop people from saying it’s science is wrong.
The funny thing about science, is that through science we have discovered that science has been mostly wrong in it’s history. It just takes a discovery like this CERN discovery to prove it wrong. It also shows us how truly very little we actually know about the universe.
Who the hell brought the bible in to this discussion anyway? It has not nothing to do with it. I guess there’s always one. “Hey look they discovered a particle can move faster than the speed of light, that must mean the whole bible is wrong!” [/quote]
Although I consider myself to be much more science oriented, ultimately my position as a non-believer stems from lack of evidence, historically, for what the Bible stands for.
[/quote]
Interesting, what do you think it stands for?
This actually has a a name and it’s called the ‘Problem of Evil’. But then again, do you want God to interfere in your life? I would reconcile this with freewill. If God is sticking his nose into our business all the time, we wouldn’t really have freewill.
[quote]
He is either 3 things:
-
not capable of intervening and helping
Which would completely contradict the Bible as he has helped entire armies… -
Doesn’t care
Which I am far more afraid of then their being no God
or
- He doesn’t Exist
In consideration of all of the terrible things in this world I hope He doesnt exist…[/quote]
I am the opposite, in consideration of all the terrible things in the world I want him to exist so he will eventually bring justice. However, I get your point and I do understand it. I some times “get mad at God” so to speak for allowing the depth of evil that occurs in the world. But in the bible it does prophesize that the world would be all fucked up and that one day he will put a stop to it.
It also prophesized that Israel would be restored and in 1947 it did indeed happen, so there you go. BUT no body knows when all this is supposed to happen and any nut job claiming to is full of shit and glory seeking for themselves.
Of course if every generation keeps prophesizing the world is coming to an end, eventually somebody will be right.
Now no law says you have to believe, and I am not going to try to make you believe, but if you have any questions I will be happy to answer. [/quote]
I am familiar withe the “problem of Evil” I just prefer not to use the term “evil” as is gives a supernatural aspect that I do not like.
Free will does not take into account,
Disease or natural disasters…
Not a strong argument.[/quote]
Well, whether you like it or not evil is a problem. You can call it badness or bad shit, or not good shit, or things could be better shit, but it’s all the same thing.
You are correct in assessing that evil does not take in to account the stuff of nature. It takes an act of will to commit evil. Will is a something that only a being can posses. I chalk up natural stuff into the ‘shit happens’ category. I consider, rape murder, torture, abuse, etc. acts of evil. A volcano blowing up I do not consider an act of evil.
Any how, I do not mind discussing this stuff, but if you dive more heavily in to religion, lets go here:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/catholic_q_a?id=4262621&pageNo=40
I don’t want to do it to much here. Or we can start a new thread. I just don’t want to pollute to much with religion.
The particle exceeding the speed of light is a great discussion to have on it’s own.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, thought this was about the potentially (if verified) significant physics news. My bad.[/quote]
It is, the other stuff is stopping.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say next to a passage “Read, but don’t take this literally” or “don’t worry about this it didn’t happen, but consider it a good lesson, as it has a good meaning behind it” or “this really did happen” or any other similar scenario.
It either has to be read as 100 percent true, or none of it can be read as true…
Stop the cherry-picking[/quote]
Have you read it?[/quote]
If your child were to ask you where he came from, and you told him he was born from the love between you and your spouse, did you lie to your child. Could you scientifically verify that he was caused by sex, thereby disproving being born of love?
That’s the kind of nonsense you end up arguing with the “100% true and has to be all literal or its all wrong” crowd.[/quote]
I really just stems from people wanting just to prove that their point of view is superior and that you should think like them or your a dumb ass. In other words it’s all chocked up to ego.
Ironically a lot of these same people are major science advocates and who use the conclusions of scientific theories to prove the bible is completely false because it did not consider quantum mechanics in the creation story. Where as this article you posted, if true are going to flush many of these theories right down the toilet because they require speed of light being an absolute threshold to be be true.
“Oooooo look, the bible didn’t consider this scientific theory, which is now proven false, so the spirituality to which the Bible speaks to is wrong.”
The bible is also not a science book, but don’t let that stop people from saying it’s science is wrong.
The funny thing about science, is that through science we have discovered that science has been mostly wrong in it’s history. It just takes a discovery like this CERN discovery to prove it wrong. It also shows us how truly very little we actually know about the universe.
Who the hell brought the bible in to this discussion anyway? It has not nothing to do with it. I guess there’s always one. “Hey look they discovered a particle can move faster than the speed of light, that must mean the whole bible is wrong!” [/quote]
Although I consider myself to be much more science oriented, ultimately my position as a non-believer stems from lack of evidence, historically, for what the Bible stands for.
[/quote]
Interesting, what do you think it stands for?
This actually has a a name and it’s called the ‘Problem of Evil’. But then again, do you want God to interfere in your life? I would reconcile this with freewill. If God is sticking his nose into our business all the time, we wouldn’t really have freewill.
[quote]
He is either 3 things:
-
not capable of intervening and helping
Which would completely contradict the Bible as he has helped entire armies… -
Doesn’t care
Which I am far more afraid of then their being no God
or
- He doesn’t Exist
In consideration of all of the terrible things in this world I hope He doesnt exist…[/quote]
I am the opposite, in consideration of all the terrible things in the world I want him to exist so he will eventually bring justice. However, I get your point and I do understand it. I some times “get mad at God” so to speak for allowing the depth of evil that occurs in the world. But in the bible it does prophesize that the world would be all fucked up and that one day he will put a stop to it.
It also prophesized that Israel would be restored and in 1947 it did indeed happen, so there you go. BUT no body knows when all this is supposed to happen and any nut job claiming to is full of shit and glory seeking for themselves.
Of course if every generation keeps prophesizing the world is coming to an end, eventually somebody will be right.
Now no law says you have to believe, and I am not going to try to make you believe, but if you have any questions I will be happy to answer. [/quote]
I am familiar withe the “problem of Evil” I just prefer not to use the term “evil” as is gives a supernatural aspect that I do not like.
Free will does not take into account,
Disease or natural disasters…
Not a strong argument.[/quote]
Well, whether you like it or not evil is a problem. You can call it badness or bad shit, or not good shit, or things could be better shit, but it’s all the same thing.
You are correct in assessing that evil does not take in to account the stuff of nature. It takes an act of will to commit evil. Will is a something that only a being can posses. I chalk up natural stuff into the ‘shit happens’ category. I consider, rape murder, torture, abuse, etc. acts of evil. A volcano blowing up I do not consider an act of evil.
Any how, I do not mind discussing this stuff, but if you dive more heavily in to religion, lets go here:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/catholic_q_a?id=4262621&pageNo=40
I don’t want to do it to much here. Or we can start a new thread. I just don’t want to pollute to much with religion.
The particle exceeding the speed of light is a great discussion to have on it’s own.[/quote]
Free will also contradicts the Bible, as it says multiple times he will help those in need when asked. He has saved entire armies, a lamb of blindness, etc. …Why would he stop helping?
[quote]colt44 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say next to a passage “Read, but don’t take this literally” or “don’t worry about this it didn’t happen, but consider it a good lesson, as it has a good meaning behind it” or “this really did happen” or any other similar scenario.
It either has to be read as 100 percent true, or none of it can be read as true…
Stop the cherry-picking[/quote]
Have you read it?[/quote]
If your child were to ask you where he came from, and you told him he was born from the love between you and your spouse, did you lie to your child. Could you scientifically verify that he was caused by sex, thereby disproving being born of love?
That’s the kind of nonsense you end up arguing with the “100% true and has to be all literal or its all wrong” crowd.[/quote]
I really just stems from people wanting just to prove that their point of view is superior and that you should think like them or your a dumb ass. In other words it’s all chocked up to ego.
Ironically a lot of these same people are major science advocates and who use the conclusions of scientific theories to prove the bible is completely false because it did not consider quantum mechanics in the creation story. Where as this article you posted, if true are going to flush many of these theories right down the toilet because they require speed of light being an absolute threshold to be be true.
“Oooooo look, the bible didn’t consider this scientific theory, which is now proven false, so the spirituality to which the Bible speaks to is wrong.”
The bible is also not a science book, but don’t let that stop people from saying it’s science is wrong.
The funny thing about science, is that through science we have discovered that science has been mostly wrong in it’s history. It just takes a discovery like this CERN discovery to prove it wrong. It also shows us how truly very little we actually know about the universe.
Who the hell brought the bible in to this discussion anyway? It has not nothing to do with it. I guess there’s always one. “Hey look they discovered a particle can move faster than the speed of light, that must mean the whole bible is wrong!” [/quote]
Although I consider myself to be much more science oriented, ultimately my position as a non-believer stems from lack of evidence, historically, for what the Bible stands for.
[/quote]
Interesting, what do you think it stands for?
This actually has a a name and it’s called the ‘Problem of Evil’. But then again, do you want God to interfere in your life? I would reconcile this with freewill. If God is sticking his nose into our business all the time, we wouldn’t really have freewill.
No it doesn’t, move it else where.
[quote]colt44 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
No. It disagrees that Genesis 1 and 2 are a historical account. I personally think that looking at it as a historical account misses the more important points made by Genesis 1 and 2. And it’s doesn’t matter if GR is not completely correct or not, that’s not going to change the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old anyway.
Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. But they do not and I could prove it to them if I could have an honest discussion with one. So far it’s a no go. Now, I do think there is on person here I could have the discussion here with, but never got around to having it.
Anyhow, I will say this and mean it. If you think that a scientific fact proven true would invalidate your faith in God, you never really had any to begin with.[/quote]
I’m confused (not really 
).
[/quote]
Yes you are, frequently.
No you don’t, so yes you are.
Why would it need to be? Doesn’t really specify when it happened, did it?
The bible is inerrant, divinely inspired and spiritual. If you are using it for a purpose it’s not intended for then it will not provide the info you need. That be like accusing a cook book as being errant because it doesn’t tell you how to replace the CV joint on a 1979 Chrysler Imperial. That’s not what the book is for. It’s a historical book, but it’t not a history book.
The bible contains many books and many stories for many different purposes some are literal, some are prophetic, some are allegorical, some are historical, some are parables.
BC does not do that unless he’s talking about what the church says. But it’s not unusual for to to falsely accuse people of things they do not do.
Facetious is not what I think your being. It’s not hard to reconcile the logic, it really isn’t. If you believe in God the bible is important, if you don’t it’s not.
As for the rest, the Bible can speak for itself. If you don’t read it, misuse it or don’t understand it, that’s not the Bible’s fault.[/quote]
Ah, the old PWI shuffle. LOL. Pick and reply.
Problem with your analogy is that I know of no cookbook that makes any reference to a CV joint. Fail sir. Nice try.
[/quote]
And the bible never makes a claim that is a history book or an archaeological reference. Like I said, misusing it or misunderstanding it, is not the Bible’s fault.
[/quote]
Exactly, and the reason why Christians should stop using it as one. We cannot say on historical grounds that Jesus was born to a virgin, walked on water, etc.
It’s Theology, not history.
[/quote]
But it’s not make believe either, you don’t have to believe in either of those things, but you cannot prove they did not happen. What we do know about Jesus, is that historically, he is the most important most world changing figure to have ever lived. You may not believe in God or that he was from God or of God, but you cannot deny his significance. First century historian Josephus does recognize that a significant person named Jesus live in that area in that time. So there is one historical fact that is cross referenced by another source. Something that is very, very rare to have from that period of time.
Like I said there are facts in there, but that’s not the point of it, the historical facts, as well as other things, support the spiritual component of the book which is it’s purpose.
Now if you don’t believe in God, it’s just another book. If you do, it’s important, if you don’t it’s not.
[/quote]
Of course I do not deny his significance or impact, i’m just saying that there is no historical evidence for what the Bible says about him.’
If I am going to base my life on something I want to know that the book I am relying on is accurate and based of facts, historical facts. When the Bible is put to this scrutiny, it is obvious it is not.
It is very likely that Jesus existed.
It is very likely he was a charismatic figure who had followers, who would make claims that he could walk on water, etc.
Just think about any celebrity, they have cult like followings.
it is perfectly likely that this man, in consideration of these stories of him, would get in trouble with the the Romans, and subsequently get get hung to cross…
those things could have easily have happened.
But was he born to a virgin, aand blah blah blah,…probably not. There is no evidence for that.
[/quote]
If it were just a hoax, it’s really unlikely that the impact would have been nearly significant. Other celebrities don’t change the world, even really big ones. And almost none are remembered 2000 years later. Hell the most of the ones we know about from that time are because they are in someway linked to Jesus’s story.
That being said there is no way to reference divinity, that’s true. That part does require faith hence why it is called ‘faith’.
But I get the sense you haven’t read the Bible. How can you pass judgement on something you’ve never read? Isn’t that a bit unfair?
Aside from that, you have to understand that it is profound in many ways, even if no divinity were claimed. It is very correct.
No law says you have to, but I see no reason to disrespect those who do.
I have read both, and I can tell you one is vastly different from the other. Harry is meant as entertainment, nothing more. But they are GREAT books. But they aren’t about God, or faith and has no greater purpose than to entertain. So the analogy doesn’t quite work. The bible has been important and significant to civilization and man for thousands of years even as the books were being written and is still as significant today. You don’t have to like it, consider it or pay any attention to it at all, but it would be a flat out lie to say it’s not significant. Significant is one thing that it most certainly is.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Not you too. The PWI shuffle? Why can’t anyone in this fackin place simply reply to a post in a sequential way without the butcher chop cut job?
[/quote]
Not sure what you mean here.
Well, we’ve already discussed one reference. The OT is rife with prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah, the “Anointed One,” referring to God taking human form to redeem mankind which implicitly suggests the Trinity. Still…the Bible is NOT just a collection of books; it can only be accurately studied by studying it in context and as a whole.
I don’t suppose any specifics but I certainly won’t impose any self conceived limits on what can be accomplished.
Sure it does. That doesn’t mean we are somehow supposed to sit on our hands and fret while waiting for it to occur.
Go back to Genesis 1:28
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
NOW…this is strictly interpretation on my part but I believe the idea behind this command especially in terms of the words “subdue” and “rule” can implicitly suggest that man is to explore his world and there is nothing to indicate that the earth’s troposphere is to be the limit to that endeavor. That is, science and the furthering of it, should be a priority of man - by God’s command even.
I can also speculate with biblical support that when the “end of the world” occurs the end of time will not. There is a lot that can and I suspect will happen AFTER the apocalyptic events of the Book of Revelation are concluded.[/quote]
Push, respectfully, I will not participate in any replies that cuts and replies to discreet sentences or passages. It makes further reply very awkward and jumbled.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Not you too. The PWI shuffle? Why can’t anyone in this fackin place simply reply to a post in a sequential way without the butcher chop cut job?
[/quote]
I think I figured out what you mean so here is my post “unchopped.”
Well, we’ve already discussed one reference. The OT is rife with prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah, the “Anointed One,” referring to God taking human form to redeem mankind which implicitly suggests the Trinity. Still…the Bible is NOT just a collection of books; it can only be accurately studied by studying it in context and as a whole.
I don’t suppose any specifics but I certainly won’t impose any self conceived limits on what can be accomplished.
Sure it does. That doesn’t mean we are somehow supposed to sit on our hands and fret while waiting for it to occur.
Go back to Genesis 1:28
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
NOW…this is strictly interpretation on my part but I believe the idea behind this command especially in terms of the words “subdue” and “rule” can implicitly suggest that man is to explore his world and there is nothing to indicate that the earth’s troposphere is to be the limit to that endeavor. That is, science and the furthering of it, should be a priority of man - by God’s command even.
I can also speculate with biblical support that when the “end of the world” occurs the end of time will not. There is a lot that can and I suspect will happen AFTER the apocalyptic events of the Book of Revelation are concluded.[/quote]
If we indeed accept the above at face value, and God was prophesied to take human form, that does not support a trinity. Yes, the OT, a decidedly Jewish document, does predict the coming of the messiah, but the keepers of the OT tradition (the jews) deny it was Jesus (small technical point).
I didn’t imply we should “sit on our hands”…my point was that given the speed limit is unlikely to be broken and in theory cannot be broken, and that the world is to end, it doesn’t seem like we were set up to explore the universe.
After the apocalypse you say? So are you implying that space exploration is an endeavor in heaven?
[quote]pat wrote:
If it were just a hoax, it’s really unlikely that the impact would have been nearly significant. [/quote]
Starting here and much of what follows is another example of your apparent loss of the rigorous reason and logic you are quick to apply elsewhere.
I’m pretty sure you reject Islam, for instance. Yet the story of Muhammad, as one example, has every bit the impact and significance to his followers as your story has to you and yours. It’s another fallacious argument, a form of appeal to widespread belief and you can translate that to Latin if you’d like, but it’s fallacious nonetheless.
If the story of Muhammad were just a hoax, it’s really unlikely that the impact would have been nearly significant. Roughly 1.5 billion of the world’s population would agree with the latter, and reject your premise.
See how that works?
In before you claim I’m bashing Christianity and converted to Islam. In before you claim I’m attacking you or getting personal.
What I’m doing, is holding to you to the same standard you seek to hold others to when you engage in debate…when such rigorous standards suit you.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, thought this was about the potentially (if verified) significant physics news. My bad.[/quote]
The tangent TBG were discussing is or can be related to physics because we are actually talking about the origins of the laws (and theories) of physics - if you stop and think about it.
I will also interject that the concepts surrounding varying speeds of light could very well be instrumental in explaining the seemingly vast age and limits of the universe with the special creation theory.
Along that line it also brings up the question, MUST the presently accepted laws of physics have ALWAYS applied in the past and if so who gets to make that decision and why?
EVERYTHING we think we know about ANYTHING rests on assumptions. Unprovable assumptions. EVERYTHING.[/quote]
This last bit is just for empirical fields. Some things can be proven in the non empirical fields like math. Though propositions that are certain with enough probability are all always readily assumed to be true by everyone until demonstrated false in the empirical sciences. Some people hold a belief in god to be this type of knowledge…but they wouldn’t try to stretch this to a belief in a particular religion…or at least not properly.
So there are more but to be close enough for government work. We have knowledge that is true by definition. These are things like arithmetic. Problems for these types of systems are that there isn’t a solid understanding of what a number is say and while these systems are generally held to be accurate when describing the real world they are not equivalent to it.
We have empirical knowledge. These are statements that have proven to be true again and again. Largely most scientific claims. But the scientific method allows for these descriptions to be wrong and to search for a better description if the empirical evidence doesn’t match. None of these claims are ever 100 percent proven. They are just assumed to be true with a high probability. All scientists would admit this…I am not sure why its even causing an issue.
Some people purport to have supernatural knowledge. Divine inspiration. It is certainly logically possible that this type of knowledge channel could exist. This is the type of knowledge that religious claims are.
Regardless of whether or not I think a religious claim is accurate its unfair to try to subject it to empirical testing. Or to claim its not as accurate a system as arithmetic say since its not that type of knowledge either. Though its just as cheap for a believer to hide behind a shallow claim that we only know scientific facts to a high degree of probability…since its demonstrable they too believe these facts at least solipsitically.
Though as its obvious to see that there are a multitude of religions out there and its unlikely that all of them are a true depiction of the way things actually are. So clearly there is no agreement in supernatural knowledge and the standard of knowing is simply I believe this to be true.
When I was a Christian…a poor one by any standard I am sure, I never would have cared to debate the literal truth of the bible. If I believe in an all powerful all good creative force, why is it so hard to think such a being wouldn’t set up the process of evolution? What would be the point of fake aging the earth when it would be well within the being’s power to just start it up and let time play out…particularly in the case of an eternal being who is outside of time and for whom things like days wouldn’t have any kind of earthly meaning. The bible wasn’t meant to be the system of arithmetic don’t feel the need to defend the fact that its completely nonsensical that two separate and contradictory stories of creation occur in genesis alone.
While I love to argue, of course physics is wrong science is wrong all the time if there were ever a day that science was completely right what a boring world it would be. Science is really the question “What is?” It just tries to describe the natural universe as accurately as it can. It says nothing about the supernatural.
Religious knowledge is not so much concerned with the What in my opinion as the Why? A to be honest much greater question and problem. This is why there are so many atheists that deliberately seek out and attack the religious. Their very own nihilism causes them no end of despair and the thought that someone else is living less tragically bothers them to no end. That is why I consider it to be nothing more than being a pure prick to go into a thread that is solely religious in its nature amongst true believers and to challenge their assertions. Now if its a discussion on the nature of the universe or morality something that can touch on religion I think its fair game to point out religion’s flaws and the problems that it causes. Or in a thread that is claiming science to be wrong, a title which both shows a disturbing trend in some engineers, and a deep lack of understanding of the scientific method, religion is fair game.
Also its a terrible thing for things like creationism which would be supernatural knowledge to be taught in schools. Evolution is both fact and hypothesis would be a fair assessment of the scientific view. While its agreed that organisms evolve there is still debate to the specific process or processes involved. Creationism is not necessarily in opposition to this unless someone were to take a mule-headed view that 7 days is 7 days and every organism sprang to life in exactly the state it is today more or less. It is very probable that evolution in some form occurred. To deny this for a supernatural truth that was likely meant to be taken metaphorically does teaching our children a grave disservice.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, thought this was about the potentially (if verified) significant physics news. My bad.[/quote]
The tangent TBG were discussing is or can be related to physics because we are actually talking about the origins of the laws (and theories) of physics - if you stop and think about it.
I will also interject that the concepts surrounding varying speeds of light could very well be instrumental in explaining the seemingly vast age and limits of the universe with the special creation theory.
Along that line it also brings up the question, MUST the presently accepted laws of physics have ALWAYS applied in the past and if so who gets to make that decision and why?
EVERYTHING we think we know about ANYTHING rests on assumptions. Unprovable assumptions. EVERYTHING.[/quote]
This last bit is just for empirical fields. Some things can be proven in the non empirical fields like math. Though propositions that are certain with enough probability are all always readily assumed to be true by everyone until demonstrated false in the empirical sciences. Some people hold a belief in god to be this type of knowledge…but they wouldn’t try to stretch this to a belief in a particular religion…or at least not properly.
So there are more but to be close enough for government work. We have knowledge that is true by definition. These are things like arithmetic. Problems for these types of systems are that there isn’t a solid understanding of what a number is say and while these systems are generally held to be accurate when describing the real world they are not equivalent to it.
We have empirical knowledge. These are statements that have proven to be true again and again. Largely most scientific claims. But the scientific method allows for these descriptions to be wrong and to search for a better description if the empirical evidence doesn’t match. None of these claims are ever 100 percent proven. They are just assumed to be true with a high probability. All scientists would admit this…I am not sure why its even causing an issue.
Some people purport to have supernatural knowledge. Divine inspiration. It is certainly logically possible that this type of knowledge channel could exist. This is the type of knowledge that religious claims are.
Regardless of whether or not I think a religious claim is accurate its unfair to try to subject it to empirical testing. Or to claim its not as accurate a system as arithmetic say since its not that type of knowledge either. Though its just as cheap for a believer to hide behind a shallow claim that we only know scientific facts to a high degree of probability…since its demonstrable they too believe these facts at least solipsitically.
Though as its obvious to see that there are a multitude of religions out there and its unlikely that all of them are a true depiction of the way things actually are. So clearly there is no agreement in supernatural knowledge and the standard of knowing is simply I believe this to be true.
When I was a Christian…a poor one by any standard I am sure, I never would have cared to debate the literal truth of the bible. If I believe in an all powerful all good creative force, why is it so hard to think such a being wouldn’t set up the process of evolution? What would be the point of fake aging the earth when it would be well within the being’s power to just start it up and let time play out…particularly in the case of an eternal being who is outside of time and for whom things like days wouldn’t have any kind of earthly meaning. The bible wasn’t meant to be the system of arithmetic don’t feel the need to defend the fact that its completely nonsensical that two separate and contradictory stories of creation occur in genesis alone.
While I love to argue, of course physics is wrong science is wrong all the time if there were ever a day that science was completely right what a boring world it would be. Science is really the question “What is?” It just tries to describe the natural universe as accurately as it can. It says nothing about the supernatural.
Religious knowledge is not so much concerned with the What in my opinion as the Why? A to be honest much greater question and problem. This is why there are so many atheists that deliberately seek out and attack the religious. Their very own nihilism causes them no end of despair and the thought that someone else is living less tragically bothers them to no end. That is why I consider it to be nothing more than being a pure prick to go into a thread that is solely religious in its nature amongst true believers and to challenge their assertions. Now if its a discussion on the nature of the universe or morality something that can touch on religion I think its fair game to point out religion’s flaws and the problems that it causes. Or in a thread that is claiming science to be wrong, a title which both shows a disturbing trend in some engineers, and a deep lack of understanding of the scientific method, religion is fair game.
Also its a terrible thing for things like creationism which would be supernatural knowledge to be taught in schools. Evolution is both fact and hypothesis would be a fair assessment of the scientific view. While its agreed that organisms evolve there is still debate to the specific process or processes involved. Creationism is not necessarily in opposition to this unless someone were to take a mule-headed view that 7 days is 7 days and every organism sprang to life in exactly the state it is today more or less. It is very probable that evolution in some form occurred. To deny this for a supernatural truth that was likely meant to be taken metaphorically does teaching our children a grave disservice.
[/quote]
You wandered into all sorts of irrelevancies that don’t belong in this thread.
At the risk of encouraging this behavior I must laugh at your subjective characterization of what is “terrible.”[/quote]
Make it wrong if you like. Or improper. Creationism is a religious claim. By its very nature supernatural. It has no place in the realm of science. Its improper to claim it as empirical knowledge.
I was trying to lay out a very simple yet long-winded epistemology. But I can cut to the chase if you like. The bible contains no empirical knowledge. It is easily proven false and contradictory so its not true a priori. What type of knowledge would you purport it gives us? Since it gives us nothing empirical or proves nothing a priori?