Who Believes?

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Have you ever wondered why things in nature work the way they do?[/quote]

Every day.

Sometimes.

Is it possible to have a universe where that’s not true? In other words, is our universe the only one possible, or are there myriads of them? If there is a God, did he have any choice in the way the physical laws and constants operate?

How could it be otherwise?

You ask all these great questions and you’re satisfied with that answer? I’m not saying it’s wrong, but what if it is?

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed…There was nothing before the Big Bang…Things went boom(what exactly went boom if there was nothing and from where did that come from?), resulting in matter and energy, neither of which can be created nor destroyed, but were made from nothing…

WTF?!?! I am so confused and this has confused me my whole life. Not a hard task to do really but I do envy both sides of the discussion on their resolute stances. I, on the other hand, simply do not know.

[quote]orion wrote:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not fly at all. Instead it makes giant leaps, that to us seem like flying.

Anyone disagreeing with me is obviously wrong and in need of some good old fashioned torturing to see the error of his ways.[/quote]

“Those who die after living a life of rejection or ignorance of the One True Spaghetti Beast, however, will be sent to the Underground Freezer of Doom where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (shivering). There they will endure an eternity of freezer burns as punishment for their unbelief.”

Take your chances, man.

“the opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder’s lack of rational conviction. Opinions in politics and religion are almost always held passionately.” Bertrand Russell 1961

[quote]Professor X wrote:
There is an equation for beauty. The Golden Proportion was used throughout Greek architecture, gained from Egyptian knowledge of mathematics.[/quote]

There’s also the old 36-24-36 ratio for beauty. The Wood-Inducing Proportion as modern man calls it.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
What did it “get wrong”?

It says the shape is round. It says the diameter of the circle is 10 and the circumference 30. The ratio would then be 3.0. That is wrong. All circle have ratios of 3.1415926…

It is describing the measurements that the temple was built in. Many masons believe there is a specific reason for each item listed.

I’m not arguing masonry technique here. You simply cannot have a circle of diameter 10 with a circumference of 30, that’s all.

I have never heard of anyone using this in relationship to pi as if they failed to reach it. I don’t see why you are making that connection.

It’s not about reaching it or not. It’s just an example of some well known fact that it would have been nice for the Bible to get correctly. It being claimed to be inspired by an omnipotent, all-knowing perfect being.
[/quote]

I understand now. You think they should have said, “a line measuring 30.blah blah cubits was needed to measure it”. I mentioned how these people measured items for a reason. They didn’t walk around with metric rulers to my knowledge and this was not the account of a vision. This was a first hand account of building…which means they used a line to measure it and that line measured 30 cubits. You are faulting man.

[quote]pookie wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Have you ever wondered why things in nature work the way they do?

Every day.

Why humans evolved the way we have?

Sometimes.

Why E in fact does equal mc**2?

Is it possible to have a universe where that’s not true? In other words, is our universe the only one possible, or are there myriads of them? If there is a God, did he have any choice in the way the physical laws and constants operate?

Why mathmatics is so clean & elegant?

How could it be otherwise?

Almost like somebody planned it that way…?

You ask all these great questions and you’re satisfied with that answer? I’m not saying it’s wrong, but what if it is?[/quote]

It could be wrong, but I believe, which is where this thread started. All the proof I need is to watch the sun set over a mountain valley in the fall. Only God could make something like that.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
There is an equation for beauty. The Golden Proportion was used throughout Greek architecture, gained from Egyptian knowledge of mathematics.

There’s also the old 36-24-36 ratio for beauty. The Wood-Inducing Proportion as modern man calls it.
[/quote]

…Only if she’s 5’3".

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Well, Josephus mention Jesus “the so-called Christ” when referring to the stoning death of his brother James. Tacitus also mentions Jesus. As far as official records go, we don’t (as far as I know) have that many.[/quote]

Poached from somebody else’s website:

The only somewhat reliable, secular evidence we have for the life of Jesus comes from two very brief passages in the works of Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian. And Josephus was a prolific writer - he frequently wrote several pages on the trial and execution of individual common thieves, but on Jesus, he is silent except for two paragraphs, one of which is a known interpolation, and the other is highly suspect. Other references to Jesus in secular writings are ambiguous at best, or known to be later interpolations, or both. The earliest references to Jesus in the rabbinical literature come from the second century, even though known historical figures such as John the Baptist merit considerable discussion, even though his impact on Judaism was minimal. There are no references to Jesus in any of the Roman histories during his presumed lifetime. That he should be so thoroughly ignored is unlikely given the impact the gospel writers said he had on the events and politics of the Jewish kingdom.

Expanding on Josephus:

Josephus was a historian who was so very thorough he would write a three page history of the trial and execution of a common thief, and wrote extensively about John the Baptist, but on Jesus, his two small references are seriously doubted by scholars as being genuine. Unfortunately, the writings of Josephus have come down to us only through Christian sources, none earlier than the fourth century, and are known to have been revised by the Christians. There are a number of reasons why the two references in Josephus are doubted: As summarized by Louis Feldman, a promient Josephus scholar, they are, first, use of the Christian reference to Jesus being the Messiah is unlikely to have come from a Jewish historian, especially from one who treated other Messianic aspirants rather harshly; second, commentators writing about Josephus earlier than Eusebius (4th Cent. C.E.) do not cite the passage; third, Origen mentions that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the messiah.

You’re joking, right? If you accept the story of the Bible, then Jesus was a huge mustard stain on the Roman radar. They would’ve noticed. And according to the Bible, they did.

Just because Paul was probably a real person, doesn’t prove anything about Jesus. Especially since Paul never met Jesus. In Paul’s letters it is apparent that there are whole areas of Christian doctrine he was ignorant on, he never mentions that Jesus worked any miracles and he appparently did not associate the death of Jesus with the trial before Pilate.

Which has no bearing on this subject whatsoever. The Romans crucified anyone, not only Jews. And they got the idea from the Greeks and Egyptians.

I think it was Peter who fought with Paul, but again, this has no bearing on the figure of Jesus, although it is important when studying the origins of the Church.

I disagree somewhat. Maybe a “wandering mystic with a cult” named Jesus did exist, why not? It’s possible. However, Jesus, as he is represented in the Bible, is highly unlikely to have existed. Read my loooong, earlier post for the reasons why I believe this (I believe you arleady did).

What’s this about pi? 3 isn’t close enough for you? What would you have wanted from people who used crude tools? Plenty of non-perfect circles in buildings/architecture where ever you go, including modern day USA.

Shit, even NASA gets it wrong sometimes. They wasted about a billion bucks because they forgot to convert from metric to English.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
What did it “get wrong”?

It says the shape is round. It says the diameter of the circle is 10 and the circumference 30. The ratio would then be 3.0. That is wrong. All circle have ratios of 3.1415926…

It is describing the measurements that the temple was built in. Many masons believe there is a specific reason for each item listed.

I’m not arguing masonry technique here. You simply cannot have a circle of diameter 10 with a circumference of 30, that’s all.

I have never heard of anyone using this in relationship to pi as if they failed to reach it. I don’t see why you are making that connection.

It’s not about reaching it or not. It’s just an example of some well known fact that it would have been nice for the Bible to get correctly. It being claimed to be inspired by an omnipotent, all-knowing perfect being.
[/quote]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
There is an equation for beauty. The Golden Proportion was used throughout Greek architecture, gained from Egyptian knowledge of mathematics.

There’s also the old 36-24-36 ratio for beauty. The Wood-Inducing Proportion as modern man calls it.
[/quote]

I’ve seen some of those that’d make a man beleive in God too.

[quote]nikolo wrote:
WTF?!?! I am so confused and this has confused me my whole life. Not a hard task to do really but I do envy both sides of the discussion on their resolute stances. I, on the other hand, simply do not know.[/quote]

There’s nothing “resolute” about the Big Bang. It’s the current best Cosmology theory. It has a lot of holes and no way of even guessing rationally at it’s cause or “before” if there was a before. The theory could be improved, modified and even replaced by a better one if the new one explains everything the Big Bang does and has less holes.

Science is not (or should not be) about defending beliefs or articles of faith. Everything should be questioned, challenged and tested all the time. If something makes no sense to you, fine, just figure out a better explanation for it and submit a paper for peer review. That’s how scientific progress is made.

Those who defend scientific claims as if their were the final truths are missing the point.

Even Einstein invented a “cosmological” constant to keep his explanation of the universe static. His equations pointed to an expanding universe, but in his time, everyone thought the universe was static (ie, not expanding or contracting). Later, when it was shown that the universe is actually expanding, he called his cosmological constant “the greatest blunder of his life.” It’s hard to accept new ideas and to let go of well established ones, even if they’re wrong.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If you look closely enough you will see that the natural world is not as clean or as elegant as the mathematics makes it look.

That is simply your opinion…and I can assure you that not many agree with it. There is an equation for beauty. The Golden Proportion was used throughout Greek architecture, gained from Egyptian knowledge of mathematics. That speaks volums about the relationship between math and order in what should be a universe filled with utter chaos. You obviously choose to ignore that.
[/quote]
ProfX,
beauty is subjective and the golden mean is purly a western derivation–just like the western idea of diatonic music–though mathematically sound only one interpretation of music theory.

The golden mean is nothing more than the number that satisfies this equation:

1/a = 1 - a; a = 1.61803…

again we have an irrational number like pi.

How can a constant be a definition of beauty? The Greeks found perfection in numbers; I do not and neither do most scientist or mathematicians.

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
It could be wrong, but I believe, which is where this thread started. All the proof I need is to watch the sun set over a mountain valley in the fall. Only God could make something like that.
[/quote]

Yes, you’re wrong. Have you ever noticed how mountains resemble piles of pasta? And how the sun is really just a big, very spicy meatball?

Only the great Flying Spaghetti Monster can make something like that.

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
You remind me of scientists 2000 years ago, saying that the world was flat and they could prove it.[/quote]

About 2300 years ago, Eratosthenes of Cyrene calculated the circumference of the Earth. He could do this because he knew it was not flat, but a sphere; and that the Sun was very far away from it.

Good luck with that one!

[quote]DeepSouth wrote:
What’s this about pi? 3 isn’t close enough for you? What would you have wanted from people who used crude tools? Plenty of non-perfect circles in buildings/architecture where ever you go, including modern day USA.

Shit, even NASA gets it wrong sometimes. They wasted about a billion bucks because they forgot to convert from metric to English.
[/quote]

Yes, but NASA does not claim to be the inspired word of God. That’s why I’d like Bible-pi to be a little better than 3. If I was a deity inspiring some man to write a book to revelate (is that a word?) myself to them, I’d try to get at least my basic math straight. But that’s just me. Maybe the idea is to keep away from any proof as to make faith necessary.

Just want to say I think you have it wrong when it comes to Paul… He did meet Jesus, the reason for his complete conversion…and he practically set the Christian Doctrine, IMO.

Maybe some here can spread some light on how all the apostles died according to historical record, including Paul?

[quote]Miserere wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Well, Josephus mention Jesus “the so-called Christ” when referring to the stoning death of his brother James. Tacitus also mentions Jesus. As far as official records go, we don’t (as far as I know) have that many.

Poached from somebody else’s website:

The only somewhat reliable, secular evidence we have for the life of Jesus comes from two very brief passages in the works of Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian. And Josephus was a prolific writer - he frequently wrote several pages on the trial and execution of individual common thieves, but on Jesus, he is silent except for two paragraphs, one of which is a known interpolation, and the other is highly suspect. Other references to Jesus in secular writings are ambiguous at best, or known to be later interpolations, or both. The earliest references to Jesus in the rabbinical literature come from the second century, even though known historical figures such as John the Baptist merit considerable discussion, even though his impact on Judaism was minimal. There are no references to Jesus in any of the Roman histories during his presumed lifetime. That he should be so thoroughly ignored is unlikely given the impact the gospel writers said he had on the events and politics of the Jewish kingdom.

Expanding on Josephus:

Josephus was a historian who was so very thorough he would write a three page history of the trial and execution of a common thief, and wrote extensively about John the Baptist, but on Jesus, his two small references are seriously doubted by scholars as being genuine. Unfortunately, the writings of Josephus have come down to us only through Christian sources, none earlier than the fourth century, and are known to have been revised by the Christians. There are a number of reasons why the two references in Josephus are doubted: As summarized by Louis Feldman, a promient Josephus scholar, they are, first, use of the Christian reference to Jesus being the Messiah is unlikely to have come from a Jewish historian, especially from one who treated other Messianic aspirants rather harshly; second, commentators writing about Josephus earlier than Eusebius (4th Cent. C.E.) do not cite the passage; third, Origen mentions that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the messiah.

Jesus would’ve barely been a blip on the radar for the Romans at the time. Believe it or not, they had much better things to do than to worry about every wandering mystic with a cult (there were many).

You’re joking, right? If you accept the story of the Bible, then Jesus was a huge mustard stain on the Roman radar. They would’ve noticed. And according to the Bible, they did.

Paul, we know, was a real person and a Roman citizen. He wrote letters that have been copied and survived to this day.

Just because Paul was probably a real person, doesn’t prove anything about Jesus. Especially since Paul never met Jesus. In Paul’s letters it is apparent that there are whole areas of Christian doctrine he was ignorant on, he never mentions that Jesus worked any miracles and he appparently did not associate the death of Jesus with the trial before Pilate.

We also know that Jews were crucified by the Romans,

Which has no bearing on this subject whatsoever. The Romans crucified anyone, not only Jews. And they got the idea from the Greeks and Egyptians.

and that Jesus’s brother James fought with Paul for control of the church.

I think it was Peter who fought with Paul, but again, this has no bearing on the figure of Jesus, although it is important when studying the origins of the Church.

I don’t think it’s outlandish to suggest that a historical Jesus was likely to have existed.

I disagree somewhat. Maybe a “wandering mystic with a cult” named Jesus did exist, why not? It’s possible. However, Jesus, as he is represented in the Bible, is highly unlikely to have existed. Read my loooong, earlier post for the reasons why I believe this (I believe you arleady did).[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
pookie wrote:
There’s also the old 36-24-36 ratio for beauty. The Wood-Inducing Proportion as modern man calls it.

…Only if she’s 5’3".[/quote]

Damn, you like them plush don’t you?

[quote]nikolo wrote:
Matter can neither be created nor destroyed…There was nothing before the Big Bang…Things went boom(what exactly went boom if there was nothing and from where did that come from?), resulting in matter and energy, neither of which can be created nor destroyed, but were made from nothing…

WTF?!?! I am so confused and this has confused me my whole life. Not a hard task to do really but I do envy both sides of the discussion on their resolute stances. I, on the other hand, simply do not know.
[/quote] to further confuse you and give you more food for thought this is a remark I made earlier about the big bang which I am currently trying to disprove.

Original Post
There is an incorrect assumption (IMHO) that the bang or pop [ProfX]referred to is a singularity in the creation of the universe. I believe in a “rubber-band” theory. It is constantly expanding and contracting–as in harmonic motion (though deriving a “wave equation” to explain it is beyond my intention). Right now it appears to be expanding which is where the original idea of the “Big Bang” comes from (the universe exploded outward in a “big bang”). I suggest that this is incorrect. There was not a singular event that created the universe as we know it; on the contrary it is an event that continually happens over and over again. This is my current area of research–theoretically not experimentally.

NOTE: I added to and edited the original post for clarity.

[quote]pookie wrote:
DeepSouth wrote:
What’s this about pi? 3 isn’t close enough for you? What would you have wanted from people who used crude tools? Plenty of non-perfect circles in buildings/architecture where ever you go, including modern day USA.

Shit, even NASA gets it wrong sometimes. They wasted about a billion bucks because they forgot to convert from metric to English.

Yes, but NASA does not claim to be the inspired word of God. That’s why I’d like Bible-pi to be a little better than 3. If I was a deity inspiring some man to write a book to revelate (is that a word?) myself to them, I’d try to get at least my basic math straight. But that’s just me. Maybe the idea is to keep away from any proof as to make faith necessary.[/quote]

I’ll take this slow for the kids in the back row…KINGS contains a literal account of the building that took place. That is why they mentioned the LINE used to measure and did not say “this measured precisely that”. As stated earlier, these people often used BODY PARTS to determine length. Get over it. These people weren’t walking around with scientific calculators and grid paper. As was stated earlier by someone else, pi was already known in parts of the world at this time. It was not a mystery.