Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
The problem with modern science is that it accepts a materialistic view of the world without any scientific proof. It's no wonder that some of the things in the Bible seem unbelievable when people are trying to squeeze them into their narrow, "scientific" view of the world.
Are you for real?
What makes you think I'm not?
Because you just said science doesn't support science. You also seem to believe that angels and rising from the dead can somehow be proven by 'real' science, since apparently the science we have now doesn't use this 'real' since you speak of.
I am willing to say that "science does not support science". Sound crazy? Good.
Think back to your first days in grade school, learning about the scientific laws, #1 and #2.
Basically the LAWS of science (not theories or opinions of science) state that matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred from place to place. So tell me again, where did that matter condensed into a little dot that exploded come from? And people usually jump on this one and provide some kind of weird explanation that contradicts the laws of science for the sake of trying to hold on to their theory.
The way I see it, a big flaw in science is to discount intelligent design, because if you accept scientific law then I postulate: Science proves that the universe does not exist! Science cannot account for matter and energy.
Oh bugger. I wish I wasn't at work and could spare the time to answer this. Posts like this one don't come along very often. Ho Hum. Science does answer all your questions without the need to contradict the laws of science. Show me some of the answers you've been given in the past that contradict these laws and I'll see if I can spot the mistakes. And pelase stop quoting the matter and energy thing... it's mass and energy.
later. perhaps.
Come on seriously? Surely you know the mass of anything is made of matter. Mass in itelf is the total space that matter takes up. It has been called mass...but primarily it is the law of conservation of MATTER and energy.
And not saying I'm better than anyone else, but I know my science. I have quite a bit of formal education in chemistry, biology, physics etc. etc.
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Posted: December 02 2009 at 11:30
Well no one bit on my cosmology post...but I again just want to assert the uncertainty in the Big Bang.
A priest once told me "Fine, let's say the Big Bang is correct. What caused the Big Bang?" From a math-science point of view, the question for me is "What broke the singularity open?" or "What perturbed the equilibrium state?" In our current universe, the answer can only be something from outside. That DOES NOT mean that something was anything resembling what we call God. It DOES mean there are gaping holes in the current scientific cosmology. Fundamental ones.
Which brings me back to the fact that all of these cosmology stories are narratives to help the people of a certain time understand the world around them. They will break down. In as much as we live in the same reality, the actual Truth, whatever it is, is the same.
I also think that Ancient wisdom holds up in pointing to some aspects of Truth, while modern science has powerful insights, and the difference is often that they're dealing with completely different things.
The Ancients know more about subjective consciousness (which is in fact what we call our lives to a great extent) than Science will never be able to describe much. Because Science is about Objective observation.
Edited by Negoba - December 02 2009 at 11:32
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 02 2009 at 11:31
AmbianceMan wrote:
I believe it's very, very, very simple. Most people ignore the obvious scientific proof that evolution could NOT be true. Forget the religious arguments for now and let's focus on simple things. The reasoning is so simple that most people dismiss it as not being "intellectual" enough.
You obviously don't understand the difference between evidence and opinion. Just because you don't understand something or perceive it as overwhelmingly complex, there can still be a simple explanation (often even remarkably simple).
AmbianceMan wrote:
I think much more faith is required to believe in evolution than in intelligent design.
For example, take the big bang. So something the size of a period exploded and formed the universe? Really? That's fine but you must first explain where that matter came from. Scientists accept the big bang in large numbers, but fail to look at the obvious. As a matter of fact if you accept scientific law...it states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. If that were the case...how did matter originate? And if you don't accept the Big Bang you still have to explain how matter magically appeared. I've heard stuff about "dark matter" and the like...but matter is matter, energy is energy.
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Yet you live in a country that runs nuclear reactors ... it's only the tip of the iceberg, but the most obvious flaw in this paragraph is obvious if you just look at one of the most simple equations of all time: E=mc^2. Of course its consequences are quite complex ...
AmbianceMan wrote:
In order to disprove intelligent design you first have to assume that matter spontaneously appeared from nothingness with no cause or reason. So if you believe this, you are in effect saying "poof, there it is". As a creationist, I am also saying "poof there it is" but with a reason behind it.
The first sentence is wrong. And since the rest is based on it, it's also wrong. I'm also not saying that the Universe just "sprang into existence". We don't know yet how it started in all its implication, but that doesn't mean that it must have happened "magically". There are many examples of scientific explanations for things that people used to think were magic.
AmbianceMan wrote:
I could go on and on...the fact that there should be a bajillion fossils of steps between monkeys and man if it were true, like whole populations. Instead you have monkeys...and man....and scientists digging and digging and causing a bunch of hoopla if they think they might have found ONE that MIGHT be in between There is a such thing as minor variations and changes along the way, but species never change to another species, which is required for evolution. This was a theory created by one guy, and accepted by billions because it's an easy explanation.
You're sure making a proud display of your ignorance. You could recommend Dawkins's book to you, but of course I know that you are not looking for evidence. You are simply spreading lies and disinformation in the hope that people will be convinced by pure rhethoric and stereotypical phrases ... which is exactly the one thing that us atheists should fight.
AmbianceMan wrote:
Now I'm not saying you are stupid if you believe it at all. But I think if you go back to the simple arguments you simply cannot get past it.
So far you haven't presented any arguments that I could go back to.
AmbianceMan wrote:
Now is when I hear "well if God created everything, who created God?". All I can say is go read the book where God tells us all about himself. The bible pretty much lays it all out and I can't add to the argument. He says that he himself is the beginning, and without him TIME would not even exist, let alone space and matter. That's a big concept, and our mortal finite minds can't really comprehend it...and if we could comprehend everything then we would be God...and I sure know I'm not.
The bible was written by a bunch of religious fanatics ... I don't believe in anything it says. It's not a lack of faith on my part, it's an over-abundance of mistakes and inconsistencies that prevent me from even considering to take it seriously.
AmbianceMan wrote:
Even in the book of Job, it is laid out that the earth is a sphere and floats in space, and describes the hydrologic cycle..and that's the oldest book in the bible! This was thousands of years before everyone found out the earth was not flat. I enjoy thinking about these things actually...like trying to wrap my mind around the fact that there was a time when space did not even exist.
Intelligent design is more awe inspiring and thought provoking IMHO.
*edit* please don't take anything I say as an insult to anyone's beliefs. I used to believe in evolution, big bang and all that....but when I thought about the things they DON'T teach you in school, I had questions
I don't have any belief that you could possibly insult. And no matter what you do, you won't keep me from asking questions that *you* can't answer.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: December 02 2009 at 11:34
AmbianceMan wrote:
Come on seriously? Surely you know the mass of anything is made of matter. Mass in itelf is the total space that matter takes up. It has been called mass...but primarily it is the law of conservation of MATTER and energy.
And not saying I'm better than anyone else, but I know my science. I have quite a bit of formal education in chemistry, biology, physics etc. etc.
very quick answers.
I think you have that the wrong way around - Matter is anything that has mass and occupies a volume, therefore matter is a mass in a volume - If you compress the volume to a singularity so that the volume tends to zero and the mass tends to inifinity - mass without volume is not matter. Therefore at the moment before the big-bang there was no matter, only mass. Matter was created when the mass expanded into space.
As to the conservartion of matter: Electrons (matter- they have mass) are "converted" into photons (electro-magnetic energy) to produce light from a light emitting diode.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: December 02 2009 at 11:38
Negoba wrote:
Well no one bit on my cosmology post...but I again just want to assert the uncertainty in the Big Bang.
A priest once told me "Fine, let's say the Big Bang is correct. What caused the Big Bang?" From a math-science point of view, the question for me is "What broke the singularity open?" or "What perturbed the equilibrium state?" In our current universe, the answer can only be something from outside. That DOES NOT mean that something was anything resembling what we call God. It DOES mean there are gaping holes in the current scientific cosmology. Fundamental ones.
Which brings me back to the fact that all of these cosmology stories are narratives to help the people of a certain time understand the world around them. They will break down. In as much as we live in the same reality, the actual Truth, whatever it is, is the same.
I also think that Ancient wisdom holds up in pointing to some aspects of Truth, while modern science has powerful insights, and the difference is often that they're dealing with completely different things.
The Ancients know more about subjective consciousness (which is in fact what we call our lives to a great extent) than Science will never be able to describe much. Because Science is about Objective observation.
Sorry Jay - I did bite on your cosmology post - it's the one post today that's said something new and provoking, but I really am too busy to give it the time it deserves at the mo.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 02 2009 at 11:42
Negoba wrote:
Well no one bit on my cosmology post...but I again just want to assert the uncertainty in the Big Bang.
A priest once told me "Fine, let's say the Big Bang is correct. What caused the Big Bang?" From a math-science point of view, the question for me is "What broke the singularity open?" or "What perturbed the equilibrium state?" In our current universe, the answer can only be something from outside. That DOES NOT mean that something was anything resembling what we call God. It DOES mean there are gaping holes in the current scientific cosmology. Fundamental ones.
Which brings me back to the fact that all of these cosmology stories are narratives to help the people of a certain time understand the world around them. They will break down. In as much as we live in the same reality, the actual Truth, whatever it is, is the same.
I also think that Ancient wisdom holds up in pointing to some aspects of Truth, while modern science has powerful insights, and the difference is often that they're dealing with completely different things.
The Ancients know more about subjective consciousness (which is in fact what we call our lives to a great extent) than Science will never be able to describe much. Because Science is about Objective observation.
Any respectably scientist will tell you that it is yet unclear how the Universe was created. It would be unrealistic to demand that science explain every detail about that process in order to be convinced that it happened naturally. As it is today, there are many, many convincing theories that all offer explanations of how it *might* have happened, and all of them without any need for an intelligent designer.
Things that we currently can't explain might be just that. There are many things that were without any explanation for a long time, until some scientist discovered it. That does not mean that until that moment they were supernatural.
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
Posted: December 02 2009 at 11:47
Progfreak... I'm starting to believe that you cannot get the point anyway... just by claiming that the Bible are just writing of religious fanatics your'e missing the complete point... I wonder if you believe that Socrates exists...??? I mean... only because Platon wrote about him and all mankind believe in the existence of Socrates, but when you see the bible then you understimate because your so-called mistakes... I think I won't say anything else... I cannot proof you nothing, and I'm glad that I believe in something beyond my mind... I'm sure this thought is in my mind because of something beyond... and I won't try to convince you... you want physical proof but you don't even have a single proof of the common ancester of monkeys and humans... it suppose to exist but we don't have proof at all of that... so...
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Posted: December 02 2009 at 12:05
The existence of many of the ancients is highly disputed, Lao Tzu, Patanjali, Siddhartha/Buddha, Jesus, and yes Socrates. The most common line is that they are composites of several leaders within the group. People take Occam's Razor too far. I, in fact, do believe in single humans who are crux points in the web of causation because we see them even today. Martin Luther King is a more "saintly" example, while Hitler is a devilish one. These single individuals had profound effects on human culture and the course of history.
So yes I believe Jesus existed and was perhaps the greatest "Karma-crux" (my word) in our recorded history.
And whether you believe in the world of the Divine or not, these subjects are fun to think about.
One last monkey wrench, if you believe in the Science cosmology as I understand it, you must believe in aliens. (Staunch atheist Carl Sagan did.) Probably a subject for a different thread.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
Posted: December 02 2009 at 12:19
Yeah... I was a follower from one TV program from Argentina and they gather up together Catholic, Jewish, Evangelistic, Buddiest and gnostic experts to discuss things, and in one of the chapters they talk about Aliens in a very interesting way... how most of the mainful religions are willing to believe in aliens... but that's another subject... I think you are right about those key-subjects in history of mankind, I even put Mother Teresa of Calcuta -don't know how she's called in english- is another "karma-crux" as you call it... but my point is how progfreak is willing to believe in whoever but no in someone mentioned in the bible just because he thinks its wrong or "contradictorie"... But agreed with you... in that... about aliens again... my possition is not made yet... I have a couple of doubts...
Edited by jampa17 - December 02 2009 at 12:22
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: December 02 2009 at 14:03
Negoba wrote:
The existence of many of the ancients is highly disputed, Lao Tzu, Patanjali, Siddhartha/Buddha, Jesus, and yes Socrates. The most common line is that they are composites of several leaders within the group. People take Occam's Razor too far. I, in fact, do believe in single humans who are crux points in the web of causation because we see them even today. Martin Luther King is a more "saintly" example, while Hitler is a devilish one. These single individuals had profound effects on human culture and the course of history.
So yes I believe Jesus existed and was perhaps the greatest "Karma-crux" (my word) in our recorded history.
And whether you believe in the world of the Divine or not, these subjects are fun to think about.
One last monkey wrench, if you believe in the Science cosmology as I understand it, you must believe in aliens. (Staunch atheist Carl Sagan did.) Probably a subject for a different thread.
The actual historical records of Jesus that exist outside of the Bible shed more light on what the real man was like. He was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem, for instance, and there is even evidence that he was indeed crucified. Jesus was nothing new, though. Many prophets existed at the time who claimed to have divine powers, and all had disciples, etc. If you want to talk composits, I would say that the Jesus of the Bible is an amalgam of historical Jesus and many legends that existed before the Bible was written. No, I cannot name specifics at this point, but I do know that the 'Jesus' story existed in many incarnations before it got stuck into thr Bible. Could anybody with a better knowledge of past literature help me out here and give some examples of the stories I speak of?
As for your last sentence, Jay, if by 'aliens' you mean the bulbous-headed creatures people always claim are abducting them from their bedrooms and whatnot, then no, I do not believe in them. But is it possible, even likely, that other beings exist on other planets in the universe? Well, yes of course. I don't believe they've ever made contact, but I would like to think this isn't the only planet that can support intelligent life.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 02 2009 at 14:14
jampa17 wrote:
Progfreak... I'm starting to believe that you cannot get the point anyway... just by claiming that the Bible are just writing of religious fanatics your'e missing the complete point... I wonder if you believe that Socrates exists...??? I mean... only because Platon wrote about him and all mankind believe in the existence of Socrates,
I don't doubt that Jesus existed ... I just don't believe the supernatural parts. And as far as I recall, nobody ever claimed that Socrates walked on water ...
jampa17 wrote:
but when you see the bible then you understimate because your so-called mistakes... I think I won't say anything else... I cannot proof you nothing, and I'm glad that I believe in something beyond my mind... I'm sure this thought is in my mind because of something beyond... and I won't try to convince you... you want physical proof but you don't even have a single proof of the common ancester of monkeys and humans... it suppose to exist but we don't have proof at all of that... so...
We have plenty of proof for common ancestors of monkeys and humans ... they're in museums, waiting for people like you and me to look at them. I have ... have you? And even if you don't accept fossils, the answer's right there in every one of us: DNA.
Dawkins uses the word "history-denier" for people who follow your line of thought ... and I'm beginning to see that he really nailed it with that. Between "history-denier" and "clear-thinker" I'll always gladly choose the latter.
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Posted: December 02 2009 at 15:04
What is it with you and Dawkins?
Rule number 7...are they playing by the rules of science?
This is circular, science worshipping, and the guy violates his own rule about his own ideology impairing his claims.
Philosophy has long argued about this point. To what degree can you actually determine objective reality, which is, shared reality. An individual cannot. All data is colored by the method of acquisition. Therefore we go to phenomena that can be perceived by multiple observers.
Furthermore, the act of observing changes what is being observed. Both on a relativistic level, but also in very gross ways, you can only infer the degree to which your controlled system mirrors the free system.
Science is perfect at doing what it is designed to do. But what Mike and the whole Dawkins association seem to fail to fathom is that science is EXTREMELY limited when analyzing complex situations.
In Medicine, where we are forced to deal with non-controlled situations all the time, we try very hard to rely on science. But there are simply some things that science cannot do because not enough control can be exerted to measure something or that changes the situation too much for it to apply to the real world. I can give an exhausting numbers of examples of this. I would argue that nowhere outside of medicine is the scientific method attempted to be used, with sometimes amazing results, but that science fails us very very often.
Replace Science in that video with "Grover worshipping." anything that does not use the grover-worshipping method is baloney. If watch the whole video that way I think you'll understand why you were being accused of using circular reasoning before.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
Posted: December 02 2009 at 15:10
Man... I can't never see your pics of whatever you put in... is just white blocks what my computer shows... don't know why... well man... I've seen a lot of fossils but you know that there are a lot of deductive process like.. "this has tail... and this other is evolved and has no tail.." but the spaces between them are deductived, not prooved... again... I'm not denying evolution per se, I'm telling you that there is many missing evidence that do not confirm evolution... even less without a disigner... so as well as my believe in God without proof, you don't have from species to species in the road of evolution...
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: December 02 2009 at 15:12
Jay. I do think Mike is using Dawkin's-funded information way too much. I would like to hear from a group not involved with Dawkins yet just as faithful to science. Care to share any other possible info that you've learned from any other Scientist, Mike?
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: December 02 2009 at 15:15
jampa17 wrote:
Man... I can't never see your pics of whatever you put in... is just white blocks what my computer shows... don't know why... well man... I've seen a lot of fossils but you know that there are a lot of deductive process like.. "this has tail... and this other is evolved and has no tail.." but the spaces between them are deductived, not prooved... again... I'm not denying evolution per se, I'm telling you that there is many missing evidence that do not confirm evolution... even less without a disigner... so as well as my believe in God without proof, you don't have from species to species in the road of evolution...
They aren't photos, they are videos related to Richard Dawkins' view of the world.
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
Posted: December 02 2009 at 15:23
p0mt3 wrote:
Negoba wrote:
The existence of many of the ancients is highly disputed, Lao Tzu, Patanjali, Siddhartha/Buddha, Jesus, and yes Socrates. The most common line is that they are composites of several leaders within the group. People take Occam's Razor too far. I, in fact, do believe in single humans who are crux points in the web of causation because we see them even today. Martin Luther King is a more "saintly" example, while Hitler is a devilish one. These single individuals had profound effects on human culture and the course of history.
So yes I believe Jesus existed and was perhaps the greatest "Karma-crux" (my word) in our recorded history.
And whether you believe in the world of the Divine or not, these subjects are fun to think about.
One last monkey wrench, if you believe in the Science cosmology as I understand it, you must believe in aliens. (Staunch atheist Carl Sagan did.) Probably a subject for a different thread.
The actual historical records of Jesus that exist outside of the Bible shed more light on what the real man was like. He was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem, for instance, and there is even evidence that he was indeed crucified. Jesus was nothing new, though. Many prophets existed at the time who claimed to have divine powers, and all had disciples, etc. If you want to talk composits, I would say that the Jesus of the Bible is an amalgam of historical Jesus and many legends that existed before the Bible was written. No, I cannot name specifics at this point, but I do know that the 'Jesus' story existed in many incarnations before it got stuck into thr Bible. Could anybody with a better knowledge of past literature help me out here and give some examples of the stories I speak of?
As for your last sentence, Jay, if by 'aliens' you mean the bulbous-headed creatures people always claim are abducting them from their bedrooms and whatnot, then no, I do not believe in them. But is it possible, even likely, that other beings exist on other planets in the universe? Well, yes of course. I don't believe they've ever made contact, but I would like to think this isn't the only planet that can support intelligent life.
How do you proclaim that it was in Nazareth not Bethelem his place of birth...??? I mean, how do you decided that this fact is more likely than the other...??? I understand your point and this has been discussed by centuries, all the myth and common knowledge from different cultures that have merged and is mentioned on the old testament... there are thousand of information of it... but it is interesting that there's no a single serious source that could said this is true and this is false... there are too much gosdpells that have being wrote in 4th or 5th century... which you can discount because is very likely that those were writen after the other and accepted Godspells... this theme is very long to discuss... so... back to the topic... I still don't see proof from species to species...
Edited by jampa17 - December 02 2009 at 15:25
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
Come on seriously? Surely you know the mass of anything is made of matter. Mass in itelf is the total space that matter takes up. It has been called mass...but primarily it is the law of conservation of MATTER and energy.
And not saying I'm better than anyone else, but I know my science. I have quite a bit of formal education in chemistry, biology, physics etc. etc.
very quick answers.
I think you have that the wrong way around - Matter is anything that has mass and occupies a volume, therefore matter is a mass in a volume - If you compress the volume to a singularity so that the volume tends to zero and the mass tends to inifinity - mass without volume is not matter. Therefore at the moment before the big-bang there was no matter, only mass. Matter was created when the mass expanded into space.
As to the conservartion of matter: Electrons (matter- they have mass) are "converted" into photons (electro-magnetic energy) to produce light from a light emitting diode.
I am going to regress a moment...
You corrected me initially for calling it the law of conservation of matter instead of mass..
It can in fact be both, and you can google both to your hearts content. The terminology varies depending on where you learned it from. I made a mistake in saying it was not mass, but you also made a mistake by saying that it wasn't matter. So we are both right in that regard.
Also, I do in fact know plenty about e=mc2. I happen to have a B.S. in science studying to be a radiation physicist. Electron to photon "conversion" is what I do for a living. It involves electrons traveling at the speed of light striking other atoms (whether striking the nucleus, shell electrons, or passing through creating a "braking" type loss of energy) which throws off photons.
The point of all this is that matter or energy is not created or destroyed, just converted, which really proves my point more than it does yours.
So what is your explanation for how matter got here? You may disagree with me, but you can't disprove me either. However, I can simply dismiss most arguments anybody comes up with by just stating a couple elementary laws.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 02 2009 at 15:36
Negoba wrote:
What is it with you and Dawkins?
Rule number 7...are they playing by the rules of science?
This is circular, science worshipping, and the guy violates his own rule about his own ideology impairing his claims.
Philosophy has long argued about this point. To what degree can you actually determine objective reality, which is, shared reality. An individual cannot. All data is colored by the method of acquisition. Therefore we go to phenomena that can be perceived by multiple observers.
Furthermore, the act of observing changes what is being observed. Both on a relativistic level, but also in very gross ways, you can only infer the degree to which your controlled system mirrors the free system.
Science is perfect at doing what it is designed to do. But what Mike and the whole Dawkins association seem to fail to fathom is that science is EXTREMELY limited when analyzing complex situations.
In Medicine, where we are forced to deal with non-controlled situations all the time, we try very hard to rely on science. But there are simply some things that science cannot do because not enough control can be exerted to measure something or that changes the situation too much for it to apply to the real world. I can give an exhausting numbers of examples of this. I would argue that nowhere outside of medicine is the scientific method attempted to be used, with sometimes amazing results, but that science fails us very very often.
Replace Science in that video with "Grover worshipping." anything that does not use the grover-worshipping method is baloney. If watch the whole video that way I think you'll understand why you were being accused of using circular reasoning before.
I wouldn't know how to begin to answer this ... one sentence is more nonsensical than the next. Well, if you can't grasp the concept of science and rational thinking then please don't blame Dawkins, Grover or me.
(And I really don't enjoy reading incoherent mixes of pseudo scientific babble mixed with misunderstood philosophical concepts, let alone gracing them with an answer.)
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: December 02 2009 at 15:42
jampa17 wrote:
p0mt3 wrote:
Negoba wrote:
The existence of many of the ancients is highly disputed, Lao Tzu, Patanjali, Siddhartha/Buddha, Jesus, and yes Socrates. The most common line is that they are composites of several leaders within the group. People take Occam's Razor too far. I, in fact, do believe in single humans who are crux points in the web of causation because we see them even today. Martin Luther King is a more "saintly" example, while Hitler is a devilish one. These single individuals had profound effects on human culture and the course of history.
So yes I believe Jesus existed and was perhaps the greatest "Karma-crux" (my word) in our recorded history.
And whether you believe in the world of the Divine or not, these subjects are fun to think about.
One last monkey wrench, if you believe in the Science cosmology as I understand it, you must believe in aliens. (Staunch atheist Carl Sagan did.) Probably a subject for a different thread.
The actual historical records of Jesus that exist outside of the Bible shed more light on what the real man was like. He was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem, for instance, and there is even evidence that he was indeed crucified. Jesus was nothing new, though. Many prophets existed at the time who claimed to have divine powers, and all had disciples, etc. If you want to talk composits, I would say that the Jesus of the Bible is an amalgam of historical Jesus and many legends that existed before the Bible was written. No, I cannot name specifics at this point, but I do know that the 'Jesus' story existed in many incarnations before it got stuck into thr Bible. Could anybody with a better knowledge of past literature help me out here and give some examples of the stories I speak of?
As for your last sentence, Jay, if by 'aliens' you mean the bulbous-headed creatures people always claim are abducting them from their bedrooms and whatnot, then no, I do not believe in them. But is it possible, even likely, that other beings exist on other planets in the universe? Well, yes of course. I don't believe they've ever made contact, but I would like to think this isn't the only planet that can support intelligent life.
How do you proclaim that it was in Nazareth not Bethelem his place of birth...??? I mean, how do you decided that this fact is more likely than the other...??? I understand your point and this has been discussed by centuries, all the myth and common knowledge from different cultures that have merged and is mentioned on the old testament... there are thousand of information of it... but it is interesting that there's no a single serious source that could said this is true and this is false... there are too much gosdpells that have being wrote in 4th or 5th century... which you can discount because is very likely that those were writen after the other and accepted Godspells... this theme is very long to discuss... so... back to the topic... I still don't see proof from species to species...
Did you not read anything I typed? I clearly said that it was documents located OUTSIDE of biblical scripture (you know . . . documents that can actually be confirmed as true history?) that tells us the actual Jesus' place of birth.
No offense, but I've been reading all of your posts thus far, and it seems as if you ignore the comments that contradict you while making the same arguments over and over. I can't debate with somebody like that. You obviously have no desire to actually listen to the other side of this debate.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.273 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Evolution vs. Creationism
Topic Options
Dean wrote:
You also seem to believe that angels and rising from the dead can somehow be proven by 'real' science, since apparently the science we have now doesn't use this 'real' since you speak of. 
