Intelligent Biblical Conversation?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
So your saying an infinitely existing being powerful enough to create a universe is more likely than an infinite universe?

What?
[/quote]
I never said what was more likely. However, even us we humans were able to discern material the material universe is in fact finite.

Also, the universe as we know it can be one of many. There could have been others before ours. Our understanding of such grand matters is limited by our humanity. Our material existence holds us back.

Yes, I believe in a being, power or whatever, created what we experience. No I cannot prove it; it is a matter of faith.

What’s funny is that we all exist on faith essentially. We believe that the future will likely resemble the past. The laws of physics will hold true day in and day out. The sun will rise and set day after day.

There will be air to breath; etc. We have no way to be absolutely sure that any of those things will hold true, but we just believe them to be. However, when it comes to the existence of a supernatural being, we need absolute proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[quote]
The “something comes from nothing” argument is a fallacy. [/quote]

Of course it is a fallacy that was my point.

[quote]
The simple response is, did God come from nothing? [/quote]

You’d have to ask Him, I don’t know. This is known as a paradox. Analogous to Zeno’s paradox, movement is impossible, yet we are able to move.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
You’d have to ask Him, I don’t know. This is known as a paradox. Analogous to Zeno’s paradox, movement is impossible, yet we are able to move.

[/quote]

What’s this “simple english” stuff… if you’re going to learn about the paradoxes for the first time, at least be aware that mathematically, they’ve been explained for quite some time now: Zeno's paradoxes - Wikipedia

This is just purely in regards to taking scientific word as gospel. Sometimes scientists disagree on theory. I am fascinated with quantum entanglement. It is a bit of a mystery, and even baffled Einstein.

Entanglement is one of the properties of quantum mechanics which caused Einstein and others to dislike the theory. In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen formulated the EPR paradox, a quantum-mechanical thought experiment with a highly counterintuitive and apparently nonlocal outcome. Einstein famously derided entanglement as “spooky action at a distance.”

lol @ spooky action at a distance. The founder of the theory of relativity gave us that genius deduction.

Anyway, I know its way off topic, but it ties in with the unknown and the universe…plus its fascinating and somehow romantic to me.

Check Wikipedia to read more-

[quote]Hanzo wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

What?

The “something comes from nothing” argument is a fallacy. The simple response is, did God come from nothing?

I think everyone agrees that the universe as we know it has some sort of beginning. Now, when you speak of a higher power one assumes that the physical laws that us humans are bound by don’t apply to this higher power. See the universe as a confined system operating according to specific physical laws.

Now, if this universe has a Creator then it is not necessary for this Creator to adhere to the rules of the system He created. Hence, a supernatural Creator doesn’t necessarily have to adhere to natural laws.

Now whether you believe in the supernatural or not is another story but it is somewhat of a straw man to ask the question who created God?[/quote]

I would like to think that a supernatural creator would be using more than whatever % of our brain we are using. Which would make “whatever” a bit stoic, to say the least.

I assume by supernatural, you are referring to ET like life and if you are, it is not a stretch to think that life elsewhere could be around for say a billion years. If that were the case, what we are doing with DNA and the like in a very short period of time leaves me to believe that we could discover a planet, study it’s enviornment, do a few more calculations, and voila, life. Just bury it’s roots as deep as you can to keep everyone guessing, and when they are ready, break the news to them.

All I know is that if something unearthly lands in the mall parking lot this weekend, I’m not going to work Monday.

Not very scientific, but there we go.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Hanzo wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pat36 wrote:

So your saying an infinitely existing being powerful enough to create a universe is more likely than an infinite universe?

but the universe had a beginning

Most probably, but why assume that the cause of the universe is supernatural, instead of natural?
[/quote]

It’s a matter of philosophical inclination.

Why assume anything? Time, according many physicists, including Stephen Hawking, began with the Big Bang. So perhaps a better question would be what caused time (and the true beginning of nature)? There are peculiarities that mankind will only ever be able to speculate and philosophize about.

Similar to my assertion that humans and our reasoning are confined to nature. Again, different philosophies.

It’s not an arbitrary sidestep as much as it is a “tu quoque” argument on the part of the person who responds to the assertion that God created the universe. As I’ve stated earlier, I see the definitive nature of God as outside the scope of human reasoning.

The difference between “Nature” and God is that my assumption is that God created Nature not that Nature sprung from itself (i.e the beginning of beginnings). Again, we can only speculate?

[quote]olderguy wrote:
I would like to think that a supernatural creator would be using more than whatever % of our brain we are using.[/quote]

That’s an old myth that just won’t die. We use all of our brain.

From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes no sense to evolve a large, calorie-hungry organ, that is 90% useless.

Even if that is what occurred, it still leaves the question of how did the 1st intelligent civilization begin?

[quote]Hanzo wrote:
Why assume anything? Time, according many physicists, including Stephen Hawking, began with the Big Bang.[/quote]

That was the main line of thinking back in the 1980s; newer theories allow for “something” already in existence causing the Big Bang.

Isn’t it a bit arrogant to claim to know what mankind will or won’t be able to accomplish in the future?

It sounds a bit like Charles Duell, Director of the patent office, claiming that “Everything that can be invented has been invented.” In 1899.

If “Nature” is the sum of existence, then everything is confined to Nature. The question is: Does Nature exist outside of the known universe, or is our universe the whole of it?

Not really. One argument invents a supernatural, all-powerful, all-knowing entity. The other supposes that the universe, like all known causes and effects within it, also has a natural cause.

But you impose a beginning on Nature and not on God. You could simply say “Nature has always existed” and achieve the same result with one less entity in the reasoning. Again, why exclude God from the demands you place on Nature?

[quote]pookie wrote:
olderguy wrote:
I would like to think that a supernatural creator would be using more than whatever % of our brain we are using.

That’s an old myth that just won’t die. We use all of our brain.

That’s interesting, I will have to look into that. If that is the case, I have spent to much time thinking of things related to that.[/quote]

From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes no sense to evolve a large, calorie-hungry organ, that is 90% useless.

that life elsewhere could be around for say a billion years. If that were the case, what we are doing with DNA and the like in a very short period of time leaves me to believe that we could discover a planet, study it’s environment, do a few more calculations, and voila, life.

Even if that is what occurred, it still leaves the question of how did the 1st intelligent civilization begin?
[/quote]

I meant to address that at the end. Perhaps there are civilizations that have been around for a billion years asking the same question? For some reason I doubt it.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Hanzo wrote:

Isn’t it a bit arrogant to claim to know what mankind will or won’t be able to accomplish in the future?
[/quote]

I simply said that science won’t ever be able to answer all the questions regarding the world. Thus,we can only speculate? Isn’t it more arrogant to say that science has all the answers to questions regarding life and the universe?

Does something exist outside of Nature, or is Nature the whole of it? We’re pondering the same philosophical questions but from wholly different perspectives.

It’s a tu quoque argument or perhaps more a red herring. Your shifting the burden of the question to God rather than the universe. Thus, you’re really only heading for an irrelevant conclusion, with respect to what caused the universe.

I only place similar demands on things that I see to be similar in nature, God and Nature are not. The questions people have concerning God are metaphysical and spiritual? People usually don’t place the same demands on Nature do they? Your setting up a straw man rather than trying to see it from my point of view.

[quote]Hanzo wrote:
I simply said that science won’t ever be able to answer all the questions regarding the world. Thus,we can only speculate?[/quote]

Which questions would those be, and how can you know whether or not science will have an answer for them?

That’s not arrogant, it’s plain wrong. Science does not have all the answers, far from it. I simply feel it is presumptuous to claim now what will or won’t be known in a distant future.

You’re changing the definition. I said “If Nature is the whole of existence…” Therefore, by definition, nothing “natural” could exist outside of it. The actual question is if what we call “the universe” is the whole of Nature, or just part of it. In other words, are there other universes; if so, are there similar or different to ours, etc.

What else can we do? If God satisfies the question “where does the universe come from?” then the next logical step is to ask “from where did God come from?”

I see your point of view fine, I simply point out the illogic in it. For any question for which we don’t have a definitive answer, such as the beginning of the universe, you claim God as the answer. When it is pointed out that the same questions can be asked of God, you then claim that they cannot, because God is “different” and not subject to those questions. Yet, there is nothing to back up those assertions except your personal beliefs. We have no way of objectively testing whether or not my view or your view is the correct one. I simply feel, personally, that if each view is equally possible, then the one with the least external entities is probable more likely.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Hanzo wrote:

Which questions would those be, and how can you know whether or not science will have an answer for them?

[/quote]
Did God have a Cause? :slight_smile:

I never said “what” won’t ever be known, I said that there are “peculiarities” that probably won’t ever be known.

I “changed” your definition not my own definition. I view Nature and “Supernature” to be the sum of existence, albeit two different planes of existence, not Nature alone, .

But you’re not actually satisfied by the answer nor are YOU looking to be satisfied by it. That’s why it’s a red herring. You’re changing the subject by not focusing on the question at hand.

The argument is not illogical. It is inconclusive. Although, I agree we are both walking the path of uncertain reasoning.

God can be subjected to the same questions however He is not subject to the same line of reasoning. You can ask the same questions about God but the “answers” could be frustrating, paradoxical, exhaustive not to mention metaphysical (which skeptics don’t give a crap about). Answers that probably wouldn’t suffice to scientific inquiry.

Perhaps, the default position, from a “logical” stand point, should be agnosticism. Neither theism nor atheism hold any viable scientific ground. Mankind has always had existential questions at its bare feet for which rather than waiting for the dictum of science we have resorted to philosophy and religion for answers.

As I’ve said all along it’s a matter of philosophical inclination.

[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
This is just purely in regards to taking scientific word as gospel. Sometimes scientists disagree on theory. I am fascinated with quantum entanglement. It is a bit of a mystery, and even baffled Einstein.

Entanglement is one of the properties of quantum mechanics which caused Einstein and others to dislike the theory. In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen formulated the EPR paradox, a quantum-mechanical thought experiment with a highly counterintuitive and apparently nonlocal outcome. Einstein famously derided entanglement as “spooky action at a distance.”

lol @ spooky action at a distance. The founder of the theory of relativity gave us that genius deduction.

Anyway, I know its way off topic, but it ties in with the unknown and the universe…plus its fascinating and somehow romantic to me.

Check Wikipedia to read more-

Ha! The EPR effect, Simutaneous cause and effect. I love it. I wish David Hume had lived long enough to hear that theory. He would have gone on an Absinthe and opium binge and burned all his quills.

I actually think it is quite relevent as we are talking essentially about cause and effect relationships. Simultaneous causation removes the notion that an effect necessarily follows from a cause. It removes the temporal and spatial aspects from cause and effect relationships.

I say it’s relevent, but I haven’t quite figured out how to work it in other than altering the traditional notion of cause and effect.

[quote]Hanzo wrote:
pookie wrote:
Hanzo wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pat36 wrote:

So your saying an infinitely existing being powerful enough to create a universe is more likely than an infinite universe?

but the universe had a beginning

Most probably, but why assume that the cause of the universe is supernatural, instead of natural?

It’s a matter of philosophical inclination.
[/quote]

It’s more a matter of terminology. For the sake of aurgment let’s make physical be natural and metaphysical be supernatural. In the end it doesn’t matter what you call it.

Time is really a man made concept. We are pretty wrapped up in it but it is absolutly necessary for us because it is how we measure movement and change. Here’s a fun question, if nothing moved or changed would we still have time?

True enough. God’s existance cannot be proven or disproven, in the end it’s a matter of faith. You can believe God exists, or you can not believe God exists. Both statements are statements of faith.

People tend to make the mistake and associate faith as a belief in God. Not believing in God is an act of faith as well. In all acts of faith one is taking a chance that they could be wrong.

To get back to the original post I agree with alot of what was said. There are alot of credible and well known scientists who dont agree with the evolutionary theory and are some of the most read and well known in their respective fields.

Im not saying this proves that evolution is false but there is room for debate and discussion and to say that evolution is 100% fact is flat out false regardless of what you believe. It comes down for information and who life could of risen from non-life.

Scientists have no idea how this happened and this has led some scientists to question the theory because without this step evolution cant get off the ground. This debate will rage on and thier are smart people on both sides of the issue. . .

Austin

I think the question has been answered:

Q: Intelligent Biblical Conversation?
A: Not possible.

[quote]Deadend66 wrote:
Yes, there actually is such a thing.

I have noticed that there are alot of different people on this site, with lots of differing opinions as to weather or not we were intelligently designed or evolved through an evolutionary process from single celled organizms. This is a subject that has pretty much consumed me for the past few years and I would like to outline what I have concluded through my own personal research.

Evolution: A few years back a big concern of mine was evolution. I believed in God but, doubted weather or not things happened the way the bible actually accounted them. This is no longer a concern for me and the place it stopped being a concern is actually quite ironic. It was in my Science class while studying Evolution.

What I concluded upon finishing the course is that; Evolution is completely false. Now thats a big statement. I should probably back it up a little bit. The fossils we find that are believed to be proof of pre-historic man are actually no proof at all. If you were to actually look at one of these fossils you would probably be slightly skeptical as I was. There are no full skulls, no pefectly skulpted skeletons like we see in museums.

What Scientists have found, are small fragments. A piece of a skull, a femer, or the jawbone to a face are all they ever find. The rest is constructed with their vivid imagination and some plaster. You might have heard of the Java man. Scientists believed for a short period of time that he was their “missing link”. But he was only a fragment of skull and a small piece of femer. In today’s world we are so quick to believe what most scientists say.

People dont question for themselves anymore. At least, they dont question the scientists, the allmighty benevolent scientist. Most people have this mindset that if theres a study on a certain subject that it is absolutely correct. But for every study out there there are a hundred more that say just the oposite, which you T-men know better than anyone.

This is where the word exact-science comes in to play. A true oxy-moron if I have ever heard one. Scientist do their tests on whatever they find and tag an age on it. Carbon-dating, as far as I know, is the only method they use. A process in which they examin the half-life of the carbon isotopes in the fossils or whatever it may be.

This method seems incorrect to me, and to my associates because, it is impossible to determine how much carbon was originally there. Personally I dont believe, the world is more then 20,000 years old. But I’m just a crazy bible fanatic right? It is not absolutely absurd to believe what I believe. A simple math equation can show that if you started with 2 humans in 400 years you would have over 100,000.

But my message is not about exposing what is wrong with science, or getting you to believe what I do. My message is about being open and discovering for yourself what you beieve. You all know that old methods and old ways are shit, to put it quite bluntly. Weightlifters back in the day would benifit so greatly from our knowledge now. I think its time for a change in the way we think too. I’d like to end with letting everyone know that I have a large ammount of respect for T-Nation.
Note: My grammar is terrible.[/quote]

Deadend66:

Wow…I have been gone for awhile and lo and behold a Bible thread that I didn’t start!

Deadend, you make a great point about ‘self-discovery,’ but you must keep in mind that purveyors of the “religion” of evolution – yes it is a religious belief devoid of true science – will do anything and say anything to protect their religion.

They will spew things about carbon dating, ignoring the fact that the concept of “uniformitarianism” is completely false since the Flood changed the atmosphere and the earth as well as affecting living things. They will cite the “geolgocial column” which is a complete myth, and on and on they will go.

I applaud your courage, but don’t expect too many “converts” to your point of view. Also, don’t expect civil discourse as well – those who follow this false religion also tend to be foul mouthed and condescending. One day they WILL face God…

Take care.

SteveO

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Deadend66 wrote:
Yes, there actually is such a thing.

I have noticed that there are alot of different people on this site, with lots of differing opinions as to weather or not we were intelligently designed or evolved through an evolutionary process from single celled organizms. This is a subject that has pretty much consumed me for the past few years and I would like to outline what I have concluded through my own personal research.

Evolution: A few years back a big concern of mine was evolution. I believed in God but, doubted weather or not things happened the way the bible actually accounted them. This is no longer a concern for me and the place it stopped being a concern is actually quite ironic. It was in my Science class while studying Evolution.

What I concluded upon finishing the course is that; Evolution is completely false. Now thats a big statement. I should probably back it up a little bit. The fossils we find that are believed to be proof of pre-historic man are actually no proof at all. If you were to actually look at one of these fossils you would probably be slightly skeptical as I was. There are no full skulls, no pefectly skulpted skeletons like we see in museums.

What Scientists have found, are small fragments. A piece of a skull, a femer, or the jawbone to a face are all they ever find. The rest is constructed with their vivid imagination and some plaster. You might have heard of the Java man. Scientists believed for a short period of time that he was their “missing link”. But he was only a fragment of skull and a small piece of femer. In today’s world we are so quick to believe what most scientists say.

People dont question for themselves anymore. At least, they dont question the scientists, the allmighty benevolent scientist. Most people have this mindset that if theres a study on a certain subject that it is absolutely correct. But for every study out there there are a hundred more that say just the oposite, which you T-men know better than anyone.

This is where the word exact-science comes in to play. A true oxy-moron if I have ever heard one. Scientist do their tests on whatever they find and tag an age on it. Carbon-dating, as far as I know, is the only method they use. A process in which they examin the half-life of the carbon isotopes in the fossils or whatever it may be.

This method seems incorrect to me, and to my associates because, it is impossible to determine how much carbon was originally there. Personally I dont believe, the world is more then 20,000 years old. But I’m just a crazy bible fanatic right? It is not absolutely absurd to believe what I believe. A simple math equation can show that if you started with 2 humans in 400 years you would have over 100,000.

But my message is not about exposing what is wrong with science, or getting you to believe what I do. My message is about being open and discovering for yourself what you beieve. You all know that old methods and old ways are shit, to put it quite bluntly. Weightlifters back in the day would benifit so greatly from our knowledge now. I think its time for a change in the way we think too. I’d like to end with letting everyone know that I have a large ammount of respect for T-Nation.
Note: My grammar is terrible.

Deadend66:

Wow…I have been gone for awhile and lo and behold a Bible thread that I didn’t start!

Deadend, you make a great point about ‘self-discovery,’ but you must keep in mind that purveyors of the “religion” of evolution – yes it is a religious belief devoid of true science – will do anything and say anything to protect their religion.

They will spew things about carbon dating, ignoring the fact that the concept of “uniformitarianism” is completely false since the Flood changed the atmosphere and the earth as well as affecting living things. They will cite the “geolgocial column” which is a complete myth, and on and on they will go.

I applaud your courage, but don’t expect too many “converts” to your point of view. Also, don’t expect civil discourse as well – those who follow this false religion also tend to be foul mouthed and condescending. One day they WILL face God…

Take care.

SteveO[/quote]

I can’t wait to see you all in hell when we find out the Mormon’s were right…

SteveO, self discovery IS important. But this kid just doesn’t know his facts. But you wouldn’t know that, because you don’t know them either.

One day, we will face the pig/cat hybrid with a green lizard tail that is God… but only if we convert to Mormonism first!

Everyone else is going to hell to romp around with the homosexual Satan. At least we know Holloween will kick ass.

(If you haven’t noticed, I’m done taking you seriously).

To anyone that doesn’t believe in evolution, what does that statement mean to you? Are you saying there is no such thing as evolution? Or that evolution might occur, but it’s not how modern life came to be what it is? I find the concept fascinating, and would love it if you could explain your point of view to me. I’m a product of the scientific line of thought, but I am very interested to hear what critics of this point of view believe.

I think I’ll make a new thread to get a response.

[quote]Deadend66 wrote:

What I concluded upon finishing the course is that; Evolution is completely false. Now thats a big statement. I should probably back it up a little bit. The fossils we find that are believed to be proof of pre-historic man are actually no proof at all. If you were to actually look at one of these fossils you would probably be slightly skeptical as I was. There are no full skulls, no pefectly skulpted skeletons like we see in museums.

Personally I dont believe, the world is more then 20,000 years old. But I’m just a crazy bible fanatic right? It is not absolutely absurd to believe what I believe. A simple math equation can show that if you started with 2 humans in 400 years you would have over 100,000.

[/quote]
snipped…
I just quoted some of the first post on what I wanted to touch on.

First I do believe in a God.

However I also believe in evolution to a degree. Also a level playing field must be used in judging both.

To suggest evolution is false because no full skeleton of the missing link has been found is a bit premature.

This is because no full skeleton of Adam and Eve have been found either. So if the same standard of proof is used then neither must be true.

The earth is 20,000 years old? It is not so much how old the earth is but how long man has been on it.

Moses wrote Genesis. The claim is man has been on earth for only 6000 years or so.

Problem is many cultures actually predate the 6,000 year mark. Especially in the America’s. This is shown by their own recordings, not carbon dating.

The agnostics texts were disregarded because they were written much later by someone after the events are said to have happened. Use this same level of judgment on what Moses wrote when man was first on earth and we must disregard Moses version because he too wrote it much later after it happened and was not an eye witness.

The truth is somewhere in between. Looking at other prior cultures and their view of God and man gives a much better picture than just saying one book is the all to be all on the view of religion and its view of God.