Answering Questions

[ChristineM]

Very much like them, and for very mush the same reasons. They both 'believe' they have found the pathway to truth (and therefor their own righteousness).

So why there so many insults and accusations thrown about by religious peeps if their belief is the same.

 

[PureX]

So why there so many insults and accusations thrown about by religious peeps if their belief is the same.

The insults go both ways, of course. And it's because they each have to be 'right', or their beliefs are rubbish. So the other has to be 'wrong', and THEIR beliefs have to be rubbish.

This is the endless abyss that people fall into when they need to be right, and for everyone else to know it.

 

[ChristineM]

The insults go both ways, of course. And it's because they each have to be 'right', or their beliefs are rubbish. So the other has to be 'wrong', and THEIR beliefs have to be rubbish.

This is the endless abyss that people fall into when they need to be right, and for everyone else to know it.

And you think you are always right. It's ok i understand

 

[Aupmanyav]

'Waters' in Vedic mythology is equivalent to hades, the primordial darkness out of which sun surfaced. It was an yearly happening and related to geographical factors in the original homeland of Indo-Europeans some where in the Arctic north where the night lasted for two months. So for seven (and a half) months of the year, Earth was above the water, before the demons abducted it to the 'waters' for two months and Indra fought a long war to rescue the sun. Of course, the savior was known in ancient times by different names (Aup adds: Parjanya, Twastr, Verethragna, Thraetona).

"Indra's mythology and powers are similar to other Indo-European deities such as Jupiter, Perun, Perkūnas, Zalmoxis, Taranis, Zeus, and Thor, showing connections to hypothesized Proto-Indo-European mythology." Indra - Wikipedia

Vritra victorious sun abducted by the demon, Indra brings back the sun rising in the East

 

[firedragon]

So what is wrong with that? Science keeps revisiting and re-analysing its theories, improving them to match with the latest findings. Science does not stop at that their is a bearded man in the sky who sends messages to humans (or begets his own self in a virgin) without providing any evidence, as the theists do.

Lol. YOur evidence for Brahman has so far been nothing but tautology.

What is your scientific evidence for the Brahman? He exists because he exists?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Lol. Your evidence for Brahman has so far been nothing but tautology.

What is your scientific evidence for the Brahman? He exists because he exists?

Brahman, IMHO, is:
"Subatomic particle, also called elementary particle, any of various self-contained units of matter or energy that are the fundamental constituents of all matter." - Britannica

"The exact definition of a particle has diverse descriptions. These professional attempts at the definition of a particle include:
A particle is a collapsed wave function
A particle is a quantum excitation of a field
A particle is an irreducible representation of the Poincaré group
A particle might be a vibrating string
A particle is a thing measured in a detector"
Subatomic particle - Wikipedia

"In differential geometry, a pseudo-Riemannian manifold, also called a semi-Riemannian manifold, is a differentiable manifold with a metric tensor that is everywhere nondegenerate. This is a generalization of a Riemannian manifold in which the requirement of positive-definiteness is relaxed."
Pseudo-Riemannian manifold - Wikipedia

For more than this, check with Polymath or other knowledgeable people.

 

[firedragon]

Brahman, IMHO, is:
"Subatomic particle, also called elementary particle, any of various self-contained units of matter or energy that are the fundamental constituents of all matter." - Britannica

"The exact definition of a particle has diverse descriptions. These professional attempts at the definition of a particle include:
A particle is a collapsed wave function
A particle is a quantum excitation of a field
A particle is an irreducible representation of the Poincaré group
A particle might be a vibrating string
A particle is a thing measured in a detector"
Subatomic particle - Wikipedia

"In differential geometry, a pseudo-Riemannian manifold, also called a semi-Riemannian manifold, is a differentiable manifold with a metric tensor that is everywhere nondegenerate. This is a generalization of a Riemannian manifold in which the requirement of positive-definiteness is relaxed."
Pseudo-Riemannian manifold - Wikipedia

For more than this, check with Polymath or other knowledgeable people.

Your opinion is not scientific evidence mate.

Thats your hypocrisy. You ask others for scientific evidence as an empiricist, but you are giving "opinion".

You have no position whatsoever. Make your own bed.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You ask others for scientific evidence as an empiricist, but you are giving "opinion".

My position is that I will term it as an opinion till the fundamental question of existence and non-existence is solved, and we know that existence can turn into non-existence and vice-versa by itself. That has not been proved till now, and will not be proved in my life-time. That answer will be available in future. Science is working on it. But I will not abort the quest by saying 'Allahdidit' without any proof.

 

[firedragon]

My position is that I will term it as an opinion till the fundamental question of existence and non-existence is solved, and we know that existence can turn into non-existence and vice-versa by itself. That has not been proved till now, and will not be proved in my life-time. That answer will be available in future. Science is working on it. But I will not abort the quest by saying 'Allahdidit' without any proof.

Yeah. But its still not empirical, scientific evidence for Brahman. All just gossip. But you demand from others. Thats the definition of hypocrisy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have described how far have we advanced in the previous post and we have solid proof for that. Gravitational lensing for example, or the actual photographs of atom. What proof you have to claim existence of God or that of soul other than a 7th Century book claimed to be God's word by a certain person who provided no proof that he was any messenger of any God?

 

[PureX]

But unlike most of the atheists I guess, I don't just dismiss it as bullsh*t either. I treat it with respect and have considerable interest in it because it captures how these ancient people conceived of their world. It was analogous to what today is science and philosophy, encapsulated in story form. (Science is the stories that people tell today to make sense of the world, and it has more in common with myth than many would like to recognize.)

Absolutely! Good point.

 

[blü 2]

@CG Didymus had a few questions on God and the Bible. So since they are not specific to one topic, I decision I could use a thread to address all questions on faith, evidence for God, and the reliability or trustworthiness of the Bible.

The following are his questions:
How literal do you take the flood story?
Did it happen a little over 4000 years ago?
Was Noah somewhere 500 years old when he built the ark?
And he lived to be over 900 years old?
Was he and his family the only humans left alive?
So, 4000 or so years ago, there was only Noah and his family, and all of us are descended from him and his sons?
All animals that survived were on the ark?
So, when the ark came to rest, there weren't that many animals in the world and all of them were in one place?
So, except for the animals that stayed in that area, the rest migrated to other parts of the world?
How long did that migration take?
How high was the highest mountain? And how much water would it take for the flood to cover it?
Is there really "overwhelming" evidence for a literal interpretation of the flood?
But again, how literal do you take the Bible? I know some Christians that don't believe it ever rained until the flood, so they don't have to explain how there could have rain but no rainbows.

How literal do you take the flood story?
As literal as the writers of the books of the Tanakh and the Christian Greek scriptures take it. (Matthew 24:36-42) It's recorded as a historical event.

Did it happen a little over 4000 years ago?
According to Biblical chronology.
While modern historians would extend the period of human habitation on the earth much farther back than 4026 B.C.E., the facts are decidedly against the position they maintain. The thousands of years of “prehistory” they argue for are dependent on speculation, as can be seen from this statement by prominent scientist P. E. Klopsteg, who stated: “Come, now, if you will, on a speculative excursion into prehistory. Assume the era in which the species sapiens emerged from the genus Homo . . . hasten across the millenniums for which present information depends for the most part on conjecture and interpretation to the era of the first inscribed records, from which some facts may be gleaned.” (Italics ours.)—Science, December 30, 1960, p. 1914.
The period of the post-Flood era begins with the year 2369 B.C.E.
While appeal is sometimes made to datings based on the radiocarbon (C-14) technique, this method of dating has definite limitations. Science magazine of December 11, 1959, p. 1630, reported: “What bids to become a classical example of ‘C14 irresponsibility’ is the 6000-year spread of 11 determinations for Jarmo . . . , a prehistoric village in northeastern Iraq, which, on the basis of all archeological evidence, was not occupied for more than 500 consecutive years.” There is thus no solid or provable evidence to favor an earlier date than 2369 B.C.E. for the start of the post-Flood human society.

Was Noah somewhere 500 years old when he built the ark?
According to the Biblical record.
(Genesis 5:32) After Noah reached 500 years of age, he became father to Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
(Genesis 7:6) Noah was 600 years old when the floodwaters came upon the earth.

Noah fathered three boys - not at the same time - after he reached the age of 500.
Impossible for a man to live so long, and be physically able? Not according to scientists, who believe there is an unexplained reason why our tissues eventually stop regenerating.
Scientists have divided these proposed causalities of aging into two categories: programmed and damage related. Programmed factors happen as a result of cells failing to divide properly over time. Damage Related factors are attacks from the environment, or from our bodies' wear and tear damage that accumulates over time.

This bit of scientific knowledge makes the Bible even more trustworthy to me, when it describes why man's life is cut short.
What I find interesting too, is the explanation given for why humans do not go on living, is quite different from why rats - the creature most studied in relation to human research - die.
Perhaps they will learn something from the mole rat.

By the time Noah started to build the ark, his boys would have been grown men, as seen from the fact they all had wives.
(Genesis 7:7) . . .So Noah, along with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, went into the ark ahead of the floodwaters.
So Noah could have been 550-560 years of age.

And he lived to be over 900 years old?
According to the Biblical record... all the days of Noah amounted to 950 years, and he died. (Genesis 9:29)

Was he and his family the only humans left alive?
According to the Biblical record... Noah’s sons who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham later became the father of Canaan. These three were Noah’s sons, and all the earth’s population came from them and spread abroad. (Genesis 9:18, 19)

So, 4000 or so years ago, there was only Noah and his family, and all of us are descended from him and his sons?
You sound skeptical.
What reason(s) for disbelief do you have?
While most scientists theorize triple that number, based on their beliefs, of course, they seem to have accepted that all modern humans descended from the same small group of people.

All animals that survived were on the ark?
So, when the ark came to rest, there weren't that many animals in the world and all of them were in one place?
According to the Biblical record.
(Genesis 7:21-23) 21 So all living creatures that were moving on the earth perished—the flying creatures, the domestic animals, the wild animals, the swarming creatures, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 So He wiped every living thing from the surface of the earth, including man, animals, creeping animals, and the flying creatures of the sky. They were all wiped off the earth; only Noah and those with him in the ark survived.

(Genesis 8:15-19) 15 God now said to Noah: 16 “Go out of the ark, you, your wife, your sons, and your sons’ wives. 17 Bring out with you all the living creatures of every sort of flesh, of the flying creatures and of the animals and of all the creeping animals of the earth, that they may multiply on the earth and be fruitful and become many on the earth.” 18 So Noah went out, together with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives. 19 Every living creature, every creeping animal and every flying creature, everything that moves on the earth, went out of the ark by families.

So, except for the animals that stayed in that area, the rest migrated to other parts of the world?
How long did that migration take?
The record does not give those details. Is there a reason you think it should?
The record simply states... what was the original purpose stated in Genesis 1.
(Genesis 6:19, 20) 19 And bring into the ark two of every sort of living creature in order to preserve them alive with you, a male and a female; 20 of the flying creatures according to their kinds, the domestic animals according to their kinds, and all creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive.

(Genesis 9:1) God went on to bless Noah and his sons and to say to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.

The scriptures do tell us that God made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth... Acts 17:26

How high was the highest mountain? And how much water would it take for the flood to cover it?
The record does not provide that detail either. It wasn't writen for later skeptics you see.... but that's expected, as I don't believe you would jot down events that occured, and then, as perhaps an after-thought, decide to jot down every detail in the hope that a person not believing, would believe... as if the detail would somehow make them believe.

Is there really "overwhelming" evidence for a literal interpretation of the flood?
Would people believe it, if there wasn't? Maybe there are people who would, I don't know, but I don't know of any.
I can share the overwhelming evidence for a literal flood with you, a little later, if you would like.

But again, how literal do you take the Bible? I know some Christians that don't believe it ever rained until the flood, so they don't have to explain how there could have rain but no rainbows.
I refer you again to the link II posted under the first question.
"...don't have to explain how there could have rain, but no rainbow"?
I don't understand. Can we have rain and not see a rainbow? I often see people excitedly point out a rainbow, because they are so rare.
I suppose it depends on where you are located.

In the light of the examinable evidence showing that ─

The universe is something like 13.8 bn years old

The solar system ─ sun, earth, other planets ─ is something like 4.5 bn years old

Life on earth is something like 3.8 bn years old.

Life with multiple-celled creatures has been around for something like 1.7 bn years

Animal life on land has been around for something like 380 million years

Mammals have been around for something like 200 million years

Primates have been around for something like 65 million years

Hominidae have been around for something like 25 million years

Homo sap has been around for something like 250, 000 years

Modern homo sap has been around for something like 70,000 years

Civilization has been around for something like 10,000 years

Worship of Yahweh has been around for something like 3,500 years

The claim that Yahweh is the sole god has been around for something like 2500 years

The claim that God is triune has been around for something like 1,650 years

God's distaste for slavery has been around for two hundred and something years at best

and so on
​

why would any objective onlooker thing the bible was a reliable guide to the real history of the earth?

Would they not very much sooner conclude it's simply a record of the beliefs and understandings and politics and stories of a particular local group of ancient people?

 

[GardenLady]

At best, the theory simply remains functional. That's it. Nothing more. I just wanted to make that clear.

Many theories, including the ToE, continue to accumulate more and more supporting evidence over time. That is far more than "simply remains functional."

 

[GardenLady]

(Science is the stories that people tell today to make sense of the world, and it has more in common with myth than many would like to recognize.)

How many myths have many thousands of points of supporting evidence?

 

[PureX]

Many theories, including the ToE, continue to accumulate more and more supporting evidence over time. That is far more than "simply remains functional."

Choosing to call it supporting evidence is generating a subjective opinion. That's not really how science works. Science is done based on observations, not opinions. Opinions are what they are trying to avoid. Science isn't based on "evidence" as so many people like to assume. It's based on experimentation and observation. It's a constant exploration of possibility via the realm of functionality. Opinions about the truthfulness of a theory don't really even enter into it. That's the area of philosophy.

 

[GardenLady]

Choosing to call it supporting evidence is generating a subjective opinion. That's not really how science works.

This is exactly how science works. Theories make predictions and researchers develop hypotheses concerning those predictions are tested by observation and/or experiment. If the results of the those observations and/or experiments are consistent with the predictions/hypotheses (i.e, if the null hypothesis can be rejected within a generally accepted probability level), that is supporting evidence. Note I did not say "proof."

 

[PureX]

This is exactly how science works. Theories make predictions and researchers develop hypotheses concerning those predictions are tested by observation and/or experiment. If the results of the those observations and/or experiments are consistent with the predictions/hypotheses (i.e, if the null hypothesis can be rejected within a generally accepted probability level), that is supporting evidence. Note I did not say "proof."

You were right till that last part. There is no "supporting evidence" in science, because there are no conclusions being sought. The theory either functions predictably, or it doesn't. Science is about observed functionality, not evidence of conclusions.

 

[nPeace]

The simple idea that you believe there is no solid evidence for the existence of humans prior to 4026 BCE is an insult to intelligence. We have found ruins of towns housing over 5000 people that are twice older than that. We have human bones and settlement traces that date back from 315 000 years ago in Morrocco. We have traces of advanced literate human civilization around the globe and even in Mesopotamia prior, during and after the so called flood without any interruption; that's unless you believe the city of Harrapan was built by three person, while Sargon of Akkad had an army of about a dozen and was Noah's great grand son at most and lived in an enormous city filled with nobody.

Whose intelligence? If you mean people who think they must be right, because they think they are, then I think their intelligence should be insulted, because they are arrogant, and humility is better than prideful intelligence.

Even truly dedicated scientists do not claim that they are always right, and must be.
Though one of the most essential tools for determining an ancient object’s age, carbon dating might not be as accurate as we once thought...

I think anyone who claims that scientists and experts in their field, that disagree with "popular opinion", are not true scientist, or just dishonest, are the ones who are insulting the intelligence of others.

Why do Atheists try to accuse others of their own failings?

 

[nPeace]

This is a very good point.

Most theories in science are wrong to some degree and they remain theories because the scientists exploring them know they can be wrong. They go to considerable effort to try and eliminate the bias of ignorance and presumption via the experimental process, but they understand that they can still be quite wrong.

Biblical inerrantists, however, accept no such possible error, either in the text or in their interpretation of it. This in itself implies a lack of honesty and humility that seriously undercuts the validity of their theories. (Theories that they can't even view as theories.)

Why would anyone be expected to think they are wrong, when their source of knowledge is proves reliable?

Does not make sense, unless one is using a hit and miss system that time and time again, misses... Need we say what that is?

 

[epronovost]

Whose intelligence? If you mean people who think they must be right, because they think they are, then I think their intelligence should be insulted, because they are arrogant, and humility is better than prideful intelligence.

Even truly dedicated scientists do not claim that they are always right, and must be.
Though one of the most essential tools for determining an ancient object’s age, carbon dating might not be as accurate as we once thought...

I think anyone who claims that scientists and experts in their field, that disagree with "popular opinion", are not true scientist, or just dishonest, are the ones who are insulting the intelligence of others.

Why do Atheists try to accuse others of their own failings?

Dude, it would be nice if you were slightly educated on the subject you quote because once again, the source you are quoting doesn't support your position. For example, the dating of cities of mesopotamia or high antiquity aren't done by carbon dating exclusively but by several tools, including carbon dating and dating via other isotops. Hell, we can use tree rings to date objects back in time up to 10 000 years ago or so. There is no doubt that humans civilization predates your literal view on the Bible. To claim that this could be wrong and you right is the equivalen that because it's possible to confuse a horse and an ocapi at a distance of 50 meters that it's possible, even reasonable, to assume that you can confuse a horse for a cricket at the same distance.