Could we all be right?

[Blackheart]

Science is all about testing and re-testing things, and specifically needs people to doubt others conclusions and their own conclusions in order to work properly.

If I use a microscope to check the detail on an ancient coin I will see only what a combination of my eye, my microscope and my mind will allow. I can pass the microscope around to similar like minded people and they will come up with similar results. Then someone will step up with a stronger microscope and a more open mid and they will see something very different. This is why scientific theories are ever changing. The tests are not infallable my dear. At least the scriptures are intended to remain the same where the microscope is consistent, at least when you are able to avoid the interference of meddling man.

 

[Penumbra]

If I use a microscope to check the detail on an ancient coin I will see only what a combination of my eye, my microscope and my mind will allow. I can pass the microscope around to similar like minded people and they will come up with similar results. Then someone will step up with a stronger microscope and a more open mid and they will see something very different. This is why scientific theories are ever changing. The tests are not infallable my dear.

That's why they're useful. And the people don't have to be like minded for it to work. The tests are repeatable by anybody with the capability to do so, and new tests can be developed which can then be repeated as well.

At least the scriptures are intended to remain the same where the microscope is consistent, at least when you are able to avoid the interference of meddling man.

And that's exactly the problem. They remain constant in the face of change. When bigger and better microscopes are built, they insist on using the older, lesser one.

 

[Blackheart]

That's why they're useful. And the people don't have to be like minded for it to work. The tests are repeatable by anybody with the capability to do so, and new tests can be developed which can then be repeated as well.

I disagree. In many instances they do need to be like minded. When you see a rainbow you will see a natural occurance with a scientific explaination where as I will see the sign that God installed to remind us that he will never destroy the world by flood again. The mind has alot to do with perception.

And that's exactly the problem. They remain constant in the face of change. When bigger and better microscopes are built, they insist on using the older, lesser one.

But you see the consistency in scriptures is believed to be so because the truth does not change. The fact that you now have a better microscope than you did last year which can give you a different result proves that last year you were using tools that were not up to the job of delivering the clear and definative truth. Next year there will be another truth and so on and so on until the day comes that science as actually realises that they have proven the existance of God. Quite ironic really.

 

[PolyHedral]

I disagree. In many instances they do need to be like minded. When you see a rainbow you will see a natural occurance with a scientific explaination where as I will see the sign that God installed to remind us that he will never destroy the world by flood again. The mind has alot to do with perception.

But perception does not make a difference to what is there, and science can only deal with what is there. Science only deals with "blue" as light of specific wavelengths. It cannot tell you what blue light means. (Though future psychology may be able to tell you why blue means what it means to you.)

But why concentrate on what anything means? That isn't particularly productive, especially in engineering.

But you see the consistency in scriptures is believed to be so because the truth does not change.

The truth does not change, but the truth we have discovered thus far is utterly alien to any human. The world simply does not work on the terms we are used to, except in a comparatively small set of circumstances.

 

[Penumbra]

I disagree. In many instances they do need to be like minded. When you see a rainbow you will see a natural occurance with a scientific explaination where as I will see the sign that God installed to remind us that he will never destroy the world by flood again. The mind has alot to do with perception.

But one is scientific and one is not.

If I made the assertion that the rainbow works via physics, I'd have to demonstrate this to be true. Others could criticize my assertion, try to find errors, and so forth. It would be repeatable.

If you made the assertion that the rainbow is a sign from God, it would be up to you to demonstrate this to be true. Others could criticize your assertion, try to find errors, and so forth.

Likewise, If I argue that a pot of gold is at the end of the rainbow, I better go find it or at least good evidence for it in order for my assertion to be justified.

But you see the consistency in scriptures is believed to be so because the truth does not change. The fact that you now have a better microscope than you did last year which can give you a different result proves that last year you were using tools that were not up to the job of delivering the clear and definative truth. Next year there will be another truth and so on and so on until the day comes that science as actually realises that they have proven the existance of God. Quite ironic really.

But if the scripture isn't justified in its claim to be the truth, the the point doesn't work. We've got the Tanakh, Bible, Qu'ran, Bhagavad Gita, Tipitaka, etc.

 

[Blackheart]

But one is scientific and one is not.

If I made the assertion that the rainbow works via physics, I'd have to demonstrate this to be true. Others could criticize my assertion, try to find errors, and so forth. It would be repeatable.

If you made the assertion that the rainbow is a sign from God, it would be up to you to demonstrate this to be true. Others could criticize your assertion, try to find errors, and so forth.

Likewise, If I argue that a pot of gold is at the end of the rainbow, I better go find it or at least good evidence for it in order for my assertion to be justified.


But if the scripture isn't justified in its claim to be the truth, the the point doesn't work. We've got the Tanakh, Bible, Qu'ran, Bhagavad Gita, Tipitaka, etc.

My point is that even if you can expalin to me how you believe the rainbow has got there you cannot prove that the facotrs didnt come together because of God putting it there as a sign. If I were of a similar mindset to you then your job would be much easier but I am not and therefore I will seek answers as to the reason for such things rather than simply looking for causes.

But if the scripture isn't justified in its claim to be the truth, the the point doesn't work. We've got the Tanakh, Bible, Qu'ran, Bhagavad Gita, Tipitaka, etc.

Of course I havent read all of those books but I tend to have an inclining that they may all carry truths in them. This is because I believe there are different messengers telling one message. I know many people argue the toss about whose religion is correct but I dont really subscribe to that.

 

[Penumbra]

My point is that even if you can expalin to me how you believe the rainbow has got there you cannot prove that the facotrs didnt come together because of God putting it there as a sign. If I were of a similar mindset to you then your job would be much easier but I am not and therefore I will seek answers as to the reason for such things rather than simply looking for causes.

Whether one argues that its gods, faeries, or unicorns that make the rainbow, if they cannot justify it then there's no reason to believe them.

An assertion needs to be supported. A rejection of a completely unsupported assertion (especially when there are multiple conflicting ones) is rational.

Of course I havent read all of those books but I tend to have an inclining that they may all carry truths in them. This is because I believe there are different messengers telling one message. I know many people argue the toss about whose religion is correct but I dont really subscribe to that.

But since they are not identical, even if they all had things that were true, then all or most of them must have things that are false as well.

 

[Blackheart]

Whether one argues that its gods, faeries, or unicorns that make the rainbow, if they cannot justify it then there's no reason to believe them.

An assertion needs to be supported. A rejection of a completely unsupported assertion (especially when there are multiple conflicting ones) is rational.

But the elements of qualifying supporting evidence really do rest on the enquirer. What you consider as proof may not be what others see as proof and vice versa. Thats the whole reason why atheists and theists disagree.

But since they are not identical, even if they all had things that were true, then all or most of them must have things that are false as well.

Like I said before, I havent read them all but I am certain that the Quran, Torah and Bible tell the same message even if the stories used do differ. The truth is the same.

 

[waitasec]

by William Ernest Henley

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me, unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

 

[Penumbra]

But the elements of qualifying supporting evidence really do rest on the enquirer. What you consider as proof may not be what others see as proof and vice versa. Thats the whole reason why atheists and theists disagree.

Support is only relative to an extent.

People that accept things easier may rightly suggest that they've been convinced, but if they put forth arguments that are not rational or well supported, then on a more objective basis their belief is not rational.

Being able to explain exactly how a rainbow works, including repeatable tests, and successfully defending against all criticism, is superior than saying that god did it because an anonymous author wrote it in a book thousands of years ago. They're simply different standards of proof; one is higher, and one is lower.

Like I said before, I havent read them all but I am certain that the Quran, Torah and Bible tell the same message even if the stories used do differ. The truth is the same.

Not really, no. Their basic premises are all quite different and conflicting.

 

[YmirGF]

Like I said before, I havent read them all but I am certain that the Quran, Torah and Bible tell the same message even if the stories used do differ. The truth is the same.

Why on Earth would you make such a claim if you haven't read them all - a few times? Seriously...

 

[Blackheart]

Being able to explain exactly how a rainbow works, including repeatable tests, and successfully defending against all criticism, is superior than saying that god did it because an anonymous author wrote it in a book thousands of years ago. They're simply different standards of proof; one is higher, and one is lower

.

But if you prove anything to me then you could prove how it works. Those of us who go beyond science are often looking at why it happens. You can show me that there is oxygen in the air but you cant show me why other than to show me that there are trees creating oxygen but the picture for me is again why.

Not really, no. Their basic premises are all quite different and conflicting

This is what many people see. I see a set of laws that slightly differ. You can use these books as rules to the game of life but in the end they all instruct you to live your life in a Holy manner that, if the whole world were to stick to, would create Heaven on earth. They each present us with tests and challenges and those who can transcend the rubbish that the world throws at us are truely special beings worthy of God's acceptance.

 

[Blackheart]

Why on Earth would you make such a claim if you haven't read them all - a few times? Seriously...

WHy on earth would you ask such a question if you havent read the whole thread?

 

[Penumbra]

.

But if you prove anything to me then you could prove how it works. Those of us who go beyond science are often looking at why it happens. You can show me that there is oxygen in the air but you cant show me why other than to show me that there are trees creating oxygen but the picture for me is again why.

Science does explain why it happens. It's not a matter of going beyond science; it's a matter of going backwards.

Any assertive claim needs to be justified. Making assertions for which cannot be verified is not worthwhile.

This is what many people see. I see a set of laws that slightly differ. You can use these books as rules to the game of life but in the end they all instruct you to live your life in a Holy manner that, if the whole world were to stick to, would create Heaven on earth. They each present us with tests and challenges and those who can transcend the rubbish that the world throws at us are truely special beings worthy of God's acceptance.

They are all wildly different. Different scriptures have different levels of accuracy and ethics. Some instruct people to live in a manner that promotes human flourishing, while others promote quite a bad model.

They all teach completely different things regarding gods and metaphysical frameworks. Whether god is loving or wrathful, big or small, one or many, important or unimportant, whether he judges or accepts, what he wants, and how the world works, are all very different in those different texts.

WHy on earth would you ask such a question if you havent read the whole thread?

His question is quite valid.

 

[Blackheart]

They are all wildly different. Different scriptures have different levels of accuracy and ethics. Some instruct people to live in a manner that promotes human flourishing, while others promote quite a bad model.

What do you mean by ' a bad model'? Do you mean a model that wouldnt work today?

They all teach completely different things regarding gods and metaphysical frameworks. Whether god is loving or wrathful, big or small, one or many, important or unimportant, whether he judges or accepts, what he wants, and how the world works, are all very different in those different texts.

They all teach that God is loving, wrathful, one and many and always important (granted in differing ways), he always judges and only accepts what he finds acceptable. Im not sure what you mean buy how the world works. Basically God in the Abrahamic religions is the same. Individuals may see things differently but that doesnt take from the common message. I believe that heaven will contain Muslims, Jews, Christians etc even people who dont define themselves by any faith.

 

[Penumbra]

What do you mean by ' a bad model'? Do you mean a model that wouldnt work today?

No, I mean a bad model. A model that doesn't promote maximum flourishing.

Besides, even if it's argued that some models work better at some times than others, that is a strike against your previous argument regarding scripture as a useful and static law, compared to science which continually improves.

They all teach that God is loving, wrathful, one and many and always important (granted in differing ways), he always judges and only accepts what he finds acceptable. Im not sure what you mean buy how the world works. Basically God in the Abrahamic religions is the same. Individuals may see things differently but that doesnt take from the common message. I believe that heaven will contain Muslims, Jews, Christians etc even people who dont define themselves by any faith.

I find it odd that you're making claims regarding texts you have said you haven't read.

Basically you seem to be thinking in terms of the Abrahamic model and assuming all other texts conform to it to varying degrees, with is a false notion.

 

[Blackheart]

No, I mean a bad model. A model that doesn't promote maximum flourishing.

Besides, even if it's argued that some models work better at some times than others, that is a strike against your previous argument regarding scripture as a useful and static law, compared to science which continually improves.


I find it odd that you're making claims regarding texts you have said you haven't read.

Basically you seem to be thinking in terms of the Abrahamic model and assuming all other texts conform to it to varying degrees, with is a false notion.

I think your missing my point. Im not talking about the laws as such being the same. the laws lead to the same outcome but they were always going to be a little different as the people who recieved them are different and have applied them to a different era, time, world. Its the message that runs through them is what I believe is identical. And I didnt say that I havent read any of the books rather I havent read all of the books of every religion. The message is static.

 

[TJ73]

Man I wish I could have stayed on last night to continue with this thread. I missed some good stuff!
What I am proposing is not provable and so hard to explain. It is like trying explain other dimensions or some other kind of abstract concept.
Bu to touch on one point I saw, about atheists. I said how they can be right , along side theisits being also right. In my limited-ness, I see it as a different name given to the same concept.
OK let me see if I can explain what I think...
There is this all encompassing construct. It can be described as totaly natural or totaly metaphysical and that is correct, either way because natuarally certain events "bubble up" out of this construct and because they are not observed from a scientific position they are not perceived as natural but rather metaphysical. So, for example, when people converge over time into a large enough group and a society forms some breakdowns will occur according to biology, geography, time, economics, proximity to other societies, sex, blah blah blah. Ok, so now ( I'm gonna sound like I've watched the Matrix a few hundred times) now, a natural and/or metaphysical "bubble" surfaces as the society reaches a critical stage... you get a prophet and a revelation. And they are not just the ones of any particular scripture. I think this is a part of nature that can occur on a small or large scale( an office to a country, or global) The things that are reveled are initially helpful and have potential for sustaining the society, but further pressure and another bubble has to arise. Please be gentle on me scientists, but I see it could be like the way time has to change for the speed of light to remain constant. The pressures of growing humanity( perhaps our consciousness) stimulates revelation. The revelations seem retarded to us as we move on depending on how we look at them. If looked at as having the potential to have multiple layers of meaning and mailable then they can be eternally preserved and useful.
I'll wait to see if this topic continues before i go on.

 

[PolyHedral]

I think your missing my point. Im not talking about the laws as such being the same. the laws lead to the same outcome but they were always going to be a little different as the people who recieved them are different and have applied them to a different era, time, world. Its the message that runs through them is what I believe is identical. And I didnt say that I havent read any of the books rather I havent read all of the books of every religion. The message is static.

The Quaran says, roughly, "You are allowed to kill infidels."
The New Testament says, roughly, "You are not allowed to kill anyone."

That is not an identical message. That is a diametrically opposite message.

 

[waitasec]

. And I didnt say that I havent read any of the books rather I havent read all of the books of every religion. The message is static.

no penumbra said:

I find it odd that you're making claims regarding texts you have said you haven't read.

Like I said before, I havent read them all but I am certain that the Quran, Torah and Bible tell the same message even if the stories used do differ. The truth is the same.

assume much...

:biglaugh: