Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science

[1213]

Yes, science has been wrong. But guess what? The sciences have a self correction mechanism.

Yeah, and what makes you believe it is now correct?

Aspects of your religious views have been wrong, but you lack such a mechanism. How do you correct the errors in your religious beliefs?

No one has proven that there is errors in my religious beliefs. But, if someone could show real errors, I don't think it would be any problem for me to reject beliefs that are erroneous.

 

[Sheldon]

It’s now the consensus that the universe had a beginning; in other words, a moment of creation.

No it isn't, you just clumsily tacked a claim about creation onto the end of something else, without any evidence or explanation. Also the initial claim is a little misleading, since time didn't exist until after the big bang, so the universe that we currently observe had a point origin, anymore than this is either speculation or philosophy or both. Theoretical physicists can try and examine planck time, but nothing science currently understand remotely evidenced any deity, or need one to explain the origins of anything that we currently understand.

This is sounding more and more like a god of the gaps polemic to me.

 

[Suave]

No it isn't, you just clumsily tacked a claim about creation onto the end of something else, without any evidence or explanation. Also the initial claim is a little misleading, since time didn't exist until after the big bang, so the universe that we currently observe had a point origin, anymore than this is either speculation or philosophy or both. Theoretical physicists can try and examine planck time, but nothing science currently understand remotely evidenced any deity, or need one to explain the origins of anything that we currently understand.

This is sounding more and more like a god of the gaps polemic to me.

I like many of your posts, because I found them to be highly informative and educational.

 

[Sheldon]

I think it is good, if one can admit errors. But, if one has been often wrong, how can you believe it is now right?

Well firstly you clipped my post, secondly it is not "good" it is essential, or else one is left clinging to errant nonsense as religions and many theists do, even now, like the absurdity of denying evolution.

Secondly science is not right or wrong, It is not a binary condition, it is a scale of evidence, and the claim science has "been often wrong" is an absurd misrepresentation.

The astonishing amount of success it has had in a very short space of time is remarkable enough, but even more so given how seldom it has to amend its ideas, let alone recant them entirely, and of course it does so in the light of new evidence. The likelihood something as well evidenced as species evolution (as one example) is going to be substantially rethought, let alone entirely reversed or abandoned is so low as to be virtually nil. We are as likely to discover the world in flat and at the centre of the universe after all. That's how sure you can be species evolution and natural selection are valid.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yeah. still, bigotry is bigotry. Maybe you dont know the concept of bigotry. So defend it and show your colours.

As usual, I don't know what you're talking about. This is drive-by posting - you leave a vague zinger and then run from the discussion or leave more vague comments. You may have noticed that I wasn't commenting on the two quotes of yours I left, as they also were vague, but rather, on your running away. And I see this comment above as yet another example of that.

Flesh in some of your comments so that there is something substantial one can actually discuss. I doubt that you know what bigotry is based on your usage of the word, and you haven't indicated how you think it pertains to this thread, or why you think I should defend it. Short of that, there is nothing to respond to here apart from the nature of these posts, not their content. What content?

By the way, these are my colors.

 

[Suave]

. it is not "good" it is essential, or else one is left clinging to errant nonsense as religions and many theists do, even now, like the absurdity of denying evolution. ....

ERVs provide me with a nearly certain mathematical proof for evolution.. ERVs are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome! I'm aware of there only being 2 possible explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The chances that a virus was inserted at the exact same location have been calculated at 1 in 3,000,000,000. Humans and chimps share 7 known instances of viruses inserted at perfectly matched location. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs.

Johnson, Welkin E.; Coffin, John M. (1999-08-31). "Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96(18): 10254–10260. Bibcode:1999PNAS...9610254J. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.18.10254. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 17875. PMID 10468595.

 

[Sheldon]

I like many of your posts, because I found them to be highly informative and educational.

Well whilst I appreciate the compliment I am a middling intellect at best, and my formal education was pretty mediocre. Just learn to think critically, and don't let people's intellect or education intimidate you, in online debate forums, as elsewhere judge ideas on their merits, not on anything else.

Some people will try and make grandiloquent claims, to me this is risible, as if they were worthy academics or established scholars or experts they would know better than to mention it, they'd be unlikely to be in general discussion or debate forums as well, and their knowledge on their chosen subject would be self evident in their posts. Poster who have genuine erudition rarely feel the need to mention it in my experience, let alone boast. It's also worth noting that uneducated does not necessarily mean unintelligent.

We can all be a little strident sometimes in our views, especially after the decades of the same discussions. it is easy to become jaded, and just go through the motions.

Most importantly of all anyone can make a mistake, and we are all fallible evolved mammals. that is why it was necessary to create methods like philosophy and logic, and from there science.

 

[Sheldon]

Please allow me to kindly interject. You mean the Bible, not the Koran, gets the chronological order of how life formed on Earth wrong with errant assertion of vegetation existing before the Sun. Right?

Yes, sorry if that was unclear, though the koran creation myth is just as devolved from real science.

 

[Sheldon]

No one has proven that there is errors in my religious beliefs. But, if someone could show real errors, I don't think it would be any problem for me to reject beliefs that are erroneous.

Newsflash then, human beings were not created instantly in their current form by a deity using magic. They evolved roughly 200k years ago, (as have all living things) which makes humans a very young species in evolutionary terms. The implication being obvious for the religious idea that everything was created with us in mind.

 

[firedragon]

As usual, I don't know what you're talking about.

In that case, dont respond to what someone says to someone else because you dont know what they are talking about.

 

[Sheldon]

Yeah, and what makes you believe it is now correct?

What precisely are you talking about, only this theistic claim that science is often wrong is nonsense, science very seldom has to completely retract, let alone abandon something that there is a global scientific consensus on. No human method can ever be completely infallible, quite obviously, but that is also true for religious claims, which rather contradicts the idea the claims and message are from an omniscient deity.

 

[Suave]

Newsflash then, human beings were not created instantly in their current form by a deity using magic. They evolved roughly 200k years ago, (as have all living things) which makes humans a very young species in evolutionary terms. The implication being obvious for the religious idea that everything was created with us in mind.

Not to mention evolution dispels the Christian fundamentalist notion of "original sin". Would I be correct or incorrect to conceptualize evolution as being simply significant enough gene pool changes within a species changing over the course of many generations resulting in organisms having genetic traits different enough from their distant ancestors; so that there'd be no possible sexual reproduction occurring between somebody who were to have distant ancestral genetic traits with anybody living in the current population.?

 

[RestlessSoul]

No it isn't, you just clumsily tacked a claim about creation onto the end of something else, without any evidence or explanation. Also the initial claim is a little misleading, since time didn't exist until after the big bang, so the universe that we currently observe had a point origin, anymore than this is either speculation or philosophy or both. Theoretical physicists can try and examine planck time, but nothing science currently understand remotely evidenced any deity, or need one to explain the origins of anything that we currently understand.

This is sounding more and more like a god of the gaps polemic to me.

I suggest that it's not my thinking that's hidebound by dogma, it's yours. My layman's interest in the history of scientific thought and discovery, has nothing to do with trying to prove the existence of God. I don't need to recruit physics, or logic, or reason to prove to my head what my heart believes with absolute conviction. Nor do I have any interest in proving it to you.

I am, however, interested in all the big stuff; like Life, the Universe and Everything. I'm interested in conversations about these things, but I am not interested in point scoring contests between monstrous raging egos with obvious agendas.

If the models whereby the universe began, and probably ends, with a singularity are correct, then there certainly was a moment of creation. What else was the Big Bang, if not that? If, however, the models for a finite yet boundaryless universe are correct, it is possible that the universe had neither beginning nor end, and there is no before or after the Big Bang. However, if I've been following correctly, such a theoretical model of the universe depends upon calculations using imaginary numbers in imaginary time. This, I confess, I do not understand, but I am fascinated by the idea.

To be honest, my understanding of cosmology is extremely limited. But I am always willing to learn. What I am not willing to do, is listen to the carefully rehearsed rhetoric of inflexible fundamentalists, whether that fundamentalist be atheist or religious.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This isn't hard. You probably find it disrespectful, but that isn't my purpose. I'm just illustrating how easy it is to write words like these - vague, flowery, hortative. If they were in your writings, wouldn't you would consider them wisdom and evidence of a God sent by a Messenger, or would you recognize that these words were just human?

No it is not disrespectful, because it is actually the Messengers of God that offer that exact challenge. It is impossible to produce words that will create a new loving humanity that are not given from God.

This is what the Word of God Acheives

"The Word of God is the king of words and its pervasive influence is incalculable. It hath ever dominated and will continue to dominate the realm of being. The Great Being saith: The Word is the master key for the whole world, inasmuch as through its potency the doors of the hearts of men, which in reality are the doors of heaven, are unlocked. No sooner had but a glimmer of its effulgent splendour shone forth upon the mirror of love than the blessed word 'I am the Best-Beloved' was reflected therein. It is an ocean inexhaustible in riches, comprehending all things. Every thing which can be perceived is but an emanation therefrom."

Bahá’u’lláh, Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 173

So people my pick up on the emanation and in some form reflect it to others, but they will not be able make all things new from.what they write

Also the Holy books are not written in Kings James English.

Regards Tony

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, and what makes you believe it is now correct?

You are trying to employ a black and white fallacy. Science is never 100% correct. What happens is continual progress towards a more and more accurate explanation of the world that we live in. Nothing is "proven" in the sciences, but if you accept gravity then you cannot reject evolution without being more than a bit of a hypocrite.

No one has proven that there is errors in my religious beliefs. But, if someone could show real errors, I don't think it would be any problem for me to reject beliefs that are erroneous.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. It is not "proven" in a mathematical sense. But it has been proven far beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible is filled with errors. Once again, back to the real world. If you ever accept the guilty verdict for a murderer then by the same standards you would have to accept that there are countless flaws in the Bible.

Do you think that you can reason critically? That means that you have to follow the evidence and not your feelings. If so it is easy to show some of the flaws of the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So Tyre will never be rebuilt? I'm sure the hundred thousand odd people currently living there may have something to say about that! There has been a city there for the last 2000+ years.
Also, Tyre was not destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. The siege was ended politically and he never occupied it.
So the prophesy fails on at least two counts.

This is a problem I often encounter with the more dogmatic apologists. They simply accept a claim if it seems to support their existing position and don't bother to do any research to see if it is in any way factual.

The problem with trying to claim that others besides Nebuchadnezzar fulfilled the prophecy makes the prophecy void as an sort of evidence for prophecy since it makes the prophecy what I call a "You will see a red car when you go out on the road tomorrow". prophecy. By that standard I am a biblical prophet. Tyre was regularly attacked and invaded over its history. Both before Nebby's attempt and afterword. It was a highly prized island. It was why it was so heavily fortified. After Alexander the Great built his causeway it was reoccupied very shortly after the event. It has been regularly rebuilt. And it was never scraped clean since there are still ruins on the island. Some apologists try to claim that "Old Tyre" was the city on the mainland, but if one reads even the Bible that was obviously not the case. The source of wealth and power was the island.

Oh! I almost forgot. The prophecy is a two fer one. A BOGO or Buy One failed prophecy Get One free. After admitting that Nebby failed old Zeke tried to throw Nebby a bone by prophesizing that he would defeat Egypt. He did not. It is funny that no apologist even tries to defend that failure. It specifically names Nebuchadnezzar and goes into a bit of detail:


19 Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth. He will loot and plunder the land as pay for his army. 20 I have given him Egypt as a reward for his efforts because he and his army did it for me, declares the Sovereign Lord.

Bible Gateway passage: Ezekiel 29:17-30:19 - New International Version

That never happened.

 

[Sheldon]

It is impossible to produce words that will create a new loving humanity that are not given from God.

Begging the question fallacy.

 

[blü 2]

Of course. That’s what ad hominem is. So saying others are fleeing the arena etc etc are just as hominem.

You were indeed fleeing the arena so it wasn't an attack, just an observation.

And you put no argument so it couldn't qualify as an ad hominem ─ which is the name of one kind of fallacious reply to an argument.

The topic you raised I have cut and pasted several times.

"Cut and pasted"? My apologies, I don't understand what you mean. If you're saying you've already addressed the points I raised, all that was required was for you either to repeat what you'd previously said, or link it.

So you never gave a scientific response because of course, science doesn’t work that way.

Are you saying that science has no philosophical basis? I don't think that's a tenable argument.

And each of these is an accurate statement for purposes of any scientific investigation into supernatural claims: that, as I said before ─

1. There is no coherent definition of 'supernatural' as part of reality.
2. There is no coherent concept of how magic might work in reality.
3. The number of authenticated examples of magic is zero.
4. There is no definition of "God" appropriate to a being with objective existence, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was God or not.
5. There is no coherent concept of "godness", the real quality a real god would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead, travel in time &c would lack.
and so on, as I said before.

Given those facts, how do you think science should proceed when investigating supernatural claims?

Is it not fair to say that the objective investigation of religious claims lies with anthropology and psychology (including evolutionary psychology), not least because there's nothing there for physics?

 

[firedragon]

You were indeed fleeing the arena so it wasn't an attack, just an observation.

Simple, ad hominem.

Have a great day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Simple, ad hominem.

Have a great day.

Again, no. You are conflating corrections with personal attacks. Did you say that to your teachers? Hmm . . . that would explain quite a bit.

You really should learn what an ad hominem fallacy is.