Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science

[ratiocinator]

Its nice to see so many atheists defending other atheists like members of a cult. Blindly, without knowing the context of any conversation.

Unsupported assertion and ad hominem. Speaking for myself, I actually went though the thread to look at all your responses, rather than just assuming you were playing your usual game. Waste of time, that was. Should have just used faith.

 

[firedragon]

That the Bible is the immutable and inarguable word of God has to my knowledge never been mainstream Christian theology.

Well in all actuality, that's kind of wrong. It is predominantly after the critical methods what you said above emerged. It may have begun with wellhausen but more prominently after revisions and acceptance of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, P52, P75, Bazae etc, etc.

 

[Sheldon]

That the Bible is the immutable and inarguable word of God has to my knowledge never been mainstream Christian theology.

Really?

"A formal statement in favor of biblical inerrancy was published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1978.[5] The signatories to the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" admit that, "Inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture". However, even though there may be no extant original manuscripts of the Bible, those that exist can be considered inerrant, because, as the statement reads: "The autographic text of Scripture, ... in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy."[6]

The "doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture"[7] held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is that, "The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."[8]

Inerrancy has been much more of an issue in American evangelicalism than in British evangelicalism.[9] According to Stephen R. Holmes, it "plays almost no role in British evangelical life

"A minority of biblical inerrantists go further than the Chicago Statement, arguing that the original text has been perfectly preserved and passed down through time. "Textus Receptus onlyism" holds that the Greek text of this name (Latin for received text) is a perfect and inspired copy of the original and supersedes earlier manuscript copies. The King James Only movement ascribes inerrancy only to the King James English translation made from the Textus Receptus."

Such an assertion makes no sense.

That was precisely my point, before firedragon started trolling me with ad hominem.

 

[firedragon]

Unsupported assertion and ad hominem. Speaking for myself, I actually went though the thread to look at all your responses, rather than just assuming you were playing your usual game.

Really? So who believes in Brahman?
And who believes that philosophy of science has no axioms?

Please elaborate.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No one has ever assumed that it is. But atheism does allow one to see the harm done by almost all religions. And also how they all appear to be wrong.

You give evidence of your assumption and prejudice in this very sentence. All religions are wrong, about everything? Does that apply to William of Ockham, Nicolas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? So who believes in Brahman?
And who believes that philosophy of science has no axioms?

Please elaborate.

Wait. Is this all about you being butt hurt because the religion of the OP was not attacked?

And your last line appears to be a similar butt hurt question. No one denies that there are axioms in the sciences. So what? There should be no problem with that, as long as one honestly states what those axioms are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You give evidence of your assumption and prejudice in this very sentence. All religions are wrong, about everything? Does that apply to William of Ockham, Nicolas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler?

What assumption? And please, don't try to read something into a statement that was not there. It is not a proper technique for a discussion or debate.

 

[KWED]

This is like asking for denizens of the deep sitting on a mountain top.

No it isn't.
There is evidence for both denizens of the deep and mountain tops. If I wanted to, I could place a DotD on a mountain top where others could verify its presence.

Those making claims that they cannot support (except by saying "oh, but it's invisible magic") should not expect to have them taken seriously.

 

[Suave]

Science backs its theories with proof to the extent possible today. Research is on for the rest and it is finding new things on a daily basis. Scriptures do not provide any proof and are stalled in BCE or 7th Century.
If you would care, read this: Ask Astro Does dark energy create the voids between galaxy clusters?

"Working on a branch of physics called supersymmetry, Dr. James Gates Jr., discovered what he describes as the presence of what appear to resemble a form of computer code, called error correcting codes, embedded within, or resulting from, the equations of supersymmetry that describe fundamental particles.

Gates asks, “How could we discover whether we live inside a Matrix? One answer might be ‘Try to detect the presence of codes in the laws that describe physics.’” And this is precisely what he has done. Specifically, within the equations of supersymmetry he has found, quite unexpectedly, what are called “doubly-even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block codes.” That’s a long-winded label for codes that are commonly used to remove errors in computer transmissions, for example to correct errors in a sequence of bits representing text that has been sent across a wire.

Gates explains, “This unsuspected connection suggests that these codes may be ubiquitous in nature, and could even be embedded in the essence of reality. If this is the case, we might have something in common with the Matrix science-fiction films, which depict a world where everything human being’s experience is the product of a virtual-reality-generating computer network.”

Physicist Finds Computer Code in the Fabric of Space - War Is Crime

Our genetic code's creator, controller of sims, has left this mathematical pattern in our genetic code conveying to us the symbol of an Egyptian triangle as well as the number 37 embedded in our genetic code.
Eight of the canonical amino acids can be sufficiently defined by the composition of their codon's first and second base nucleotides. The nucleon sum of these amino acids' side chains is 333 (=37 * 3 squared), the sun of their block nucleons (basic core structure) is 592 (=37 * 4 squared), and the sum of their total nucleons is 925 (=37 * 5 squared ). With 37 factored out, this results in 3 squared + 4 squared = 5 squared, which is representative of an Egyptian triangle.

The mathematical pattern of the number 37 being used as a key factor for conveying an Egyptian triangle might be related to the gematria value of 37 appearing in the Hebrew language of Genesis 1:1.

You shall have no gods before the creator of the heavens and earth, life's creator!

 

[KWED]

The proof of the scriptures is in the fulfilment of prophecies imo, and more are being fulfilled all the time.

Like what?
(Specific references please, not just vague claims)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your prerogative.

It is impossible to educate you on what kind of mistakes you did because you speak of things you have no clue of. Maybe it is not your fault because what you speak are the usual apologetics of the famous atheistic missionaries who have developed these nonsensical arguments like those tele evangelists and preachers around the world. So all you know is that.

You know yourself that you are speaking without doing any research on the subject. So I told you that directly. You are making general statements about things you have not even touched at a surface level. And you know it.

Ciao.

There is a simple solution. Demonstrate that your beliefs are correct.

 

[RestlessSoul]

People are weird. They can agree that the Bible is the immutable and inarguable word of God while arguing about its interpretation. That is how terms like 'blasphemy' get invented.

Science, too, has always had it’s heretics. David Bohm and Hugh Everett attracted torrents of vindictive opprobrium for daring to challenge prevailing orthodoxy.

 

[KWED]

'M E T A P H Y S I C S' also is a loaded term. All kind of BS can be put under it.

I prefer "Invisible Magic".

 

[Sheldon]

Unsupported assertion and ad hominem. Speaking for myself, I actually went though the thread to look at all your responses, rather than just assuming you were playing your usual game. Waste of time, that was. Should have just used faith.

Ah, he has form for this kind of trolling then, I can't say I'm surprised at this news.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Really?

"A formal statement in favor of biblical inerrancy was published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1978.[5] The signatories to the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" admit that, "Inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture". However, even though there may be no extant original manuscripts of the Bible, those that exist can be considered inerrant, because, as the statement reads: "The autographic text of Scripture, ... in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy."[6]

The "doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture"[7] held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is that, "The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."[8]

Inerrancy has been much more of an issue in American evangelicalism than in British evangelicalism.[9] According to Stephen R. Holmes, it "plays almost no role in British evangelical life

"A minority of biblical inerrantists go further than the Chicago Statement, arguing that the original text has been perfectly preserved and passed down through time. "Textus Receptus onlyism" holds that the Greek text of this name (Latin for received text) is a perfect and inspired copy of the original and supersedes earlier manuscript copies. The King James Only movement ascribes inerrancy only to the King James English translation made from the Textus Receptus."



That was precisely my point, before firedragon started trolling me with ad hominem.

The key word here appears to be “Chicago”. Most theologicians refer to Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Constantinople, Worms, Wartberg and Canterbury when discussing the history of mainstream Christian thought. Though Jamestown does come up, more often than Chicago anyway. You should know that your country was built by religious dissenters, nothing mainstream about those guys.

 

[Suave]

I prefer "Invisible Magic".

Matter being a probability wave that materializes into a particle upon observational interaction, conserving computational resources of simulator devices. For some this might be considered as magic, to me, this is an indication of there being a sims controller, a reality based virtual reality programmer of human consciousness.

 

[Sheldon]

The key word here appears to be “Chicago”. Most theologicians refer to Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Constantinople, Worms, Wartberg and Canterbury when discussing the history of mainstream Christian thought. Though Jamestown does come up, more often than Chicago anyway. You should know that your country was built by religious dissenters, nothing mainstream about those guys.

I was not of course suggesting all Christians believe in biblical inerrancy. However even now 55 percent of Americans believe in biblical inerrancy, apparently.

 

[Sheldon]

Science, too, has always had it’s heretics. David Bohm and Hugh Everett attracted torrents of vindictive opprobrium for daring to challenge prevailing orthodoxy.

There is no such thing as inerrant or infallible truth in science. The scientific method has always required that all ideas, no matter how well established, remain tentative and open to revision in the light of new evidence. That is in stark contrast to religions.

 

[Suave]

I was not of course suggesting all Christians believe in biblical inerrancy. However even now 55 percent of Americans believe in biblical inerrancy, apparently.

Have you any thoughts regarding post #129?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science, too, has always had it’s heretics. David Bohm and Hugh Everett attracted torrents of vindictive opprobrium for daring to challenge prevailing orthodoxy.

Science has a solution for that. Religion appears to lack one.