Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science

[TransmutingSoul]

Challenging the validity of religious beliefs is "relating to religion".


Let's note it is a "forum" and not a fellowship site. Forums are notable for their debates.

But thanks for not agreeing with the majority who debate in good faith because we disagree about issues.

Also not applicable to what I was replying to, your reply is not considering that context, so is meaningless.

Up to you to go back and check.

Regards Tony

 

[Suave]

No idea what your point is here, if there even is one.

Point being, the Holy Quran hypothesized the existence of wormholes, this being hypothesized nearly 1,200 years before modern era science hypothesized their existence; the Holy Quran had advanced knowledge of warped space, which may have been from advanced intelligence beyond the Earthly lifetime of the prophet Muhammad.

 

[Suave]

You still aren't getting it. Those "mathematical patterns" are not actual things that are actually there. They are concepts that require defining by human minds. We have a propensity to find patterns in all sorts of things. The odds of no one finding any patterns anywhere is more than a gazillion to one. Boom!

Maxim Makukov refutes the notion of Wow signal of the terrestrial genetic code as simply being numerology.

".Hi, I'm one of the authors of the papers being discussed here (thanks for pointing out this discussion, Simone). Saying right off: I am not going to make war and press on changing anything in the wiki-article. I'll appreciate if the wiki-editors here will take my note into account; but if not - well, I can live with that, From the discussion here I see that the point is not whether our papers are ID or not (they are not; if that matters - I share entirely naturalistic worldview). Rather, the point is whether they are numerology or not. As I guess, this is a short way of saying that the data we described might be just the result of our arbitrary "juggling" until we found some "desired patterns". In our recent paper (mentioned here by the user Andy Shepp) we devote a good chunk of text to discussing this very point, so here I'll instead make a comparison between our study and the Bible Code (the comparison brought about by PZ Myers, I suppose). First - there is no any scientific hypothesis behind the Bible code (at least none that I've heard of. God? That's not a hypothesis, since the notion of God is notoriously ill-defined. Without such restriction, you are free to choose/invent any method you like for data analysis. In our case, we have the working hypothesis (that of Sagan and Crick & Orgel), and we attempt to develop analysis methodology appropriate for that hypothesis - the condition which greatly restricts the options (in particular, we are trying to follow similar basic logic that was used to construct Earth-made messages such as the Arecibo message, etc.). Second - the analogy with the Bible code is irrelevant simply from statistical standpoint. In one case the data (Bible) is millions of letters long - what a scope for opportunities. In another case, the data (genetic code) is only a few hundred bits. Next, the Bible is but one of many books ever written, while the genetic code is unique (with several minor variations). The Bible is written with a writing system which is itself completely arbitrary and is but one of many existing writing systems; in contrast, in our approach we do not rely in any way on arbitrary cultural codes, relying instead on the language of abstract logic and mathematics (yes, I know not everyone agrees that even mathematics might be useful for communication with another intelligent species; still, if you attempt to do that, first of all you'll most probalby resort to logic/mathematics, not Hebrew, right?). ----------- Of course, I by no means imply that our data unambiguously supports the hypothesis of Crick & Orgel. My point is that the data favors this hypothesis to the extent which makes it unreasonable to dismiss it as numerology just like the Bible code. As typically happens in such situations, the problem is that it is difficult to find an objective criterion for judging opinions and biases." - Maxim Makukov

Reference: Wikipedia Talk Panspermia Talkanspermia - Wikipedia

 

[Valjean]

Let's see, lack of belief but posting in a place called Religious Forums.

The primary meaning of religious.

"relating to or believing in a religion"

What else does one expect to hear about, do people not really see the irony?

Regards Tony

Huh?????
If you're going to quote me, at least address the quotation.

 

[blü 2]

It was still a philosophical reasoning you gave, not a scientific one.

If so, so what?

It's the justification for science.

What's your justification for supernatural beliefs? That it feels good?

 

[Segev Moran]

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?

I Cannot agree more that the OT is not a proof.
But science is.
It is said, that science will reveal the OT.
This is taken the other way around for a lot of people, sadly.
So far though, regardless of being godly or not, the first verses describes the big bang quite well.
Far in more detail for it to be a coincidence.
It does not prove god, but it is something worth examining further.

 

[Suave]

They already found them you said? So what difference do the odds make if it happened already? Or is this going to be a claim that adding a vastly complex unevidenced deity using magic that has no explanatory powers at all, somehow lowers the odds of why something is there? Only that has always seemed a dubious premise at best to me, it seems to fall foul of Occam's razor.

Please let us agree that given two equally plausible explanations for a given phenomenon the one that makes the fewest assumptions is usually correct., this does not mean always correct. Right?

 

[Sheldon]

Also not applicable to what I was replying to, your reply is not considering that context, so is meaningless.

This forum has the word debate in it's title.

 

[Sheldon]

Please let us agree that given two equally plausible explanations for a given phenomenon the one that makes the fewest assumptions is usually correct., this does not mean always correct. Right?

Occam's razor, but you are adding the unevidenced assumption of a vastly complex deity using inexplicable magic, an as yet unknown natural phenomena requires zero assumptions, as does atheism, since atheism makes no claims, assertions or assumptions.

I know that natural phenomena exist as an objective fact. I don't know that a deity is even possible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Point being, the Holy Quran hypothesized the existence of wormholes, this being hypothesized nearly 1,200 years before modern era science hypothesized their existence; the Holy Quran had advanced knowledge of warped space, which may have been from advanced intelligence beyond the Earthly lifetime of the prophet Muhammad.

No. It did not. At best you only have reinterpretation after they were theorized. No one has actually discovered wormholes yet. You do not get to take credit when all you have is vague scripture. You need something much more solid than that.

 

[Valjean]

You just preached.

Define "preach." You seem to have a rather broad definition.

What ever their agenda is.

What makes you think there's any agenda?

So are you saying atheists are like a group? "us"? Thats a pretty cultish type of statement to make.

A group of us deferring belief, pending evidence. That's about all our 'group' has in common.
Cultish?! How cultish? How are you defining "cultish?"

I cant speak for you, but everyone from any group can state arbitrary un-researched made up statements as facts. So, you are just being tribalistic like any religious sect who will like to defend each other tribalistically if there is such a word.

But what if the statements are supported? What if they're statements of logic? What if they're pointing out actual, logical errors in your reasoning?

Reason and logical thought are neither preaching nor cultish.

 

[Suave]

Occam's razor, but you are adding the unevidenced assumption of a vastly complex deity using inexplicable magic, an as yet unknown natural phenomena requires zero assumptions, as does atheism, since atheism makes no claims, assertions or assumptions.

I know that natural phenomena exist as an objective fact. I don't know that a deity is even possible.

I have God well pegged as being a sims controller, a reality based virtual reality programmer of human consciousness. There'd be nothing magical about a technologically advanced civilization , conducting an ancestral simulation by a super-computer. Likewise, there'd be nothing magical about a technologically advanced extra-terrestrial civilization simulating a universe for their amusement.

 

[Valjean]

And how do we know it's magic? Because we can't see it. That way the doubters can't disprove it.

And why would they bother? The burden's not on them.

 

[Valjean]

Then you do not.look at the evidence offered.

It has been offered the proof of God is the Messenger, their life and the Message, in that order, which makes them One in God.

So be honest, how deep have you looked into that evidence?

But how is that evidence?

 

[Sheldon]

Point being, the Holy Quran hypothesized the existence of wormholes, this being hypothesized nearly 1,200 years before modern era science hypothesized their existence; the Holy Quran had advanced knowledge of warped space, which may have been from advanced intelligence beyond the Earthly lifetime of the prophet Muhammad.

I am dubious, these claims usually refer to vague texts in the Koran and then stretch them to mean whatever you want.

At best, all you would have is something you cannot explain, making assertions based on not having an explanation is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

 

[Suave]

No. It did not. At best you only have reinterpretation after they were theorized. No one has actually discovered wormholes yet. You do not get to take credit when all you have is vague scripture. You need something much more solid than that.

Correct, wormholes are hypothetical structures. I'm guessing negative energy would be required for traversable wormholes, negative energy is conjecture. I'm guessing the Holy Quran being somewhat vague about wormholes is because the Quran's original nomadic tribal audience would not have been able to comprehend a detailed model of a wormhole.

Quranic Verse 21:104

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct, wormholes are hypothetical structures. I'm guessing negative energy would be required for traversable wormholes, negative energy is conjecture. I'm guessing the Holy Quran being somewhat vague about wormholes is because the Quran's original nomadic tribal audience would not have been able to comprehend a detailed model of a wormhole.

Or more likely, they had no clue. You found an obscure verse and added a new interpretation to it.

And I am unaware of anyone that thinks that wormholes would be traversable.

 

[Sheldon]

I have God well pegged as being a sims controller, a reality based virtual reality programmer of human consciousness.

I don't know what "well pegged" means, but you can't just assert this, you have to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for the claim.

There'd be nothing magical about a technologically advanced civilization , conducting an ancestral simulation by a super-computer.

Nothing evidential either, that seems like wild speculation to me sorry.

Likewise, there'd be nothing magical about a technologically advanced extra-terrestrial civilization simulating a universe for their amusement.

Again this just seems like wild unevidenced speculation. Human beings, like all living things, evolved slowly over billions of years, that is an objective fact since all the objective evidence supports it, even after over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But you quote mined in order to imply something that is not true.
You then went farther and made more claims about Hawking "wrestling with philosophical concepts" and attempted to give the impression this included the existence of god, a created universe etc.
It is quite sad to see the desperate, disingenuous lengths religionists will go to.

You could learn something from him though. The use of evidence, reason and rational argument as a means of arriving at a position. However, your prejudice and wilful ignorance probably prevents you.

I could learn something from Hawking? Well yeah, obviously. I try to learn from as many sources as possible, and always keep an open mind - I certainly wouldn’t let a declaration either of atheism or faith prejudice me against the person making the declaration. I urge you to adopt a similar attitude, you might benefit from it.

 

[Sheldon]

Correct, wormholes are hypothetical structures. I'm guessing negative energy would be required for traversable wormholes, negative energy is conjecture. I'm guessing the Holy Quran being somewhat vague about wormholes is because the Quran's original nomadic tribal audience would not have been able to comprehend a detailed model of a wormhole.

Again what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any of this? You seem to take a vague passage and go wild making assumption after assumption. Did you forget about Occam's razor, as there is a much simpler explanation that requires no assumptions at all...

The passage doesn't mean what you want it to. Oh look, Occam's razor - slash....