Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[ppp]

I am a Baha'i I do not see any conflict between the science of our natural existence and God's Creation. If there is a conflict there is are problems your you're not addressing, which is the subject of the thread.

If you are contrasting it with science then there is a huge conflict. Bahai'i don't present evidence of "God's Creation" but rather assert their beliefs about that via their personal faith in individuals. The antithesis of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Rather, ' including Christendom ' because 'Christendom' is mostly Christian in name only - Matthew 7:21-23.
The terror or troubles that religions practice have created a hauntingly dangerous religious climate brewing in today's world.
This is a reason why the political will suddenly turn on the corrupted religious world which is in harmony with 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3.
The political (kings) will turn on that religious (queen) and the commercial world (businessmen) will mourn her loss - Revelation 18:3-11

Objectively from an independent perspective without judgement of the diverse and conflicting beliefs using your measure all Christians would be in name only though many of the different denominations accuse others of being Christians in name only.

 

[gnostic]

I was just keeping things simple. The point is whenever the Bible was written they did not have atom smashers or a Hubble telescope.

If you read what Job (book) have to say about NATURE, especially in the later chapters (38, 39, 40 & 41) where God spoke to Job, they were all either inaccurate, illogical or downright wrong. It is clear, who ever wrote Job, didn't understand nature and natural processes at all.

Everything in Job were written without understanding of natural phenomena, relying on pure superstitions of "God did it".

If you think the author (of Job) was human, then you could blame human's ignorance and stupidity, but if you believe God was author of Job, then God is the one who ignorant and stupid.

Back in ancient times, the Greeks didn't have telescope (or Hubble) or atom smasher, and yet Pythagoras (6h century BCE) and Aristotle (4th century BCE) had proposed spheroid Earth, not the disk (Flat Earth) that was proposed since 2nd millennium Bronze Age. The Bible thinking that the dome/vault (firmament) sits on top of the Earth, or passages where the Earth favoring there been boundaries/edges/ends of the Earth, means that the Earth is flat. Job 38:13:

12 “Have you commanded the morning since your days began,
and caused the dawn to know its place,
13 so that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth,
and the wicked be shaken out of it?

That's exactly the example of Flat Earth belief, that people can fall of the edges of the Earth.

Aristarchus of Samos (3rd century BCE, Hellenistic astronomer) was the first to propose heliocentric planetary motion, but the Old Testament followed the Bronze Age geocentric planetary motion from Babylonian astronomy. The geocentric would remain popular until Copernicus and Galileo had shown geocentric to be scientifically wrong.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you are contrasting it with science then there is a huge conflict. Bahai'i don't present evidence of "God's Creation" but rather assert their beliefs about that via their personal faith in individuals. The antithesis of science.

A huge misrepresentation of what the Baha'i Faith believes. The Baha'i Faith DOES NOT present scientific evidence for the existence of God nor "God's Creation." The Baha'i Faith simply believes in the harmony of the evolving body of scientific knowledge and religion, and what science determines concerning the nature of our physical existence is accepted by the Baha'i Faith, and scripture must be understood as the nature of physical existence with science. Of course scripture may appear in conflict with science, because if written in a narrative spiritual context, but nonetheless harmonization is the rule and accepting science. Science is accepted as descriptive of the nature of our physical existence.

Science and Religion | What Bahá’ís Believe

“is the outer expression of the divine reality. Therefore, it must be living, vitalized, moving and progressive.”1 “Science is the first emanation from God toward man. All created things embody the potentiality of material perfection, but the power of intellectual investigation and scientific acquisition is a higher virtue specialized to man alone. Other beings and organisms are deprived of this potentiality and attainment.” - Abdu;l-Baha.

"‘Abdu’l-Bahá has described science as the “most noble” of all human virtues and “the discoverer of all things”.3 Science has enabled society to separate fact from conjecture. Further, scientific capabilities—of observing, of measuring, of rigorously testing ideas—have allowed humanity to construct a coherent understanding of the laws and processes governing physical reality, as well as to gain insights into human conduct and the life of society."

The beliefs of the Baha'i Faith is NOT the antithesis of science.

 

[ppp]

A huge misrepresentation of what the Baha'i Faith believes. The Baha'i Faith DOES NOT present scientific evidence for the existence of God nor "God's Creation."

If you go back and read my post, you will find that I neither stated nor implied that Baha'i "present scientific evidence for the existence of God". If you are going to claim that I am misrepresent you, then at the very least, represent represent what I said correctly. Perhaps you were going by a script?

The Baha'i Faith simply believes in the harmony of the evolving body of scientific knowledge and religion, and what science determines concerning the nature of our physical existence is accepted by the Baha'i Faith, and scripture must be understood as the nature of physical existence with science.

What I said was, Bahai'i don't present evidence of "God's Creation" but rather assert their beliefs about that via their personal faith in individuals. Which is what you just did there.

Get an education before spout accusations and foolishness. The beliefs of science is NOT the antithesis of science.

Perhaps you might take a moment to re-read what I said and respond to that, rather than your expectations of what I am "supposed" to have said. Thanks,

 

[shunyadragon]

If you go back and read my post, you will find that I neither stated nor implied that Baha'i "present scientific evidence for the existence of God". If you are going to claim that I am misrepresent you, then at the very least, represent represent what I said correctly. Perhaps you were going by a script?


What I said was, Bahai'i don't present evidence of "God's Creation" but rather assert their beliefs about that via their personal faith in individuals. Which is what you just did there.


Perhaps you might take a moment to re-read what I said and respond to that, rather than your expectations of what I am "supposed" to have said. Thanks,

Perhaps you can go back and read you own post:

Baha'i "present scientific evidence for the existence of God".

and

Bahai'i don't present evidence of "God's Creation"

. . . says the same thing, and claiming that the Baha'i Faith is the anti-thesis of science.

You need to learn to express yourself better and coherently.

Baha'is do not "assert their beliefs about that via their personal faith in individuals." any more than anybody else "assert their beliefs" in any religion nor non-belief in whatever.

 

[ppp]

. . says the same thing, and claiming that the Baha'i Faith is the anti-thesis of science.

Only if you lack a firm grasp of English. Or logical negations. Do you understand that "don't present" and "present" are opposite in meaning? Don't is a contraction that means "do not".

 

[gnostic]

A huge misrepresentation of what the Baha'i Faith believes. The Baha'i Faith DOES NOT present scientific evidence for the existence of God nor "God's Creation." The Baha'i Faith simply believes in the harmony of the evolving body of scientific knowledge and religion, and what science determines concerning the nature of our physical existence is accepted by the Baha'i Faith, and scripture must be understood as the nature of physical existence with science. Of course scripture may appear in conflict with science, because if written in a narrative spiritual context, but nonetheless harmonization is the rule and accepting science. Science is accepted as descriptive of the nature of our physical existence.

Science and Religion | What Bahá’ís Believe

“is the outer expression of the divine reality. Therefore, it must be living, vitalized, moving and progressive.”1 “Science is the first emanation from God toward man. All created things embody the potentiality of material perfection, but the power of intellectual investigation and scientific acquisition is a higher virtue specialized to man alone. Other beings and organisms are deprived of this potentiality and attainment.” - Abdu;l-Baha.

"‘Abdu’l-Bahá has described science as the “most noble” of all human virtues and “the discoverer of all things”.3 Science has enabled society to separate fact from conjecture. Further, scientific capabilities—of observing, of measuring, of rigorously testing ideas—have allowed humanity to construct a coherent understanding of the laws and processes governing physical reality, as well as to gain insights into human conduct and the life of society."

The beliefs of the Baha'i Faith is NOT the antithesis of science.

Whether the followers of Baha'i Faith accept science or not, is dependent on each individual.

It is the same with every other theists. The choice are dependent on every individual.

For examples, some Catholics have accepted Evolution as scientific explanation to biodiversity of life, while other Catholics can and have rejected Evolution, preferring creationism. The current Pope may accept Evolution, he doesn’t enforce other to follow his lead.

I am quite sure that the same is true among Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, the choice of accepting or not accepting are up to each person.

But regardless of theists accept or not, Evolution is science, and people rejecting Evolution because of their religion, are just being ignorant and biased, because it is not up to any religion to determine what are or what are not science, because religions are not science organizations.

 

[shunyadragon]

Whether the followers of Baha'i Faith accept science or not, is dependent on each individual.

It is the same with every other theists. The choice are dependent on every individual.

You have successfully revealed your agenda as a blanket condemnation of all theists, which a bias that colors everything you assert..

OK! Everything anyone believes is 'dependent on every individual' like the sky is Carolina Blue on a clear day at noon on the 4th of July. Your statement concerns what the Baha'i Faith teaches concerning science just How can the fact that 'The choice are dependent on every individual' be the anti-thesis of science?

 

[shunyadragon]

Only if you lack a firm grasp of English. Or logical negations. Do you understand that "don't present" and "present" are opposite in meaning? Don't is a contraction that means "do not".

Your disjoint word salad does not make sense. Your aggressive bias against all theists does make any dialogue with you worth while.

 

[gnostic]

You have successfully revealed your agenda as a blanket condemnation of all theists, which a bias that colors everything you assert..

OK! Everything anyone believes is 'dependent on every individual' like the sky is Carolina Blue on a clear day at noon on the 4th of July. Your statement concerns what the Baha'i Faith teaches concerning science just How can the fact that 'The choice are dependent on every individual' be the anti-thesis of science?

All I am saying that in every religions and every sects or denominations, there are there those who understand and accept evolution and those who don’t.

But science is not dependent on any religions to determine what are scientific and what aren’t. And only evidence and data can test that - only tests can verify or refute any model.

No religious texts can determine the model being scientific or not scientific.

 

[ppp]

Your disjoint word salad does not make sense. Your aggressive bias against all theists does make any dialogue with you worth while.

You are calling, -- "don't present" and "present" are opposite in meaning -- to be word salad? You are just feigning indignation in order to avoid acknowledging the unreasonableness of your accusations. But if escape is what you want, by all means, fly free.

 

[ppp]

You have successfully revealed your agenda as a blanket condemnation of all theists, which a bias that colors everything you assert.

Sometimes people jus don't agree with you, Shunyadragon. And sometimes they have good rational reasons for their disagreement. Seems like you think everyone who disagrees with you as having an aggressive or biased agenda.

 

[ChristineM]

Rather, ' including Christendom ' because 'Christendom' is mostly Christian in name only - Matthew 7:21-23.
The terror or troubles that religions practice have created a hauntingly dangerous religious climate brewing in today's world.
This is a reason why the political will suddenly turn on the corrupted religious world which is in harmony with 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3.
The political (kings) will turn on that religious (queen) and the commercial world (businessmen) will mourn her loss - Revelation 18:3-11

Add still religious terrorism is big business

 

[shunyadragon]

Sometimes people jus don't agree with you, Shunyadragon. And sometimes they have good rational reasons for their disagreement. Seems like you think everyone who disagrees with you as having an aggressive or biased agenda.

This is not a matter of simple disagreement. You preface your argument with a blanket condemnation of Theism, and make a baseless accusation that the Baha'i Faith is the antithesis of science, with an an odd meaningless assertion that, 'The choice are dependent on every individual.'

 

[shunyadragon]

All I am saying that in every religions and every sects or denominations, there are there those who understand and accept evolution and those who don’t.

But science is not dependent on any religions to determine what are scientific and what aren’t. And only evidence and data can test that - only tests can verify or refute any model.

No religious texts can determine the model being scientific or not scientific.

Again . . . ou have successfully revealed your agenda as a blanket condemnation of all theists, which a bias that colors everything you assert.

No room for dialogue here.

 

[shunyadragon]

All I am saying that in every religions and every sects or denominations, there are there those who understand and accept evolution and those who don’t.

The obvious is not meaningful

But science is not dependent on any religions to determine what are scientific and what aren’t. And only evidence and data can test that - only tests can verify or refute any model.

No religious texts can determine the model being scientific or not scientific.

If you read what I post that is actually what the Baha'i Faith proposes, which is not the case in most other ancient religions. What is scientific in science is the same as what is scientific in the Baha'i Faith.

 

[ppp]

You preface your argument with a blanket condemnation of Theism

My statement was specific to Baha'i not to all of theism. And not even to the entirety of the religion, but specifically to the Baha'i failure to provided evidentiary base for there being a god. Your claiming that this is a blanket condemnation of Theism is very dramatic and such, but obviously it is not true. Baha'i is a very small piece of theism, and I was only criticizing one activity of Baha'i.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Add still religious terrorism is big business

Yes, it is ever big business. However, it's the secular merchants - Revelation 18: 11 (not religious terrorism) who mourn the loss of the religious world.
And who is behind such terror is the behind-the-scenes terrorist aka megalomaniac Satan - Ezekiel 28:13-19

 

[rrobs]

Right, you can tell me what a god wants? Wow, publish and be famous.

Well, I'd be a day late and a dollar short given that what I said is exactly what the last 2 chapters in Revelation already say.

Funny how your god thinks exactly the same way as you eh?

Interesting take away.

Thats a whole subject on its own, first you need to convince me he was the son of a god

I need to convince you? That's above my pay grade.

Great selling point. But im happy with my own spirit, my own life, my own freedom.

Then I'm happy for you.

Yes i can. All you can say is that the bible says... What i say is that jesus was an anarchist executed for his crimes.

So that's how God thinks! I stand corrected - NOT!