Is Bible literal young earth Christian fundamentalism turning people away from God?

[blü 2]

That's always the game, isn't it? Prove it doesn't exist.

No, that's not the game at all. The game is to state clearly what one's talking about, and to show that one's assertions regarding that subject are accurate statements about reality, no?

And you have ignored the first part: can you really believe human consciousness is a product of brain activity?

What else could it be? No brain, no consciousness. Damaged or impaired or drugged brain, damaged or impaired or drugged consciousness. Brain quiescent, consciousness quiescent ─ and so on. Have you kept abreast of brain research in the papers, followed what we're finding and how we're finding it? Do you recall the experiment from some years back (2012?) showing that the nonconscious brain made particular decisions many seconds before the conscious brain was aware of the choice?

By extension you cannot believe that any consciousness continues after your own death.

No, of course it doesn't. No examinable evidence suggests otherwise, and no credible means for it to do so has been proposed.

This means that, for you, the universe ceases to exist. Because the only way you can prove the existence of the universe is via your own consciousness. Nothing exists outside your own consciousness.

You think? I have air, water, food, shelter, warmth, friends, a society, a partner, children, and so on. They're real, part of the world external to me, and my death won't alter that; just that the biochemical patterns that are me will be lost.

Time came into existence 13.7 billion years ago along with space, and all the energy from which the universe is formed, along with the four forces which formed it and all the laws governing it.

This happened instantly (because no time preceded it) out of nowhere (because there wasn't any 'where' to precede it) from an infinitely small singularity that contained it all.

(My own view is that energy has always existed; that the Big Bang was the explosion of energy, so that energy and its properties explain our universe, including time and space. If that's right then the Big Bang was a moment that wiped out all access to records of anything preexisting, but time exists because energy does, not the other way round.)

So one shouldn't be too brash and certain when demanding proof and explanation from people who do not dispute the standard model but propose there may be greater spiritual forces out there too.

I come to RF to have discussions like this one. I think on many questions, including the ones we're considering, debate is my greatest teacher.

So might I respond to the point you make by saying it's question of what we mean by truth ─ what test do we apply to a statement to see whether it's true or not? And my own answer to that is, 'It's true if it's in conformity with / corresponds to / accurately reflects reality'. That test makes it possible for people to agree on what's true and what isn't. If someone is using another definition of 'truth' then it's quite likely that any agreement is at best coincidental.

What would you define truth? What would you say the test was?

 

[ERLOS]

No, that's not the game at all. The game is to state clearly what one's talking about, and to show that one's assertions regarding that subject are accurate statements about reality, no?
What else could it be? No brain, no consciousness. Damaged or impaired or drugged brain, damaged or impaired or drugged consciousness. Brain quiescent, consciousness quiescent ─ and so on. Have you kept abreast of brain research in the papers, followed what we're finding and how we're finding it? Do you recall the experiment from some years back (2012?) showing that the nonconscious brain made particular decisions many seconds before the conscious brain was aware of the choice?
No, of course it doesn't. No examinable evidence suggests otherwise, and no credible means for it to do so has been proposed.
You think? I have air, water, food, shelter, warmth, friends, a society, a partner, children, and so on. They're real, part of the world external to me, and my death won't alter that; just that the biochemical patterns that are me will be lost.
(My own view is that energy has always existed; that the Big Bang was the explosion of energy, so that energy and its properties explain our universe, including time and space. If that's right then the Big Bang was a moment that wiped out all access to records of anything preexisting, but time exists because energy does, not the other way round.)
I come to RF to have discussions like this one. I think on many questions, including the ones we're considering, debate is my greatest teacher.

So might I respond to the point you make by saying it's question of what we mean by truth ─ what test do we apply to a statement to see whether it's true or not? And my own answer to that is, 'It's true if it's in conformity with / corresponds to / accurately reflects reality'. That test makes it possible for people to agree on what's true and what isn't. If someone is using another definition of 'truth' then it's quite likely that any agreement is at best coincidental.

What would you define truth? What would you say the test was?

There aren't easy answers about the consciousness argument, alhough it is probably true for 'thought'. Again it's a purely materialistic perception.

EDIT: No computer, no Internet reception. As in: no brain, no ...

The universe you perceive is probably quite different to the one perceived by Linus. But the fact remains that just as (you) can look at a brain dead coma patient and say there is no consciousness there, it's as true to say that when personal consciousness expires at death, the universe ceases to exist for me, eternally and forever. And who else matters in the case?

The test for truth is probably that it WORKS.

If someone wants to call it God and (you) want to call it imagination, brain activity, the truth is (we) don't really know.

EDIT: I believe even someone like Roger Penronse has trouble with believing consciousness is purely brain activity.

 

[ERLOS]

No, that's not the game at all. The game is to state clearly what one's talking about, and to show that one's assertions regarding that subject are accurate statements about reality, no?
What else could it be? No brain, no consciousness. Damaged or impaired or drugged brain, damaged or impaired or drugged consciousness. Brain quiescent, consciousness quiescent ─ and so on. Have you kept abreast of brain research in the papers, followed what we're finding and how we're finding it? Do you recall the experiment from some years back (2012?) showing that the nonconscious brain made particular decisions many seconds before the conscious brain was aware of the choice?
No, of course it doesn't. No examinable evidence suggests otherwise, and no credible means for it to do so has been proposed.
You think? I have air, water, food, shelter, warmth, friends, a society, a partner, children, and so on. They're real, part of the world external to me, and my death won't alter that; just that the biochemical patterns that are me will be lost.
(My own view is that energy has always existed; that the Big Bang was the explosion of energy, so that energy and its properties explain our universe, including time and space. If that's right then the Big Bang was a moment that wiped out all access to records of anything preexisting, but time exists because energy does, not the other way round.)
I come to RF to have discussions like this one. I think on many questions, including the ones we're considering, debate is my greatest teacher.

So might I respond to the point you make by saying it's question of what we mean by truth ─ what test do we apply to a statement to see whether it's true or not? And my own answer to that is, 'It's true if it's in conformity with / corresponds to / accurately reflects reality'. That test makes it possible for people to agree on what's true and what isn't. If someone is using another definition of 'truth' then it's quite likely that any agreement is at best coincidental.

What would you define truth? What would you say the test was?

Again, if reality is limited to our conscious perception, five senses, logic and scientific extensions measuring x-ray stars and sub-atomic activity and so on, why should reality stop at the limits of human perception/measurement?

It comes back to whether a rational person can truly look around at nature, at hubble pics, at a tender green shoot drawn from a buried seed by sunlight -- and believe mankind is the highest intelligence and the last word in the universe?

Can it be proved. No.

 

[blü 2]

when personal consciousness expires at death, the universe ceases to exist for me, eternally and forever.

But reality, which we'll have had the chance to be part of, will go on.

And who else matters in the case?

At an emotional level, I immediately think of my kids and grandkids.

The test for truth is probably that it WORKS.

I can think of a yellow toupée busy demonstrating round the world that lies work. I don't think lies are truth. I try to hold truth to an objective standard.

If someone wants to call it God and (you) want to call it imagination, brain activity, the truth is (we) don't really know.

It wouldn't matter to you that gods were imaginary? It wouldn't be a question important to clarify, in your view?

EDIT: I believe even someone like Roger Penronse has trouble with believing consciousness is purely brain activity.

You're probably right. He has various nutty ideas, and not just that consciousness might inexplicably arise from QM effects in microtubules in the brain ─ he says in one of his interviews that he's a mathematical Platonist, which I think is not only untenable but a fundamental failure to grasp what maths is. I freely admit he's much more learned about the operations of the maths relevant to his physics than I'll ever be, but philosophically, well, on the nature of maths I'd happily debate him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can think of a yellow toupée busy demonstrating round the world that lies work. I don't think lies are truth. I try to hold truth to an objective standard.

Ahem!!! It is a giant yellow comb over, not a toupee, learn the difference!

 

[ERLOS]

But reality, which we'll have had the chance to be part of, will go on.
At an emotional level, I immediately think of my kids and grandkids.
I can think of a yellow toupée busy demonstrating round the world that lies work. I don't think lies are truth. I try to hold truth to an objective standard.
It wouldn't matter to you that gods were imaginary? It wouldn't be a question important to clarify, in your view?
You're probably right. He has various nutty ideas, and not just that consciousness might inexplicably arise from QM effects in microtubules in the brain ─ he says in one of his interviews that he's a mathematical Platonist, which I think is not only untenable but a fundamental failure to grasp what maths is. I freely admit he's much more learned about the operations of the maths relevant to his physics than I'll even be, but philosophically, well, on the nature of maths I'd happily debate him.

Sorry: did you pick up my late edit?

The brain's a computer. No computer no Internet?

It wouldn't matter to you that gods were imaginary? It wouldn't be a question important to clarify, in your view?

God works in mysterious ways. As long as the job gets done, is what matters. Imo

I apologise for my late edits. I know it's irritating ...

 

[blü 2]

Ahem!!! It is a giant yellow comb over, not a toupee, learn the difference!

How odd to make a combover look like a toupée! What a peculiar person he must be!

 

[blü 2]

Sorry: did you pick up my late edit?

The brain's a computer. No computer no Internet?

Surely the human equivalent of a computer's net connection is the input of the senses and the output of written, spoken, body, and symbolic language? And we have medical experts to deal with failures of that kind.

We have no credible evidence to suggest that ESP, or the astral plane, or higher dimensions, or like ideas, exist in reality. If they were indeed real, then we'd expect people to be able to report back to us with reliable remote knowledge of reality ─ spying would be the realm of highly trained government psychics, for example; but as with OOBs and NDEs, we have zero authenticated cases. (And in saying 'credible' and 'authenticated', I'm defining truth as before.) Equally we could expect that A's and B's accounts of the astral plane, or Dimension N, or whatever, would have significant points in common, but not even that is the case. And we could reasonably expect, could we not, that people would come back from encounters with God with factual information about [him] and not solely emotional experiences; but that doesn't seem to happen either.

As I said, I'm a materialist for want of a credible alternative. At the same time, if satisfactory evidence is presented, I can be persuaded.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How odd to make a combover look like a toupée! What a peculiar person he must be!

It enables plausible deniability. He could make this "honest" statement:

"I am not bald, this is all my own hair. "


The first half is rather dubious, but the second part is true.

 

[ERLOS]

Surely the human equivalent of a computer's net connection is the input of the senses and the output of written, spoken, body, and symbolic language? And we have medical experts to deal with failures of that kind.

We have no credible evidence to suggest that ESP, or the astral plane, or higher dimensions, or like ideas, exist in reality. If they were indeed real, then we'd expect people to be able to report back to us with reliable remote knowledge of reality ─ spying would be the realm of highly trained government psychics, for example; but as with OOBs and NDEs, we have zero authenticated cases. (And in saying 'credible' and 'authenticated', I'm defining truth as before.) Equally we could expect that A's and B's accounts of the astral plane, or Dimension N, or whatever, would have significant points in common, but not even that is the case. And we could reasonably expect, could we not, that people would come back from encounters with God with factual information about [him] and not solely emotional experiences; but that doesn't seem to happen either.

As I said, I'm a materialist for want of a credible alternative. At the same time, if satisfactory evidence is presented, I can be persuaded.

Oh really?

But there's a wealth of unexplained phenomena.
.
But you will probably deny any of it ever happens.

I know one hard-nosed scientist who's a Fortean.

 

[ERLOS]

NB: I'm not saying it happened like that, or that I agree with the reincarnation/karma type source. I'm not saying anything except: it's out there.

 

[blü 2]

But there's a wealth of unexplained phenomena.

We already that science is always a work in progress, that none of its conclusions can be absolute. And as you know, 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are names for problems, not for solutions.

So I don't deny that weird problems are found. What I deny ─ at least till examinable evidence shows I'm wrong ─ is that the 'supernatural', and its shadow, the 'paranormal', exist anywhere but in the imagination of individuals.

I know one hard-nosed scientist who's a Fortean.

At times the Forteans have done science great services. At other times they've been less relevant. I grew up reading books by William Corliss ─ I lost my copy of The Unexplained long ago (by lending it to someone then forgetting who, of course), though I notice Amazon will replace it for me for under ten bucks, and I still have his Handbook of Unusual Natural Phenomena on my shelves somewhere. Not strictly Fortean, but carefully researched reminders that weird is out there.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's always the game, isn't it? Prove it doesn't exist. And you have ignored the first part: can you really believe human consciousness is a product of brain activity?

Actually as a Theist and a scientist this is an easy yes.

 

[ERLOS]

Actually as a Theist and a scientist this is an easy yes.

Care to expand?

 

[Audie]

I'd agree with that statement. None of us actually know, do we?

I've seen opinions that say some of the stone cutting in South America is 40,000+ years old. I think it is in South Africa that there are stone structures that are thought to be 170,000 years old. We can't actually prove anything, and I've seen what was thought to be right 60 years ago to have fallen completely out of favor.

I once got a spanking in class when I told my teacher that we can see the moon in the day time. Another time, there was trouble over saying that some chickens laid brown eggs. Hmmmm

Dating methods have improved over the years,
of course.

If your idea is that there is reasonable doubt
that the world is some billions of years old,
I would have to disagree.

ETA- Sorry you were treated so poorly, was
that in school?

 

[shunyadragon]

Care to expand?

No problem, all the present objective verifiable evidence by science demonstrates that consciousness is a product of the brain as it is with other animals. There is no objective verifiable evidence to indicate another source.

I have no problem with our consciousness being independent of our soul, and a product of the brain as well as the mind.

 

[Earthling]

The silver scrolls . . .

That's all very nice, but what does it have to do with, lets say, anything? Your basic contention was that Genesis wasn't written by Moses, it evolved "edited, redacted and compiled text originally based on Canaanite, Ugarit, Banylonian mythology found first in Sumarian cuneiform tablets."

All you have shown in all of your information is that there were people copying it over the centuries.

 

[ERLOS]

Ok. I like Carl Jung's universal consciousness. A reservoir. The principle that the brain is a receiver of consciousness.
@shunyadragon

 

[ERLOS]

That's all very nice, but what does it have to do with, lets say, anything? Your basic contention was that Genesis wasn't written by Moses, it evolved "edited, redacted and compiled text originally based on Canaanite, Ugarit, Banylonian mythology found first in Sumarian cuneiform tablets."

All you have shown in all of your information is that there were people copying it over the centuries.

Genesis is a biblical parable containing huge wisdom including links to quaballah but which when taken literally leads to silly conundrums like a talking serpent and the wife of Cain, and men and dinosaurs co-existing, imo.

 

[Earthling]

Genesis is a biblical parable containing huge wisdom including links to quaballah but which when taken literally leads to silly conundrums like a talking serpent and the wife of Cain, and men and dinosaurs co-existing, imo.

In your opinion. Well, let's look at your opinion.

Talking Snakes - The snake didn't actually talk.

The Wife of Cain - What about the wife of Cain?

Men And Dinosaurs Co-existing - Genesis doesn't say anything about men and dinosaurs co-existing.