The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[1robin]

The key phrases being "personal experience" and "my claims". I cannot refute, or even really deny, your experiences - but I can still question the validity of them as evidence of your claim from an objective viewpoint, and as a reasonable assessment of reality.

Since they occurred and confirmed a world view that I had spent 26.95 years out of 27 years being hostile to I am the greatest type of witness there is. A hostile one embarrassed by the truth I have found to be so. I was not in any church, not counseled by anyone, not in fear for my life, nor in any other way compelled than by evidence. You can refuse to believe but you can find no fault whatever in my conclusions based on my experience. You do not even have enough data to begin to theorize but like many I do not imagine that will stop you.

And yet you must be beholden to some degree of certainty about reality, or else you wouldn't have formulated any conclusions about anything - even ones based on personal experience. In fact, especially ones based on personal experience.

As Descartes discovered, we believe in many things and hold them as certainties but when strictly viewed find only that we think as among them. I have many views of varying certainties but only a handful of actual certainties.

Actually, yes we do. There are countless books and museums dedicated to them. And even if we don't see the evidence directly ourselves, we can still see the effect of the conclusions drawn from them from everything that the scientific method has provided for us. Every time you use a computer, heat your house, or take medicine you are utilizing machines built and designed entirely on predictions ascertained from the scientific method. You are, in fact, demonstrating these these predictions are accurate.

This is completely wrong. The things I am skeptical of concerning science - abiogenesis, multiverses, infinite natural forces or substances, etc... have not a single example in any museum or book. In fact every single observable aspect of reality is either neutral or completely hostile to one or more of them.

But I do have coherent justification. I only believe claims for which I have considered the evidence to be sufficient to judge the claim worth believing beyond a reasonable doubt.

Exactly what do you have about the quantum that would actually meet your standards, and keep in mind I am not resistant to anything the quantum is said to contain. I only (unlike you) admit my faith in the quantum and certain aspects of the bible is mostly faith not what you stated above.

In the same way that the "ultimate outcome" of your thinking would be to believe every claim made from personal experience about everything, even when they are claims made about things you don't believe?

NO, it is not because the criteria that constitutes what I believe has never been claimed to be one of personal experience alone. There are a vast amount of factors that go into what I believe, personal experience being only one and one that has a lot of other methods that go along with it. I have never equated personal experience alone with truth as you have with science.

This is a pretty poor comparison. A historical event vs. a proposed explanation for a given phenomena aren't even remotely equal. Nobody here has claimed the multiple universe interpretation of quantum physics to be a fact - and I've never particularly objected to the claim of an empty tomb.

I think it very appropriate. All claims use data to evaluate a theory. The bible is the same as science except our theories are fixed. My faith is not retained if my theories are dissolved as it is in science. In faith evidence contradictory to proposition is considered fatal. In science it is spoken of as almost a virtue. At the end of the day we are doing the same thing for everything. Examining theories by reality.

So you cannot explain how my analogy is inaccurate?

I would have to be able to understand it to gauge it's accuracy. It is hard to check the spelling of a sentence that is unintelligible to it's reader.

But I don't. I've read up on quantum physics. I am familiar with the concepts involved and with the tests devised to demonstrate them, as well as the fact that we have predictions made by quantum mechanics to thank for the existence of such things as microprocessors and lasers. Are you denying that?

No one understands the quantum by reading a few books. It takes 8 years in school and many years of specific experience to even be able to evaluate it. I thought your claim wrong but was not sure. I luckily happen to work with a Phd in information theory and put the question to him. AS far as processors go you are taking the word of someone that predictions have been realized. My boss said he has been in labs where this is done and even he had to because he only saw numbers on a screen. The point is this they may be perfect in every quantum claim they make but you and I are taking it on faith. You do not have access to a quantum anything and probably lack (by a huge margin) the education to proof read quantum texts. They may be right but your have faith not knowledge, the same with me. However as far as theology goes I do have perfect access to what I purport to be the basis for my faith and little education of any kind is required (yet I still call it faith). I am consistent, you are not.

But you can still be wrong. While I cannot question your experience, I can still question them as a rational basis to make objective assessments of reality.

You could only do so once you have access to them. I am not sure that is even possible. However you have no idea what my claims are (beyond vague generalities) yet are still drawing conclusions. This is horribly flawed and very indicative.

Just for fun let me ask you something. Do think what any color (say red) looks like is quantifiable or capable of being standardized? There is a point being the question.

Because you are a flawed human being as well, and you are capable of being wrong - and even being capable of denying that to yourself. The fact that you have to deny empirical facts to support your beliefs is sufficient proof to me that your beliefs are not logical, and obtained through means of delusion. You don't believe that, I'm sure, but to me it is a reasonable conclusion.

I believe a Christian to be more aware of fallibility than any group. I certainly am. However the likelihood of being wrong about a personal experience while possible is far less than my belief about multiverses. Most of theoretical science and certain areas in particular lie among the least reliable of claims ever made. Unfortunately while subjectively very reliable, objectively theology is similar in some respects, but not in others.

So, science doesn't produce things that work? What on earth are you typing on?

When I claim that science after failing over and over never succeeds I will answer your question.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Since they occurred and confirmed a world view that I had spent 26.95 years out of 27 years being hostile to I am the greatest type of witness there is. A hostile one embarrassed by the truth I have found to be so. I was not in any church, not counseled by anyone, not in fear for my life, nor in any other way compelled than by evidence. You can refuse to believe but you can find no fault whatever in my conclusions based on my experience. You do not even have enough data to begin to theorize but like many I do not imagine that will stop you.

Because your claims are unreasonable. They may be convincing to you, but your constant assertion that your claims should be somewhat more convincing by the fact that you were once hostile towards the beliefs you hold adds absolutely no credibility to your claim whatsoever. Would you doubt the opinion of someone who had spent 27 or more years as a devout theist, being openly hostile towards atheism, but then came to change their mind after what they believed was a convincing personal experience or an objective assessment of the facts as they saw them? I very much doubt that, and yet such people do exist. If I were give your experience any kind of factual credit, I must give theirs credit as well. This is why personal experiences are not, nor should they be, convincing to anyone but the individual having the experience themselves. Until you present evidence that your beliefs are accurate that exists outside of your own mind, it is unreasonable for me to conclude that your beliefs represent an accurate reflection of reality.

This is completely wrong. The things I am skeptical of concerning science - abiogenesis, multiverses, infinite natural forces or substances, etc... have not a single example in any museum or book. In fact every single observable aspect of reality is either neutral or completely hostile to one or more of them.

Being skeptical of those things is fine. I am too. But to assert that reality is "hostile" to them is total hogwash.

Exactly what do you have about the quantum that would actually meet your standards, and keep in mind I am not resistant to anything the quantum is said to contain. I only (unlike you) admit my faith in the quantum and certain aspects of the bible is mostly faith not what you stated above.

Again, this is nonsense. I've already explained that we have quantum physics to thank for advances such as microprocessors. If quantum theory were not accurate, these things simply would not work. They are designed based specifically on predictions made using quantum mechanics. I do not require faith to believe in the accuracy of a given theory when that theory is responsible for an activity that I engage in nearly every day.

NO, it is not because the criteria that constitutes what I believe has never been claimed to be one of personal experience alone. There are a vast amount of factors that go into what I believe, personal experience being only one and one that has a lot of other methods that go along with it. I have never equated personal experience alone with truth as you have with science.

Where have I done such a thing?

I think it very appropriate. All claims use data to evaluate a theory. The bible is the same as science except our theories are fixed.

That's utterly absurd. That's like saying "swimming is the same as walking, but it involves water".

My faith is not retained if my theories are dissolved as it is in science. In faith evidence contradictory to proposition is considered fatal.

Wrong. In faith, evidence considered contradictory to a proposition can be ignored, because that's precisely what religious faith is. It's believing in something despite an absence of evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary.

In science it is spoken of as almost a virtue. At the end of the day we are doing the same thing for everything. Examining theories by reality.

Except science looks at reality to formulate a conclusion and test it. You already have a conclusion and try to make reality fit it, regardless of whether it can be tested.

I would have to be able to understand it to gauge it's accuracy. It is hard to check the spelling of a sentence that is unintelligible to it's reader.

If "you cannot bake baking" is unintelligible, then what does that make "you cannot use science to prove science"? They're both nonsense statements - that was the point of the analogy.

No one understands the quantum by reading a few books. It takes 8 years in school and many years of specific experience to even be able to evaluate it.

Sure, at a professional or doctoral level, but I am still familiar with it enough to reasonably conclude that it describes accurate facts about the nature of subatomic particles, and am familiar with the many applications in the world around me that utilize these facts gleamed from the theory that I can conclude that the framework is accurate.

I thought your claim wrong but was not sure. I luckily happen to work with a Phd in information theory and put the question to him. AS far as processors go you are taking the word of someone that predictions have been realized. My boss said he has been in labs where this is done and even he had to because he only saw numbers on a screen. The point is this they may be perfect in every quantum claim they make but you and I are taking it on faith. You do not have access to a quantum anything and probably lack (by a huge margin) the education to proof read quantum texts. They may be right but your have faith not knowledge, the same with me.

So, are you suggesting that they don't use quantum theory in any way to produce microprocessors, lasers or any other real-world applications of quantum theory?

However as far as theology goes I do have perfect access to what I purport to be the basis for my faith and little education of any kind is required (yet I still call it faith). I am consistent, you are not.

Wrong. You do not have "perfect access" to anything. You are flawed and incapable of actually demonstrating, even to yourself, that your beliefs are actually accurate, but you conclude them to be true in spite of this. I hold no such positions which require to me ignore rationality and evidence, and do not hold "faith" in any position I have. I am consistent.

Just for fun let me ask you something. Do think what any color (say red) looks like is quantifiable or capable of being standardized? There is a point being the question.

Yes.

I believe a Christian to be more aware of fallibility than any group.

Prove it.

I certainly am.

Except for your own, apparently.

However the likelihood of being wrong about a personal experience while possible is far less than my belief about multiverses. Most of theoretical science and certain areas in particular lie among the least reliable of claims ever made. Unfortunately while subjectively very reliable, objectively theology is similar in some respects, but not in others.

So, how can you assess the reliability of the many world interpretation of quantum theory? Since you have spent most of this post telling me I cannot reliably determine the accuracy of quantum physics, please explain to me how you are capable of determining the reliability of the many worlds interpretation.

When I claim that science after failing over and over never succeeds I will answer your question.

That's not what I said you claimed. I simply asked you a question.

 

[ArtieE]

There is not one single cosmological fact that does not agree with their straightforward claims. You should believe them because they are true. You should consider if they are from a God because they were ignorant, yet still were correct in-spite of even Einstein. His self admitted most abject professional failure would have been avoided by believing Genesis.

"The Biblical picture is clearly geocentric. The earth has the shape of a flat disc" http://louisjacobs.org/library/articles/jewish-cosmology.php You have what is called "blind faith".

 

[1robin]

ROBIN POSTED "Let me ask you this do you grant the people who believe in UFO's enough credibility to concede they very well might exist?"

Robin you made many comments about my earlier post. Don't have the time today to respond in kind and for that my apologies. I picked out the one question you asked that will I believe clarify my position about the topic in general.

In most cases our time is beyond our control, however the formats we post in are. I ask you again if you need any help addressing posts or quoting them? It is just luck that I had enough time to read long enough to spot my name and answer. I am happy to help if you need it.

Do I believe that many people who have had UFO encounters believe that what they experienced was real? Yes I do. As you know, simply because someone believes an event happened, that in itself is not proof that it did happen. The reality is that human senses are easily fooled. Memories are notoriously fallible.

It is not really a relevant concept what the conviction level is of a claim to me. Well that is a little much. It certainly is not a deciding factor. It is not how much a person believes but how many and what quality the claim is and what access to the event they potentially had. I think it was Zacharias who pointed out the most self confident people there are in mental institutions. They do not think that Christ exists they know that they are him and know it absolutely. Conviction is not a primary point I consider about experience claims.

More directly to your question, do I concede enough credibility to the number of UFO sightings that they might exist? To make sure we are on the same page, the question is do I believe it possible that beings from another planet have visited earth?

That is not what I was asking. I am asking do you believe there is enough credibility in those who claim to have experienced aliens to believe they did. The bible is silent on them and I have no reason to doubt their possibility. I have a whole host a ways to examine whether they have visited here but that is not really the question.

That answer is no. Why? If one understands the reality of the physics behind such an attempt, the amount of power, time and energy required to pull this off makes the likelihood virtually impossible. This is actually depressing to me. But what I would 'like' to believe is not relevant.

I expected you to say it was possible. I was mistaken. I do believe they may exist but not one personal account is the reason why though it is hard to write so many off as meaningless.

Let me ask another questions then. If every single person on earth claimed to have met an alien and many lived entire lives as if they had would that convince you it was likely at least some had?

The point of all of this? As with UFO experiences, events in ancient times that have no other foundation for validity except human observation simply cannot be considered factual. No matter how many people would like it to have happened is not relevant to the possibility that it did happen.

At what point in history do you claim that ignorance no longer distorted truth? Among the oldest parts of the bible is Genesis. It claims some very specific things about the universe. It claims that the universe at one time did not exist. That time, matter, and space simultaneously came into existence. That effects required a cause, that things that begin to exist have explanations. Now these things have been routinely denied and their exact opposite asserted by the most learned among even modern scholars. However in the last century all the data has confirmed what those men said almost 4000 years ago. Why do these very very old claims not display the very very flawed conclusions you predict?

For what it is worth, my thoughts about the Multiverse theory are similar. With nothing supporting the theory except the math works, that is equally impossible for me to believe.

I have a degree in math. That is certainly not a claim to have mastery of it or to have progressed as far as many. It is to say that I know of no math that predicts or is not above neutral concerning multiverses. Of what math do you speak?

If nothing else at least I am consistent!

I have not talked with you enough yet to make that conclusion but at the moment I have no reason to doubt it. Maybe it will become clearer with time.

Anyway respond when you can and try and quote who it is you are responding to. Again, just ask if you need any tips on doing so.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Both science and Christianity are guilty of holding presupposed ideas that influence what is taken from data. No subject in human history is free from it. I concede Christianity's capacity to delude it's self and so will no expand on it. At no other time in history has science been as driven by money as it is now. The need to be published, tenured, accepted into the mainstream and get grant money has done to science what it has done to every form of government wayward man has ever coughed up. It has corrupted it where possible. This is present even in arenas where functionality must arise. I work in such a field and have seen billions go wasted on theories based on presumptions and pet theories. I was in the military and am an amateur military historian and know that tens of millions have died on the alter of sciences presumptions. However it gets far worse for the portions of science where proof is unavailable and unlikely to ever be. Things are constantly asserted as fact or likely that have no evidence, far more are asserted that depend entirely on either the dominant narrative, or presumptions. Every scientific argument against theology lies entirely within this most likely to contain error divisions of science.

Can you produce examples of this from within modern theories that you reject?

I had a entire page of a response to your comment about what I know if a computer is seen in front of me. I will instead give a brief comment and move on. The only thing I KNOW is that I think a man made object lies before me. I have a whole library of things I may believe in addition to this but not one is free of faith.

Garbage. A reasonable assumption based on simple responses to external stimuli does not require "faith".

The same is true of the rest of science. The exact same is true of theology. I run tests until I am satisfied and then make educated guesses about the science I do during the day and the bible I read at night.

So, when scientists use a theory to produce an actual, real-world affect - such as predicting the mutation rates of flu viruses or shooting a rocket into space - they are still taking this all "on faith"? They're just accidentally doing things that produce results as an unintended consequence of things that they don't have any good reason to believe? If that's what you think, then frankly I doubt what you do during the day could be called "science".

You will without suggest that maybe the tests are the same but the quality of data is different and you would be right, but not about how you categorize these qualities versus claim. There are far better reasons and data to have faith that Jesus lived and died than for multiverses.

And there are far more reasons to believe the Loch Ness monster exists than the giant purple people eater. What's your point? "There is more evidence of X than Y" doesn't indicate the truth value of X, just the lack of evidence for Y. The many worlds interpretation of quantum physics is a largely theoretical hypothesis proposed to explain the behaviour of subatomic particles that exist in a quantum superstate. That's all it is, and that's all most physicists would say it is. What the issue is with your fixation on the idea I have no idea. Were you under the illusion that the many worlds interpretation was some sort of grand, unifying scientific orthodoxy?

You need far more specificity to even have this conversation. Needless to say very few people have experienced Christ and then went on to conclude he does not exist.

And very few have experienced Allah, Ra, Zeus, Set, nirvana or reincarnation and went on to conclude that they do not exist, either. What's your point? That you're testimony is more reliable than theirs? Why?

Your are attempting to equate one thing you have little knowledge of with another you have little or knowledge of. You do not know and even less understand what my experiences are much less that bushman in Africa.

True, but I can still safely conclude that your experiences are reasonably explained as a form of delusion - just as you would do for the many people who claim to have spoken directly to aliens, or experienced reincarnation, or fought a duel with Odin on the astral plane of existence. The problem is that you don't recognize the potential for your own experiences to be the result of a delusion. For you to be truly consistent, you would have to take all of those such people at their word as well. This is why I am more consistent than you. You apply one set of standards to your own experiences, then deny all others that would contradict it, whereas I simply deny them all until I have sufficient, objective reasons to do otherwise.

Because what they did say turned out to contradict science as early as 60 years ago but prove correct in the end. There is not one single cosmological fact that does not agree with their straightforward claims.

Such as...?

You should believe them because they are true.

Based on...?

You should consider if they are from a God because they were ignorant, yet still were correct in-spite of even Einstein. His self admitted most abject professional failure would have been avoided by believing Genesis.

It's bizarre how you can assert that I have a limited capacity for understanding and assessing quantum physics, and yet you yourself are making bald, evidence-free claims about the very origin of the Universe itself. What happened to the "consistency" you were so fond of earlier?

Does that get you any closer to the data?

Yes. Reading about the facts brings you closer to understanding the facts. It's called "learning".

Does that make you any more qualified to understand what he stated?

No. Reading comprehension does.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have 190 semester hours in college and 90% of what he says that is scientific (50% of the total is philosophic and wrong anyway) I have no way whatever to know the truth of and neither does he.

Well, you're more than welcome to write a book about it and turn the entirety of modern physics on it's head.

In his particular case I used the 10% I do understand to arrive at the conclusion that his philosophic conclusions arrive not from data but from his lack of knowledge in philosophy. However do not take my word. I will give you a link to a conference where two philosophers, a pure mathematics professor from Oxford, and a moral theorist from Cambridge not only point out his scientific assumptions but show easily how most of his conclusions are philosophic not scientific and completely unjustifiable.

Verywell. But you do realize that you're just taking their words for it, right? Watching a lecture by them doesn't get you closer to the data, right? Or does it? Are you taking their objections on faith? Or aren't you?

Hold on, what is it you actually think about all this stuff again? Your inconsistency is troubling.

What level of education is that exactly? I have been through partial DE and can't do it.

Are you serious? You never learned that Newton's laws cannot be applied to the exchange of heat in solid bodies, or that Newtonian gravity has been discarded in favour of a relativistic understanding of gravity? Are you suggesting everything Newton proposed was entirely correct and accurate?

There are no actual results or data that confirm anything that would cause anyone to reject Genesis or any other book base on science alone.

Because people believe Genesis based on faith, and as a supernatural account it cannot be accurately falsified.

Everything used to debate against the bible lies firmly in theoretical arenas.

That depends entirely on your interpretation of the Bible.

Ambrose Fleming asserts that there is nothing in the Gospels that would cause a man of science to have problems with the miracles contained therein, and concludes with a challenge to intellectual honesty, asserting that if such a "...study is pursued with what eminent lawyers have called a willing mind, it will engender a deep assurance that the Christian Church is not founded on fictions, or nourished on delusions, or, as St. Peter calls them, 'cunningly devised fables,' but on historical and actual events, which, however strange they may be, are indeed the greatest events which have ever happened in the history of the world."
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

Well, how about the fact that King Herod never killed all the first born of Egypt? That's a fictional event.

I gave you several of the vast numbers of ways in which that can be done. Until you acknowledge those there is little need for more.

No, you haven't. You've not once given me any means by which we can compare one supernatural account against another. Please explain to me how this can be done.

Christians are the group above any other that have arrived at the position most in opposition to that which they began with.

Unless they were one of the millions (if not billions) of children raised in Christian families, in Christian communities, in a Christian country.

You cannot even become a Christian without having to admit that your entire being and world view is wrong. Your being silly and trite.

And you're being completely absurd.

Yes and I can read a bible on it that I can run similar tests on. The exact same tests used in textual scholarship, the historical method, legal systems, and all other arenas in life and arrive depending on the claim at more or less the same assurance I can for processor theory. BTW connecting quantum THEORY, electronic THEORY, or any other with reality is the exact same as connected the authorities THEORY about any event and the data I can access. I can not see a single quantum event ever take place. Your belief that theory reflects reality is almost pure faith. I agree that it is probably true so once again I am consistent while you are not. Your excluding by categorization.

And you're talking nonsense again. I've already explained that quantum theory produces results and it is for this reason that I accept it. No faith required. If your Bible stands the test of the historical method, then please provide me with historical evidence of the garden of Eden.

I meant me and you and unless you have a PhD and some very long and meaningful and experience I am 100% correct. Of course I am not a quantum
mechanics expert. There are only at best a few hundred who are.

Do you have any idea how many people there are with PhD's in quantum physics?

However I have far less skepticism about them than about the pure theoreticians that cough up these fantasies about multi-verses, the origin of life, and the nature of morality, etc...

So? Why is that relevant to the facts that we're discussing? Again, you keep bringing up these things as if you're making some kind of point. But you aren't.

 

[1robin]

"The Biblical picture is clearly geocentric. The earth has the shape of a flat disc" http://louisjacobs.org/library/articles/jewish-cosmology.php You have what is called "blind faith".

The examples you gave have nothing to do with egocentricity. In fact egocentricity was not invented by men of the Bible. It was invented or at least legitimized by Ptolemy. It was adopted by some Christians because it appealed to their expectations, but it does not have any biblical justification. Not one verse in the bible places the earth at the center of anything except maybe God's attention at times. Biblically there could even be other earths and other lives in orbit or being orbited throughout the universe.

As far as the earth being a flat disk. This is simply a superficial reading. The Hebrews had no word for a large sphere. There is no other word they would have used. This does nothing to prove they thought it was a sphere but is meaningful in this process of understanding. I have posted quite a bit on this but will be brief here. There are many more verses that can be used to discover what they believed here. I will only supply one at this time. Prov 8:27 states very clearly that the earth is a circle. However it gives no fixed point for this observation implying the obvious conclusion that no matter where it is the Earth is viewed from it will appear to be a circle. This can only occur if the Earth is a sphere and would have been apparent to anyone.

In addition to other verses that make it quite clear that the Earth could only be described as it was if it was a circle, I combine the facts that even the most primitive of man could discern a curvature regardless of his view point and understood shapes and concepts in exactitude. These men were no less intelligent as we and even as a kid I pictured the earth as round. I also have to consider the fact that the same exact set of books written by the same man also accurately laid out what cosmology has come to understand about the beginning of the universe even though Einstein got it wrong, that it was right about germ theory even though medical scholars in 1860 killed thousands because they did not even wash their hands, that it correctly predicted the oceanic currents and a Christian operating on only the biblical prediction first confirmed it. It is hard to question a persons arithmetic if they can do differential equations correct every time. The post after post I have previously and exhaustively laid out the relevant details concerning the Hebrew concept of the earth can easily be found if searched for. A person has to be trying very hard to look for a flat disk to read it into what the Bible claims and an earth centered universe is completely absent.

 

[1robin]

Can you produce examples of this from within modern theories that you reject?

I must have misunderstood something. Are you challenging me to show areas where science has been wrong in modern times about huge things? I will offer far more than that. I will show where the men 4000 years ago got it right where 19th and even 20th century legends of science got it completely wrong if that is what is asked for. As a bonus I can even supply quotes from modern scientists themselves where they admit that specific theological assumptions affected their scientific conclusions. Having done this several times you must have asked for something else. Please clarify.

Garbage. A reasonable assumption based on simple responses to external stimuli does not require "faith".

Since I do not know your status lets consider a generic couple. Do they have certainty or faith that their partner loves them? Do they have data? Do they have access to it? Do they have the capacity to evaluate it?

So, when scientists use a theory to produce an actual, real-world affect - such as predicting the mutation rates of flu viruses or shooting a rocket into space - they are still taking this all "on faith"? They're just accidentally doing things that produce results as an unintended consequence of things that they don't have any good reason to believe? If that's what you think, then frankly I doubt what you do during the day could be called "science".

Since I do not deny, (in fact the bible long ago suggested) that fly's, viruses and even mutation would occur I have no reason to do as you request. Not one of those examples conflicts with the bible. Yes faith is involved but I would concur with an assumed confidence in the conclusions that all three are true. However certainty is impossible.

And there are far more reasons to believe the Loch Ness monster exists than the giant purple people eater. What's your point? "There is more evidence of X than Y" doesn't indicate the truth value of X, just the lack of evidence for Y. The many worlds interpretation of quantum physics is a largely theoretical hypothesis proposed to explain the behaviour of subatomic particles that exist in a quantum superstate. That's all it is, and that's all most physicists would say it is. What the issue is with your fixation on the idea I have no idea. Were you under the illusion that the many worlds interpretation was some sort of grand, unifying scientific orthodoxy?

I see neither as having any chance what so ever of existing. The principle of evidence being convincing and more evidence being more convincing which you reject is the cornerstone of all knowledge. Fixation with what idea? The one you explained is not among any I was aware of.

And very few have experienced Allah, Ra, Zeus, Set, nirvana or reincarnation and went on to conclude that they do not exist, either. What's your point? That you're testimony is more reliable than theirs? Why?

Then their experiences are not similar to mine (you actually require extreme similarity) and so would not meet the requirements of what you claimed. There are not to my knowledge even any similar doctrinal promises for anyone to fake for any of the other "beings" you mention.

True, but I can still safely conclude that your experiences are reasonably explained as a form of delusion - just as you would do for the many people who claim to have spoken directly to aliens, or experienced reincarnation, or fought a duel with Odin on the astral plane of existence. The problem is that you don't recognize the potential for your own experiences to be the result of a delusion. For you to be truly consistent, you would have to take all of those such people at their word as well. This is why I am more consistent with you. You apply one set of standards to your own experiences, then deny all others that would contradict it, whereas I simply deny them all until I have sufficient, objective reasons to do otherwise.

Delusion is not even a possible explanation for salvation experiences. It has far too many empirical results that accompany it. Delusion is a tricky threshold to begin with. I would suggest watching Craig and party take on two atheist philosophers on that very question in a debate that was held at Oxford (I believe). There simply is no delusion explanation that can hold a candle to the theological explanation. Just to begin with why are hundreds of millions of them virtually identical.

Such as...?

I think I had the steady state in mind for my comment here.

Based on...?

The truth should always be believed in, if you are asking what should be used to determine what is true then I am asking which claim you mean? Each have a distinct level of certainty and exclusive data.

It's bizarre how you can assert that I have a limited capacity for understanding and assessing quantum physics, and yet you yourself are making bald, evidence-free claims about the very origin of the Universe itself. What happened to the "consistency" you were so found of earlier?

Since over 99% of us do not I could use probability alone to justify it. You have not demonstrated the rare gift of being capable enough in abstract thought and a high education in math and physics. All the information I have suggests you are a reasonably intelligent laymen with an interest in science. I could be wrong but doubt it.

Yes. Reading about the facts brings you closer to understanding the facts. It's called "learning".

I spent 100,000 dollars that I will never pay off in the university where Von Braun stalked the halls, and many of the Apollo boys graduated getting learnt up a bit. I think I can define it.

No. Reading comprehension does.

Literacy is only grammar school for understanding the quantum. This jockeying around is meaningless. State your actual credentials. I stated mine and they are not even remotely enough to begin to understand the quantum. In fact the science is so much in it's infancy how could anyone claim to understand it to any great extent. I tell you what I will give you the simplest test I can think of that I am qualified to judge.

Does the quantum allow for a particle or atom (or material that constitutes any division of them) to disappear and re-appear in another location as is so often stated. If so, by what means is this accomplished? That is quite a challenge but as far as the quantum goes it is pre-school, and one of the few areas I have sufficient knowledge to judge your response.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I must have misunderstood something. Are you challenging me to show areas where science has been wrong in modern times about huge things? I will offer far more than that. I will show where the men 4000 years ago got it right where 19th and even 20th century legends of science got it completely wrong if that is what is asked for. As a bonus I can even supply quotes from modern scientists themselves where they admit that specific theological assumptions affected their scientific conclusions. Having done this several times you must have asked for something else. Please clarify.

It was really quite obvious when you look at what I was responding to. You accused science of being institutionally corrupt, driven by money, and that "tens of millions have died at the altar of scientific presuppositions". Can you give examples of these, please?

Since I do not know your status lets consider a generic couple. Do they have certainty or faith that their partner loves them? Do they have data? Do they have access to it? Do they have the capacity to evaluate it?

Yes. It's called knowing a person and having a reasonable trust in that person. A woman is less likely to trust a man if he has had multiple affairs than if he has never had affair. He would be more likely to trust her if she expresses sincere love and happiness with their relationship, but would be less likely to trust her than if she expressed unhappiness or was prone to disappearing unexplainably for prolonged periods. People's trust of each other, even in romantic relationships, is still based on reasonable assumptions based on things we know and identify about the other person. Some times, these assumptions may be wrong, but it is still reasonable for a woman to conclude that her man is faithful when all the evidence she has access to indicates that he is, even if his long business trips away are secretly spent with another wife.

Regardless, that is not the same thing as religious faith. When we talk about religious faith we are talking about something can cannot be tested or objectively verified (or has been contradicted objectively), but is still believed. It is a belief that is held for the purpose of the belief alone, based on the notion that belief without sufficient reason is a form of virtue.

Since I do not deny, (in fact the bible long ago suggested) that fly's, viruses and even mutation would occur I have no reason to do as you request.

I would love to see the part of the Bible which "suggested" the existence of viruses and mutations. Is it anything like the part of the Qur'an which "suggested" embryology, relativity and black holes? (SOURCE: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...es/162366-20-signs-god-exist-quraan-word.html )

I see neither as having any chance what so ever of existing. The principle of evidence being convincing and more evidence being more convincing which you reject is the cornerstone of all knowledge.

Please demonstrate how "neither have a chance of existence".

Fixation with what idea? The one you explained is not among any I was aware of.

Is not the "multi-verses" that you have repeatedly mentioned an allusion to the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics? If not, then what is it you are referring to, specifically?

Then their experiences are not similar to mine (you actually require extreme similarity) and so would not meet the requirements of what you claimed.

Yes they would. They make a similar claim to you and do so on the exact same basis, but reach a different conclusion. Do you or do you not discount such experiences as invalid? Are they justified or not?

There are not to my knowledge even any similar doctrinal promises for anyone to fake for any of the other "beings" you mention.

This sentence needs a lot more explaining. Doctrine has nothing to do with what I explained.

Delusion is not even a possible explanation for salvation experiences.

Yes, it is. You keep criticizing me for making reasonable assumptions based on evidence, and here you are repeatedly asserting what is possible or impossible with no reason whatsoever. If I cannot determine the accuracy of quantum physics, how on earth are you capable of determining what is "possible" or "impossible" universally?

It has far too many empirical results that accompany it.

Such as...?

Delusion is a tricky threshold to begin with. I would suggest watching Craig and party take on two atheist philosophers on that very question in a debate that was held at Oxford (I believe). There simply is no delusion explanation that can hold a candle to the theological explanation. Just to begin with why are hundreds of millions of them virtually identical.

Because hundreds of millions of people are taught roughly the same thing. Again, none of this is even remotely compelling when you look at the countless examples of people who believe things that contradict your beliefs, but hold their experiences up as evidence for them. Why do you hold your beliefs to one standard and theirs to another? What makes your experience reliable and the millions of contradictory experiences not?

The truth should always be believed in, if you are asking what should be used to determine what is true then I am asking which claim you mean? Each have a distinct level of certainty and exclusive data.

You've said that I should believe the Bible because its claims are true. Please demonstrate how you determined this to be the case. For instance, please demonstrate that Jesus was the son of God.

Since over 99% of us do not I could use probability alone to justify it. You have not demonstrated the rare gift of being capable enough in abstract thought and a high education in math and physics. All the information I have suggests you are a reasonably intelligent laymen with an interest in science. I could be wrong but doubt it.

And then, presumably, you are a master of cosmology, physics, chemistry and mathematics on a Universal scale since you have, apparently, ascertained level of understanding of the Universe as to claim knowledge of its origins, as well as the ability to deduce what is possible or impossible within it as you have repeatedly asserted. Why you think you can dismiss what I say about quantum physics without some form doctorate (despite the fact that I have repeatedly explained that the reliability of quantum physics is easy to demonstrate), and yet you can make sweeping claims about the totality of existence itself? This is called "inconsistency".

I spent 100,000 dollars that I will never pay off in the university where Von Braun stalked the halls, and many of the Apollo boys graduated getting learnt up a bit. I think I can define it.

And yet you weren't aware of the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics despite repeatedly taking about multiverses and feeling educated enough to dismiss them. Apparently, you didn't get your money's worth. I could have saved you all that cash by giving you a library card, apparently.

Literacy is only grammar school for understanding the quantum. This jockeying around is meaningless. State your actual credentials. I stated mine and they are not even remotely enough to begin to understand the quantum. In fact the science is so much in it's infancy how could anyone claim to understand it to any great extent. I tell you what I will give you the simplest test I can think of that I am qualified to judge.

So, you are saying that credentials are required to understand something? Great. Please show me your credentials on evolutionary biology, chemistry and cosmology, then I will know for sure that any objections you may have to evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang may actually be justified.

Does the quantum allow for a particle or atom (or material that constitutes any division of them) to disappear and re-appear in another location as is so often stated. If so, by what means is this accomplished? That is quite a challenge but as far as the quantum goes it is pre-school, and one of the few areas I have sufficient knowledge to judge your response.

I have a better idea. How about your stop avoiding my points with meaningless distractions when you already know that I am a layman? In spite of this, I already clearly know more about quantum physics than you, as you were previously unaware of the multiple worlds interpretation and of the fact that quantum theory is used in the production of microprocessors and lasers. In fact, earlier you said:

"I can easily have more and better experiential evidence for salvation than quantum theory. I have experienced the former and only have the word of a few that the latter even exists."

And:

"Me or you either one are likely to in our lifetimes ever know personally the factual nature of a single claim about the quantum."

And now you are suggesting that you have "sufficient knowledge" to judge my response on quantum physics, despite admitting previously that you knew next to nothing about quantum physics. You are not capable of "judging" anything if you cannot keep your own story straight.

 

[1robin]

Well, you're more than welcome to write a book about it and turn the entirety of modern physics on it's head.

I have no need. Dozens of books exist from far more qualified people that do just that. Penrose himself called M-theory a bad excuse for not having a theory. They don't need me.

Verywell. But you do realize that you're just taking their words for it, right? Watching a lecture by them doesn't get you closer to the data, right? Or does it? Are you taking their objections on faith? Or aren't you?

I do not get the taunt? I read his words. Who is the middle man I am trusting here?

Hold on, what is it you actually think about all this stuff again? Your inconsistency is troubling.

Inconsistency with what.

Let's pretend for second you had a point above and I was dependent entirely on some third party, would that not confirm what I said. I have been the one that originated that claim.

Are you serious? You never learned that Newton's laws cannot be applied to the exchange of heat in solid bodies, or that Newtonian gravity has been discarded in favour of a relativistic understanding of gravity? Are you suggesting everything Newton proposed was entirely correct and accurate?

That is like saying that since known mass and gravity could not hold the stars together then you know all about dark matter and energy. One does not follow from the other. Gaps in Newtonian physics do not demonstrate your capacity with the quantum. I'm am the one who has been the skeptic about science so of course I am not suggesting Newton was 100% accurate. That certainly does not make me able to understand information exchange without a medium.

Because people believe Genesis based on faith, and as a supernatural account it cannot be accurately falsified.

That is at best minimally true. I can easily see that:

1. The bible states that matter, time, and space are finite and began to exist.
2. It is obvious from history science had that wrong until very recently.
3. It is obvious that modern cosmology concerning the points and the bible agree.

That requires far less faith than much of theoretical science. In fact much of that could have been philosophically known thousands of years ago and was suggested to be such.

To jump from that deduction to claiming that the God of the bible is responsible is part pure faith but not as much as you would think.

That depends entirely on your interpretation of the Bible.

I might can agree here. However I need make no stretches in interpretations beyond what is hermeneutically valid and exegetically justifiable to harmonize the bible with all known relevant data.

Well, how about the fact that King Herod never killed all the first born of Egypt? That's a fictional event.

1. You do not have the slightest idea if what you stated was true.
2. At best you could state there is less evidence than would convince a reasonable person. I think your wrong but would allow that to be claimed without asserting dishonesty.
3. My faith and personal experience do not contain anything Herod did.
4. You have selected one of the few historical claims I have never defended and so do not have any basis to say anything besides the fact that far less evidence than necessary exists to allow you to claim what you have.

Having gained so much confidence in the bible by defending it's historical claims (not that I claim it is perfect) I would feel no concern about resolving this issue as far as possible but that would require some time to evaluate. BTW why are you making a general challenge to me in response to a claim about the acceptability of the supernatural to an imminent scientists. Nothing wrong with the challenge except it's irrelevant where employed. It was not even a supernatural claim to begin with.

No, you haven't. You've not once given me any means by which we can compare one supernatural account against another. Please explain to me how this can be done.

I lost the context of your claim. I tried to backtrack and closed the window by mistake. I do know for a fact I gave you several methods by which to evaluate a claim. I can't remember whether the supernatural restriction existed in your original point or not.

I regard these personal commentaries in the arrogant form of a emoticon disrespectful and inappropriate. I have no right to ask they be totally stricken from your posts but they cause me to tire and respect for who I am talking with. I have on other occasions where they were over relied upon ended the debate. I have more respect for you at this time, so will only ask you make the case your trying to get an emoticon to make for you instead.

Unless they were one of the millions (if not billions) of children raised in Christian families, in Christian communities, in a Christian country.

This just shows how little you know about Christians. No one is born with faith. Even growing up in a Christian family does not guarantee superficial faith. I know I was. This is why there is so many stories about how bad a preachers kids are. Familiarity breeds as much or more contempt as faith. IN fact the most destructive of those to Christianity were once raised by them. Stalin, Darwin, even Ozzy. I was not defending this (even if lucky) superficial faith (the intellectual consent to a proposition). I was discussing actual faith based on a response from God in the form of salvation. These two faiths were distinguished by Christ and the apostles and me.

And you're being completely absurd.

Since I am one and you are not, I believe I have the basis for knowledge in this case. Even doctrinally this is affirmed absolutely. The bible makes it clear not one mortal ever born was born in union with God. Before you go there Adam became a mortal after he fell. That is why salvation is such a transformation. Until then God classifies us as children of Satan and wrath. Every one acquires faith, no one is born with it.

And you're talking nonsense again. I've already explained that quantum theory produces results and it is for this reason that I accept it. No faith required. If your Bible stands the test of the historical method, then please provide me with historical evidence of the garden of Eden.

That is three personal insults in a row. I would not make this a habit. No you cannot run quantum tests, you do not have access to it. Very very few can and far fewer still do. Now you can either post your quantum credentials (outside being literate) or expect me to remain unconvinced.

Do you have any idea how many people there are with PhD's in quantum physics?

The only relevant question is do you have one. I work both with lasers and processors (some of the most advanced in existence) and many other quantum related devices yet there are so few of these experts I have never met one nor know anyone who has.

So? Why is that relevant to the facts that we're discussing? Again, you keep bringing up these things as if you're making some kind of point. But you aren't.

I going to just ignore things that are purely rhetorical. If you can't grasp the relevance of what I state then feel free to do the same.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I do not get the taunt? I read his words. Who is the middle man I am trusting here?

Inconsistency with what.

You accused me of only accepting things on faith because I cannot personally verify them. Can you personally verify what these people say in the article you linked, or do you take it on faith? It's a simple question.

Let's pretend for second you had a point above and I was dependent entirely on some third party, would that not confirm what I said. I have been the one that originated that claim.

Now let's pretend you're not just flailing madly and flinging words out at random and try and function a coherent sentence out of this statement. It's really very simple: You have repeatedly asserted that, unless I personally verify a claim, I cannot assess its validity. If that is the case, please demonstrate how you have personally verified the claims of the individuals you are quoting.

That is like saying that since known mass and gravity could not hold the stars together then you know all about dark matter and energy. One does not follow from the other. Gaps in Newtonian physics do not demonstrate your capacity with the quantum. I'm am the one who has been the skeptic about science so of course I am not suggesting Newton was 100% accurate. That certainly does not make me able to understand information exchange without a medium.

You are completely dodging the point.

You said that you had never found any instances where Newton was wrong. I explained that it is widely known among physicists and cosmologists that Newton's theories were incomplete, and were in some areas inaccurate. You were unaware of this, and thus it calls into question your knowledge of science and your education on physics. I never said anything about this "demonstrating my capacity for the quantum" but your desperate attempt to change the subject after being embarrassed is duly noted.

That is at best minimally true. I can easily see that:

1. The bible states that matter, time, and space are finite and began to exist.

So do all creation or origin stories. By definition, they all start with a point at which something began to exist. This is not a huge revelation.

2. It is obvious from history science had that wrong until very recently.

Science had what wrong? You need to be more specific.

3. It is obvious that modern cosmology concerning the points and the bible agree.

Where?

That requires far less faith than much of theoretical science. In fact much of that could have been philosophically known thousands of years ago and was suggested to be such.

And yet you've not given any textual evidence. "The Bible said the Universe started to exist" is hardly compelling evidence of the scientific accuracy of the Bible.

To jump from that deduction to claiming that the God of the bible is responsible is part pure faith but not as much as you would think.

Fair enough.

1. You do not have the slightest idea if what you stated was true.

Please tell me how you determined this. Also, how can I not determine that, and yet you can determine that m-theory or abiogenesis are impossible.

2. At best you could state there is less evidence than would convince a reasonable person. I think your wrong but would allow that to be claimed without asserting dishonesty.

No, I'm sticking to my guns. The killing of all the first born sons of Egypt never happened, and I am far more certain of that than you are of the impossibility of M-theory. I base this on the simple fact of the practicality of the order requiring power and influence that would have been impossible for almost any king at this point in history, and the fact that no extra-Biblical historical records exist that describe those events - even those by historians at the time who disliked King Herod. The fact that historical records exist that describe Herod's habit of keeping his dead wife in a jar of honey survived, and yet no single extra-Biblical record survives of him having committed perhaps the greatest act of infanticide in the world's history, is somewhat damning with regards to any claim that it is a historical fact.

3. My faith and personal experience do not contain anything Herod did.

But the Bible does. Do your faith and personal experience not determine the Bible as true?

4. You have selected one of the few historical claims I have never defended and so do not have any basis to say anything besides the fact that far less evidence than necessary exists to allow you to claim what you have.

Did you not agree with the claim that the Bible is based entirely on historical claims?

Having gained so much confidence in the bible by defending it's historical claims (not that I claim it is perfect) I would feel no concern about resolving this issue as far as possible but that would require some time to evaluate. BTW why are you making a general challenge to me in response to a claim about the acceptability of the supernatural to an imminent scientists. Nothing wrong with the challenge except it's irrelevant where employed. It was not even a supernatural claim to begin with.

I was contesting the quote you presented, which states quite clearly:

Ambrose Fleming asserts that there is nothing in the Gospels that would cause a man of science to have problems with the miracles contained therein, and concludes with a challenge to intellectual honesty, asserting that if such a "...study is pursued with what eminent lawyers have called a willing mind, it will engender a deep assurance that the Christian Church is not founded on fictions, or nourished on delusions, or, as St. Peter calls them, 'cunningly devised fables,' but on historical and actual events, which, however strange they may be, are indeed the greatest events which have ever happened in the history of the world."
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

King Herod's act of mass infanticide is pivotal to the story of Jesus, and yet there is no reason whatsoever to think it is anything more than pure Biblical fiction. Even you are unprepared to defend the historicity of the event. In light of this, do you not think that Ambrose Fleming is, quite emphatically, wrong?

Also, I really have to stress the double-standard you're showing here. You constantly make assertions about what is possible or impossible in the Universe, and yet when I say that King Herod killing all the first born of Egypt was a fictional account you deride me because I couldn't possibly know it? Well, you couldn't possibly know that delusion couldn't possibly account for your beliefs. You couldn't possibly know that abiogenesis is impossible. You couldn't possibly know that M-theory is impossible. You make blank assertions about things you cannot possibly know all the time, and yet you expect others to have to know everything 100% before they can assert it. This is a double-standard, pure and simple, and a clear example of that inconsistency I was telling you about.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I regard these personal commentaries in the arrogant form of a emoticon disrespectful and inappropriate.

But sometimes accurate. Your assertion was so absurd that it was completely warranted. A claim deserving of no respect will receive none.

This just shows how little you know about Christians. No one is born with faith. Even growing up in a Christian family does not guarantee superficial faith. I know I was. This is why there is so many stories about how bad a preachers kids are. Familiarity breeds as much or more contempt as faith. IN fact the most destructive of those to Christianity were once raised by them. Stalin, Darwin, even Ozzy. I was not defending this (even if lucky) superficial faith (the intellectual consent to a proposition). I was discussing actual faith based on a response from God in the form of salvation. These two faiths were distinguished by Christ and the apostles and me.

Nope, not buying it. You weren't talking about a specific brand of faith. You said, quite clearly:

"Christians are the group above any other that have arrived at the position most in opposition to that which they began with."

Above any other?? Are you serious? You don't think that, say, someone who was raised by a fundamentalist Christian family in the American south, who grew up to want to be a preacher and went to seminary school, only to become an atheist, has arrived at a position more in opposition than, say, a person who grew up in a non-Christian family, had a personal experience, and became a Christian? This is a ridiculously broad, sweeping statement which indicates not only a level of disconnect between your beliefs and reality, but a disconnect between you and reality in total. And I would say the exact same thing were you making the same claim about almost any group, because the generalization is simply that absurd.

Since I am one and you are not, I believe I have the basis for knowledge in this case.

Oh, I get it. So, because I am an atheist and you are not, my preference for how I want my beliefs to be portrayed takes precedence over yours. Makes sense. I am an atheist, therefore I am more likely to be correct about atheism than you are.

Even doctrinally this is affirmed absolutely. The bible makes it clear not one mortal ever born was born in union with God. Before you go there Adam became a mortal after he fell. That is why salvation is such a transformation. Until then God classifies us as children of Satan and wrath. Every one acquires faith, no one is born with it.

Well, that definitely makes it true, then. Because it's not like experiencing nirvana, or being reincarnated, or reaching enlightement, or projecting yourself into the astral plane are difficult rites of passage. No, those ideological transformations are the easy way out. Clearly, Christianity has the monopoly on difficult transitions, because it says so.

That is three personal insults in a row.

I'm not sure you know what "personal" means. "Personal" is when I attack you, as a person. Attacking what you are saying is quite different.

No you cannot run quantum tests, you do not have access to it. Very very few can and far fewer still do. Now you can either post your quantum credentials (outside being literate) or expect me to remain unconvinced.

I've already explained how the reliability of quantum physics can be demonstrated every time you use a computer. What part of that is difficult for you to understand?

The only relevant question is do you have one.

Actually, no. That's not relevant either, since we're not debating my credentials with regards to quantum physics. We're debating the reliability to which I am capable of assessing that quantum physics presents an accurate view of reality, to which I can attest that my belief in its reliability is dependent on the real-world applications of the theory. I don't need a PhD in quantum physics to determine that any more than I need a PhD in aerodynamics to understand that what we know about weight, mass and inertia is accurate and true enough to enable us to fly around in planes.

I work both with lasers and processors (some of the most advanced in existence) and many other quantum related devices yet there are so few of these experts I have never met one nor know anyone who has.

Well, personal experience is apparently your only means of knowing anything, then.

I going to just ignore things that are purely rhetorical. If you can't grasp the relevance of what I state then feel free to do the same.

That wasn't rhetorical. I'm seriously asking why you keep mentioning it when it's not relevant to what you and I are discussing.

 

[ArtieE]

As far as the earth being a flat disk. This is simply a superficial reading.

Perhaps an illustration will help? Simply write "hebrew cosmology" in google and a number of illustrations will come up. Here is one.

 

[plantae13]

God Jehovah "is full of dynamic energy". As you know from physics class, energy can be transformed into matter.

 

[metis]

Einstein felt that it was possible that God may be the energy of creation itself and what actually is creation itself-- pretty much a pantheistic approach.

 

[1robin]

Perhaps an illustration will help? Simply write "hebrew cosmology" in google and a number of illustrations will come up. Here is one.

It would only help if you provided an illustration the Hebrews actually made from the time periods in question. Since that does not exist, then instead could you respond to what I actually said. That drawing would not be coherent to anyone. The Hebrews were mopre ignorant than us but just as intelligent. They would easily see the same inconsistencies in your illustration compared to reality that I do. Your illustration also flies in the face of the actual scriptures on the issues those people actually wrote and that I provided.

 

[1robin]

Einstein felt that it was possible that God may be the energy of creation itself and what actually is creation itself-- pretty much a pantheistic approach.

Einstein was so inconsistent about his theological views that I long ago gave up crediting them with same authority as his views about physics. Some of them were even wrong. I don't think his thought on theology relevant. People are usually scientific or philosophical. Both is rare and he was IMO not an example of it.

 

[Thief]

Einstein was so inconsistent about his theological views that I long ago gave up crediting them with same authority as his views about physics. Some of them were even wrong. I don't think his thought on theology relevant. People are usually scientific or philosophical. Both is rare and he was IMO not an example of it.

So the smart guy isn't allowed to change his mind?
Not allowed to hone their focus on theology?

 

[metis]

So the smart guy isn't allowed to change his mind?
Not allowed to hone their focus on theology?

Your point is valid, and 1robin's take on Einstein with regards to religion is so wrong, although this is not to say that Einstein was theologically correct. His drift was the God was likely the energy of creation itself, thus to a large extent parroting Spinoza's drift. Einstein studied theology and well knew various hypotheses dealing with God, and I would defy anyone to prove him wrong in this area, which again is not to say he was correct.

In the area of cosmology, certainly Einstein turned out to be wrong when it came to his Cosmic Constant and Steady State theories, but one has to remember when he formulated these theories whereas we had really no solid indication of the BB and we knew far less about the composition of our universe. I'm quite positive Einstein today would take those theories back along with a couple of others as well.

However, people that believe that only their religious approach is valid are not going to be enamored with Einstein's drift. Einstein hypothesized on the basis of existing evidence, but some here make all sorts of claims based on really nothing but their beliefs minus evidence, or they fabricate the evidence to appease themselves. I think you and I are aware of some here that are like that.

 

[Thief]

Your point is valid, and 1robin's take on Einstein with regards to religion is so wrong, although this is not to say that Einstein was theologically correct. His drift was the God was likely the energy of creation itself, thus to a large extent parroting Spinoza's drift. Einstein studied theology and well knew various hypotheses dealing with God, and I would defy anyone to prove him wrong in this area, which again is not to say he was correct.

In the area of cosmology, certainly Einstein turned out to be wrong when it came to his Cosmic Constant and Steady State theories, but one has to remember when he formulated these theories whereas we had really no solid indication of the BB and we knew far less about the composition of our universe. I'm quite positive Einstein today would take those theories back along with a couple of others as well.

However, people that believe that only their religious approach is valid are not going to be enamored with Einstein's drift. Einstein hypothesized on the basis of existing evidence, but some here make all sorts of claims based on really nothing but their beliefs minus evidence, or they fabricate the evidence to appease themselves. I think you and I are aware of some here that are like that.

I've heard a story about Albert.
He continued his fascination with numbers and when asked about his immediate effort.....
'I'm trying to catch God in the act.'

Turning to another direction.....I find science fiction entertaining.
Especially the storyline wherein we humans must deal with Something Greater.

Star Trek is good for this kind of thing.

Maybe you've noticed.
People DO seek Something Greater.
We do what we know best when going about it.

Some of us use numbers.
Some of us use telescopes.
Some of us use petri dishes.

Some of us write fiction stories.
Some of us take scripture as fiction.
Some of us won't believe because the author is unknown.
Some of us won't believe because facing Something Greater could be dangerous.

In any of these cases.....
I think it is reasonable to believe in Something Greater.
We are not top of the line life form.

I think it reasonable.....Spirit first.