Acceptable Science

[Digit]

Well in much the same regard as discussion between Christians, often links to external sources don't get read. Or get skimmed at best. As such as painful as it can be sometimes, I try to reiterate what I have read, or at least read a source and retype in my own words what has been conveyed. Two benefits from this are that first and foremost, the person actually reads the full text posted here and secondly it helps me to better remember and understand it, the more I post about it. Perhaps when I've done it a thousand times I will think like you though.

That Bible contradiction list is just ridiculous though, I think I've worked through that about 3 times over so far, and still people buy into it. >_>

Digit

 

[Skaloop]

I asked a number of questions in my first response to your OP, and you don't seem to have answered them. Perhaps you cannot.

What, the response in which you demonstrate that you do not quite understand what theories and laws are? (gravity is a theory. There are also laws regarding gravity. But a theory does not become a law.)

The response where you argue against a strawman version of the Big Bang? (The BB was not a thermonuclear reaction of Hydrogen. There was no Hydrogen. There was no matter; it was all energy. Also, at the time, the universe was not billions of light-years across. The BB was not an explosion into existing space, but an expansion of space itself. Hydrogen did not need to be pulled in from all reaches of the universe.)

As for your question about law of physics that allows for "something from nothing," that would fall under quantum theory.

From there, you jump straight into the PRATT about the the so-called huge improbability of life arising. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with evolution. As for the calculation of odds, yes, if it were random chance it would be very unlikely. But chemistry is not random chance. And nobody suggests that things jumped right up to complex amino acids. The process would certainly begin with simpler molecules.

You finish off by saying that "mathematics and probability would seem to rule out Darwin's theory." But in fact, you have not addressed Darwin's theory at all. You've addressed the theories regarding the Big Bang and abiogenesis, and even then you've not actually addressed the theories, but rather misinterpreted versions thereof.

 

[arunma]

What, the response in which you demonstrate that you do not quite understand what theories and laws are? (gravity is a theory. There are also laws regarding gravity. But a theory does not become a law.)

This semantic argument is really not very important for the purposes of any discussion. Even scientists can't seem to figure out the distinction between theories and laws. I, for example, do not really know the difference (if it can even be said that there is one). And if I haven't learned it at this level, then it obviously isn't all that important. Yes, there are textbook definitions of laws and theories, but even these definitions are not strictly adhered to.

Examples of laws that should not be laws: Ohm's Law, Hooke's Law, Watt's Law, the Law of Biot-Savart. All of these are examples of laws that are known to be invalid in general, and yet for historical reasons the name remains. Given this, it is really not reasonable to expect a non-scientist (or even a scientist, for that matter) to accurately differentiate between theories and laws.

 

[Key]

Just to correct a few things, as if you seek to correct someone Skaloop, then equally so, your own misconceptions of what you are correcting need to be corrected.

I hope you understand.

The response where you argue against a strawman version of the Big Bang? (The BB was not a thermonuclear reaction of Hydrogen. There was no Hydrogen. There was no matter; it was all energy.

One, Big Bang Model that is used, deals with matter and antimatter forming electrons, neutrons, protons, and positrons, and some other trons I do not remember. When this happened, the aspects of the atoms formed into the simplest atom, which would be Hydrogen, then theory goes on to say that the Hydrogen then formed into collected "balls" of mass, which then some how exploded into stars, and it goes on to explain how the reaction within the "early" stars, acted like alchemy and made the rest of the solid matter in the universe.

That was the Theory I believe he was referring to, when he explained that Hydrogen, would no collect, but spread apart and expand to fill the voids of space. Stars would not form this way.

Also, at the time, the universe was not billions of light-years across.

We can not validate that claim, as it was a void, that very well may have been thousands of light years across, as it stands today, we have no idea how big the "Universe is" we have only a rough idea of how far the matter that is in the universe is spread out. How much father it can go, we have no way to gauge.

The BB was not an explosion into existing space, but an expansion of space itself. Hydrogen did not need to be pulled in from all reaches of the universe.)

It was as best we can figure a reaction in a void. IE: an Explosion IN a Void, that in effect, "filled the void with matter" as such, we truly have no other way to look at it.

As for your question about law of physics that allows for "something from nothing," that would fall under quantum theory.

Even in Quantom Theory, There has to be something, IE: There is an aspect that Photons can combine with molecular matter, and add weight to it, but, the photon needs to be provided. IE: The concept that matter can be converted to energy, and also that energy can be converted to matter, may be true, but still something has to be provided. You can not have a void, and then have something appear in that void with out some form of provision.

From there, you jump straight into the PRATT about the the so-called huge improbability of life arising.

It's not really pratt, as the points that are raised by these questions, have never been truly addressed, only side stepped, IE: Well maybe it did not start with amino acids. This, it is not the improbability that is Pratt, but the means and back stepping down to try and look at the situation from another angle that does not make such improbability possible.

IE: It was simple polymers, not amino acids, this step was taken, because of the vast improblity of Amino Acids being able to make life. However, we have no validity that Simple Polymers, have a "better chance" we just assume that they do, as we have not gotten truly past the first step.

Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with evolution.

as Darwin proposed it, your right.

As for the calculation of odds, yes, if it were random chance it would be very unlikely. But chemistry is not random chance. And nobody suggests that things jumped right up to complex amino acids. The process would certainly begin with simpler molecules.

yes, but does that increase the probity, or is that simply a "white wash answer" as opposed to just admitting "we have no idea".

In this front, Chemestry may not be random, but the enviroment by which the reaction was to take place, and cotrol of what chemicals were added to mix, in what volumes, and out side influnces were added, are random. As such, it is a random event.

Truly not much different then say, going to a K-Mart, and running though the store, grabbing things with a blind fold on, and expecting to leave with everything you wanted, in the right amounts you wanted them in.

To some extent, it is controlled, and to some extent, it is random. You had things you needed, in specific amounts, and these things, where in the K-mart, However, the control by which the things were provided, was random, as such, getting what is needed, or even wanted, in the amount wanted, is still a random factor.

You finish off by saying that "mathematics and probability would seem to rule out Darwin's theory." But in fact, you have not addressed Darwin's theory at all. You've addressed the theories regarding the Big Bang and abiogenesis, and even then you've not actually addressed the theories, but rather misinterpreted versions thereof.

Not really, it has been a somewhat accurate representation of one of the many Big Bang models used, maybe not the one you subscribe to, if you accept any of them, however, it is a model that has been accepted, even aired on the discovery channel.

I am sure there are "other" models, but, when it comes to science, and having this many models, is not a good thing, not a good thing at all.

As for Abiogenesis, The model he used, was the model that was proposed, regarding the existence of protocells, there are other models, but, that one had created the most stir.

And many of the other models, have provide no where near the result of the Protocell model, so they can for the most part, at this time be ignored , until they can produce results beyond "well, we think it could happen, we just have no idea how".

So, in the end, yes, he was using viable Theories, that have been accepted, and put down for peer review, and have been found worthy or respect in the scientific community, and not only that, have provided some surprising results, with the only problem being that they are just so vastly improbable to be given consideration as possible. I for one can not deny the results, they are amazing. They are just not feasible.

God Bless

Key

 

[Skaloop]

Just to correct a few things, as if you seek to correct someone Skaloop, then equally so, your own misconceptions of what you are correcting need to be corrected.

I hope you understand.

Sure.

One, Big Bang Model that is used, deals with matter and antimatter forming electrons, neutrons, protons, and positrons, and some other trons I do not remember. When this happened, the aspects of the atoms formed into the simplest atom, which would be Hydrogen, then theory goes on to say that the Hydrogen then formed into collected "balls" of mass, which then some how exploded into stars, and it goes on to explain how the reaction within the "early" stars, acted like alchemy and made the rest of the solid matter in the universe.

That's generally how I understand it, but I understood him to mean that Hydrogen atoms were drawn together from throughout the universe into a small region which then exploded. Which is not like the Big Bang I generally read about. I must admit that my primary knowledge on this comes from books written more for laymen than cosmologists, so I'm probably not getting the deepest analysis. But BB generally says that hydrogen formed into balls of mass through gravity, correct? I don't recall hearing that they exploded into stars, merely that these balls of mass continued to accrue other matter through gravitational forces. Once they reached a certain size/mass/density, the forces under extreme pressure caused nuclear reactions through which two Hydrogen atoms would fuse and became Helium, and so on to form the more basic elements. It's not so much alchemy as it is nuclear physics.

That was the Theory I believe he was referring to, when he explained that Hydrogen, would no collect, but spread apart and expand to fill the voids of space. Stars would not form this way.

As I understand it, before any matter formed at all, the energy of the universe was an extremely chaotic "environment" full of quantum fluctuations. As spacetime expanded and this energy "cooled down" and formed matter, the quantum fluctuations caused matter to form non-uniformly, such that there were some regions with higher density than others, and therefore gravity differentials allowed the matter to "clump" together.

And a void is an empty space. But at that time, there was no space. It is spacetime itself that expanded, drawing the matter and energy with it, rather than matter and energy spreading out into existing space. This sort of expansion of spacetime is still occuring, and is observable.

We can not validate that claim, as it was a void, that very well may have been thousands of light years across, as it stands today, we have no idea how big the "Universe is" we have only a rough idea of how far the matter that is in the universe is spread out. How much father it can go, we have no way to gauge.

Again, all that I have read from my books on the matter is that the universe was not a void waiting to be filled, and that our universe, at the time of the Big Bang, was on the scale of a Planck length is size.

It was as best we can figure a reaction in a void. IE: an Explosion IN a Void, that in effect, "filled the void with matter" as such, we truly have no other way to look at it.

I like the points on a balloon model myself. It's somewhat flawed, but better shows the expansion idea.

Even in Quantom Theory, There has to be something, IE: There is an aspect that Photons can combine with molecular matter, and add weight to it, but, the photon needs to be provided. IE: The concept that matter can be converted to energy, and also that energy can be converted to matter, may be true, but still something has to be provided. You can not have a void, and then have something appear in that void with out some form of provision.

But when talking about quantum fluctuations, we're not talking about molecular matter, are we? We're talking about subatomic neutrinos and such. Quantum uncertainty states that there are variations within a quantum field, and as such variations within the field can give rise to quanta that did not previously exist.

It's not really pratt, as the points that are raised by these questions, have never been truly addressed, only side stepped, IE: Well maybe it did not start with amino acids. This, it is not the improbability that is Pratt, but the means and back stepping down to try and look at the situation from another angle that does not make such improbability possible.

IE: It was simple polymers, not amino acids, this step was taken, because of the vast improblity of Amino Acids being able to make life. However, we have no validity that Simple Polymers, have a "better chance" we just assume that they do, as we have not gotten truly past the first step.

It's a PRATT primarily because the odds presented are not based on accurate calculations or assumptions. If you assert that we can't caluclate the probability of simple polymers, then you must also admit that one cannot calculate the probability of more complex polymers or amino acids. So can anyone really say they know the odds? And even if the odds could be known, over the unfathomably huge amount of time and huge number of co-occurring trials, would the odds really be so insurmountable?

yes, but does that increase the probity, or is that simply a "white wash answer" as opposed to just admitting "we have no idea".

Well, they have some ideas. But I'll grant that an "I don't know" works for what exactly happened for abiogenesis.

In this front, Chemestry may not be random, but the enviroment by which the reaction was to take place, and cotrol of what chemicals were added to mix, in what volumes, and out side influnces were added, are random. As such, it is a random event.

But even within that randomness, there is a huge amount of leeway in where, what, how much. For example, I can get a chemical reaction between water and magnesium to occur with a wide range of quantities, in a wide range of conditions.

Truly not much different then say, going to a K-Mart, and running though the store, grabbing things with a blind fold on, and expecting to leave with everything you wanted, in the right amounts you wanted them in.

Really, more akin to running through the produce section and grabbing a bunch of stuff and then being able to make a salad. There are lots of ways to make a salad. I don't need exact things, or exact amounts.

To some extent, it is controlled, and to some extent, it is random. You had things you needed, in specific amounts, and these things, where in the K-mart, However, the control by which the things were provided, was random, as such, getting what is needed, or even wanted, in the amount wanted, is still a random factor.

I won't really deny that there are random factors involved. I just don't see how one specific set of those random factors is required.

Not really, it has been a somewhat accurate representation of one of the many Big Bang models used, maybe not the one you subscribe to, if you accept any of them, however, it is a model that has been accepted, even aired on the discovery channel.

Again, all that I have read in the past few years speaks to expansion, not explosion into a void.

I am sure there are "other" models, but, when it comes to science, and having this many models, is not a good thing, not a good thing at all.

Well, we are talking about the extremes of human knowledge and observational abilities, so there are bound to be areas where our understanding leaves things open to various interpretations. It's not so much a fault of science as it is a driver for further investigation.

As for Abiogenesis, The model he used, was the model that was proposed, regarding the existence of protocells, there are other models, but, that one had created the most stir.

And many of the other models, have provide no where near the result of the Protocell model, so they can for the most part, at this time be ignored , until they can produce results beyond "well, we think it could happen, we just have no idea how".

Even before protocells would emerge, there are molecules and processes that could give rise to life. Yes, I said "could."

So, in the end, yes, he was using viable Theories, that have been accepted, and put down for peer review, and have been found worthy or respect in the scientific community, and not only that, have provided some surprising results, they are just so vastly improbable. I for one can not deny the results, they are amazing. They are just not feasible.

If the results are not feasible, then it is not a viable theory.

God Bless

Key

Cheers!

 

[Key]

That's generally how I understand it, but I understood him to mean that Hydrogen atoms were drawn together from throughout the universe into a small region which then exploded. Which is not like the Big Bang I generally read about. I must admit that my primary knowledge on this comes from books written more for laymen than cosmologists, so I'm probably not getting the deepest analysis. But BB generally says that hydrogen formed into balls of mass through gravity, correct? I don't recall hearing that they exploded into stars, merely that these balls of mass continued to accrue other matter through gravitational forces. Once they reached a certain size/mass/density, the forces under extreme pressure caused nuclear reactions through which two Hydrogen atoms would fuse and became Helium, and so on to form the more basic elements. It's not so much alchemy as it is nuclear physics.

Alchmey was the "science" of trying to turn one element into another.. most noted to be Lead into Gold.

Secondly, We can not validate that Hydrogen produices gravational forces that would exceed the expansion properties of Hydrogen.

IE: Gas will not form into balls, in a Vacuum, it will expand uniformly though the vacuum. As such, to say that it would collect, then that contradicts what we know of the nature of Gas. It will in fact, not "lump together" either by gravity, or other wise, and even if there were variances in density of the hydrogen atoms, it would not be substantial to attract over nature of Gas in a void, (and we at this time left the field of Quantum Physics, and even in the off chance, that they could have attracted, enough additional other hydrogen atoms to form some type of cluster, the "extreme pressure" required to ignite it, would not be a feasibility, as we have nothing today that can even simulate the same or even a small scale effect that would hint that this could happen.

So, beyond being a nice sounding Theory, it does not have any support, and in several cases, requires things to happen, that we can test, and the result is that it does not behave in that manner.

As I understand it, before any matter formed at all, the energy of the universe was an extremely chaotic "environment" full of quantum fluctuations. As spacetime expanded and this energy "cooled down" and formed matter, the quantum fluctuations caused matter to form non-uniformly, such that there were some regions with higher density than others, and therefore gravity differentials allowed the matter to "clump" together.

Even if there were different density in the atoms themselves, and different "formations" of the atom clusters, the end result would not be them "clumping" but spread out to fill the void.

And a void is an empty space. But at that time, there was no space. It is spacetime itself that expanded, drawing the matter and energy with it, rather than matter and energy spreading out into existing space. This sort of expansion of spacetime is still occuring, and is observable.

This is pure Theory, as we can only validate the mass, the "open space" of the universe, we have no way to gauge or test it's limits, or age. As such, we can not conclude any thing beyond pure speculation about the "space" of the Universe. The mass on the other hand......

So if you chose to accept this, then that would be something you would have to just take on faith, or believe in. As it stands, it is a fabrication of someones imagination.

It may be true, but, then again, it may not, we don't really know anything in that regards. I am just as valid to say it was a void, as you might be to say it was space time creation at this moment.

if it was a void, then the current model, can not work. if the Spacetime is the reality, then there is a possibility, but that means that the Theory is dependent on a fictional or purely hypothetical idea being true, for the Theory itself to have any validity.

But such is the way of things.

Again, all that I have read from my books on the matter is that the universe was not a void waiting to be filled, and that our universe, at the time of the Big Bang, was on the scale of a Planck length is size.

I have heard many Theories about the "space" of the universe, but as it stands, despite the many models and ideas that do float to the surface, there is no way we currently possess to even hint that we might have an idea of the reality of the situation about the "space" the mass, again, I say it.. is a whole different matter.

Now, I suppose, depending on the story or idea that you based the Theory on, it has the potential to make sense, but if the space was "expanding" if you expand something, with a gas inside it, the expansion force will act upon the gas, and make clustering even more unbelievable.

I like the points on a balloon model myself. It's somewhat flawed, but better shows the expansion idea.

It is a cute model, yes I remember that one, but, the question on that is, is the mass forcing the expansion, or is the expansion acting on the mass, of that, we do not know. And that model, is just one of many.

As it really stands, we can only "Theorize" about the "space" of the universe, as we have no evidence to work from, other then "Look, there it is.. space.."

We're talking about subatomic neutrinos and such. Quantum uncertainty states that there are variations within a quantum field, and as such variations within the field can give rise to quanta that did not previously exist.

I am going to look that up, I may know what you are talking about, but just have not heard it phased in this manner.

It's a PRATT primarily because the odds presented are not based on accurate calculations or assumptions. If you assert that we can't caluclate the probability of simple polymers, then you must also admit that one cannot calculate the probability of more complex polymers or amino acids.

No, I did not say that, I said, we have no idea if Simple polymers will even beget the starting steps of life, nor do we know the transition steps that may or may not be required to go from simple polymers in water to a living cell, or even protocell.

Which means, we can not even validate if this is (a) the starting step, to the beginning of life.

And even if the odds could be known, over the unfathomably huge amount of time and huge number of co-occurring trials, would the odds really be so insurmountable?

Sadly, the answer is yes.

For one, it is not an awful long time to work with. That is one problem. You only have a few billion years of a planet to start with.

Of which, we have no idea at what point it could sustain life, to which it life had a chance to "become" after you factor that in, you then need to factor in what where the "attempts" and what were the success, IE: Even if Life was formed, IE: a Cell was started, there is no guarantee that it would survive to reproduice.

And this number, this vastly long number , it just the chance for the Amino Acid frequency to be provided, this does not include the chance for the rest of the situation to be provided for the cell to form.

So, sadly, this becomes a very big problem for feasibility

Could it happen.. well.. with out God, anything is not possible... sadly.

If the results are not feasible, then it is not a viable theory.

Sure it is, it is a possibility, not a sure thing. And just as Evolution, and Big Bang, despite the chances against it, it "could have" which is enough to keep it on the table.

God Bless

Key

 

[Gukkor]

Alchmey was the "science" of trying to turn one element into another.. most noted to be Lead into Gold.

Wait a minute. I'm by no means a scientist (or even a very good student in science class, for that matter), but aren't the only major differences between elements the mass of the atoms and the arrangement of their subatomic particles? Given that, couldn't alchemy be feasible with modern technology?

 

[climb8b]

I didn't know that it's impossible to prove a negative. I suppose this means that the recent proof of Fermat's Theorem must be incorrect, because Fermat's Theorem is a negative statement.

The idea that "it's impossible to prove a negative," is just not true. I'm often surprised that atheists, who effectively worship logic, are unaware of the rules of logic to the extent that they don't know this. Mathematics alone abounds with negative statements that can be logically proven. It's true that there are some negative statements that can't be proven, just as there are positive statements that can be proven. But when this is the case, it is at least possible to prove that no proof exists. It's also true that negative statements tend to be more difficult to prove than positive ones, but this is more a matter of semantics given that a negative statement can easily be rewritten as a positive one. I suppose the fact that negative statements can be proven goes to show that the usual atheist line on burdens of proof (and the second most popular one on pink unicorns) is simply a means to avoid the fact that they have no proof of their religious belief.

From a source quoted by Digit.


First, it would be prudent to speak of the burden of proof. It's a general rule in philosophy that she who proposes must explain and defend. If someone says that "X exists," the burden is on her to provide a case for the existence of X. The burden is not on the one who denies that X exists. For how can one prove a negative?
In this case, it is the critic who proposes. He claims that the Bible is "full of contradictions," and often proposes a lengthy list such as the one we are about to respond to below. Now, as Christians, we cannot prove that something is NOT a contradiction (i.e., one cannot prove that X [contradictions] do not exist). Instead, all that is required of us is to come up with plausible or reasonable, even possible explanations so that what is purported to be a contradiction is not necessarily a contradiction. Whether or not our explanation is the "true one" is not all that relevant in such contexts.

 

[climb8b]

Did you take the extra 3 minuets in your Internet search of this, to see that there are also hundreds of sites that explain these so called contradictions?

Some links A, B , C , D. just to start you off.

No offense. But, it seems you are limiting your own input.

God Bless

Key

Okay, i read through source A, and of cource christians have explained all the apparent contradictions listed, that doesent mean there are no contradictions. My other critisim of this paper is that there are no references to the explanations who came up with them, when, and what their background is.

Contradictions appear because of the use of language, surely then a book is a bad medium for god to convey himself. the contradictions exist, i shouldnt have to read a long list of explanations before i understand the bible. appart from the contradictions there are many other reasons that i think the bible is not the word of some God. Instead i think it is the word of man and man alone and was written as a form of population control.

endorcement of slavery, misoginistic, homophobic, and violent, is this your god?

 

[climb8b]

Examples of laws that should not be laws: Ohm's Law, Hooke's Law, Watt's Law, the Law of Biot-Savart

Gods Law?

. All of these are examples of laws that are known to be invalid in general, and yet for historical reasons the name remains. Given this, it is really not reasonable to expect a non-scientist (or even a scientist, for that matter) to accurately differentiate between theories and laws.

 

[Digit]

From a source quoted by Digit.


First, it would be prudent to speak of the burden of proof. It's a general rule in philosophy that she who proposes must explain and defend. If someone says that "X exists," the burden is on her to provide a case for the existence of X. The burden is not on the one who denies that X exists. For how can one prove a negative?
In this case, it is the critic who proposes. He claims that the Bible is "full of contradictions," and often proposes a lengthy list such as the one we are about to respond to below. Now, as Christians, we cannot prove that something is NOT a contradiction (i.e., one cannot prove that X [contradictions] do not exist). Instead, all that is required of us is to come up with plausible or reasonable, even possible explanations so that what is purported to be a contradiction is not necessarily a contradiction. Whether or not our explanation is the "true one" is not all that relevant in such contexts.

Is something in error with that? *confused*

Digit

 

[climb8b]

Wait a minute. I'm by no means a scientist (or even a very good student in science class, for that matter), but aren't the only major differences between elements the mass of the atoms and the arrangement of their subatomic particles? Given that, couldn't alchemy be feasible with modern technology?

Yeh, i suppose it could be possible to be an alchemist, though perhaps not lead into gold. radioactive elements do change from one element to another through radioactive decay.

 

[climb8b]

Is something in error with that? *confused*

Digit

No, the post was in reply to another post by another member where burden of proof was in question.

I asserted that the burden of proof lies with those making the positive statement. those that say there is a god hold the burden of proof, those that say the bible is the word of god hold the burden of proof, those that say the bible is violent hold the burden of proof, etc...

 

[Digit]

No, the post was in reply to another post by another member where burden of proof was in question.

I asserted that the burden of proof lies with those making the positive statement. those that say there is a god hold the burden of proof, those that say the bible is the word of god hold the burden of proof, those that say the bible is violent hold the burden of proof, etc...

Ok, I don't see much wrong with that unless it comes down to something that we cannot prove. I find it fascinating that Atheists, or in fact mankind in general, hold so little knowledge of the physical yet have concluded via that, that there is no spiritual.

Anyhoo...

Digit

 

[ebia]

Contradictions appear because of the use of language, surely then a book is a bad medium for god to convey himself.

Any communcation between God an man is limited by our fallibility. The only way God can avoid that is not to speak to us.

the contradictions exist, i shouldnt have to read a long list of explanations before i understand the bible.

The contradictions are a complete irrelevence. Only someone who is more interested in proving the text valueless would focus on them instead of the substance of the narative. Or, I suppose, someone more interested in disproving said proofs - I'm not sure that some of the 'explanations' have any more respect for the text than those who raise the objections in the first place.

appart from the contradictions there are many other reasons that i think the bible is not the word of some God. Instead i think it is the word of man and man alone and was written as a form of population control.
.

That doesn't really fit the profile of some of those who wrote it or the circumstances of the communities it was written in though. The NT wasn't written by a post-Constantine church, nor much of the OT by people/groups in situations of power. It's certainly been used to prop up the power and status of different groups throughout history, but the idea that it's written for that purpose doesn't fit the history of it's authorship. Neither does it fit the content, which is (throughout) subversive, revolutionary, and undermining to power structures.

 

[climb8b]

Any communcation between God an man is limited by our fallibility. The only way God can avoid that is not to speak to us.

Perhaps that would have been better, perhaps if god had created the world and just let it be, perhaps we would all be leading a more peacefull life. But instead god introduced temptation in the tree in the garden of Eden and it was all down hill from there.

The contradictions are a complete irrelevence. Only someone who is more interested in proving the text valueless would focus on them instead of the substance of the narative. Or, I suppose, someone more interested in disproving said proofs - I'm not sure that some of the 'explanations' have any more respect for the text than those who raise the objections in the first place.

I spent a considerable amount of my lifetime studying (and i mean studying) the bible from the perspective of a christian. I now cannot fathom the bible, the contradictions, the violence, the complete intolerance of it all, i just cannot line it up with my intelect and my empathy and compassion for those around me and for the planet.

That doesn't really fit the profile of some of those who wrote it or the circumstances of the communities it was written in though. The NT wasn't written by a post-Constantine church, nor much of the OT by people/groups in situations of power. It's certainly been used to prop up the power and status of different groups throughout history, but the idea that it's written for that purpose doesn't fit the history of it's authorship. Neither does it fit the content, which is (throughout) subversive, revolutionary, and undermining to power structures.

I will concede that at one time there were christians that were good and well motivated to do the best they could to aleviate suffering and help those around them. Unfortunatly this hasent continued, you only have to look as far as you own backyard at you very own Ted Haggard and other discredited high profile (filthy rich) preachers and missionaries. and then a little further at the Phelps and their "god hate [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]" and their "thank god for dead soldiers", and then a little further to you own GW Bush and his war in Iraq and the fact that "god told him" to invade. I say that christianity is used to uphold power structures, unless they are non-christian power structures.

Sorry but christianity has lost all its credibility.

 

[ebia]

Perhaps that would have been better, perhaps if god had created the world and just let it be, perhaps we would all be leading a more peacefull life. But instead god introduced temptation in the tree in the garden of Eden and it was all down hill from there.

Or maybe that story tells of something rather more complex than God deliberately tempting people.

It also presupposes that the prefall garden, with the tree removed, is as good as it gets - the finished product of creation - when the biblical story points to the finished creation being better than that.

I spent a considerable amount of my lifetime studying (and i mean studying) the bible from the perspective of a christian. I now cannot fathom the bible, the contradictions, the violence, the complete intolerance of it all, i just cannot line it up with my intelect and my empathy and compassion for those around me and for the planet.

Which kind of leads me to think - and I mean no disrespect but I can't think of a politer way of saying it - that you never came close to understanding it in the first place if you think it is violent or intolerant or if you think a few superficial contradictions matter.

I will concede that at one time there were christians that were good and well motivated to do the best they could to aleviate suffering and help those around them. Unfortunatly this hasent continued, you only have to look as far as you own backyard at you very own Ted Haggard and other discredited high profile (filthy rich) preachers and missionaries.

There always have - and always will be- people wanting to abuse it. The story of Simon the Magi in Acts 8 springs to mind (and he got to donate his name for an Engish word for his trouble) springs to mind. No movement should be judged by the worst people who try to associate themselves with it. That said, there are ways that the church as a whole is falling short of its calling - and there are magnificent examples of it living up to it, eg Archbishop Desmond Tutu in South Africa.

I haven't the faintest idea why you want to call Ted Haggard 'mine' - I don't even know who the guy is.

and then a little further at the Phelps and their "god hate [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]" and their "thank god for dead soldiers", and then a little further to you own GW Bush and his war in Iraq and the fact that "god told him" to invade.

I say that christianity is used to uphold power structures, unless they are non-christian power structures.

Christianity, or a pretense thereof, certainly has been used to uphold power structures - both obstensibly Christian and otherwise - but that's neither it's origin, purpose, nor long-term effect. Christianity can no more be held accountable for every wrongdoing done in its name than science, rationality, enliightenment, humanism, or any religion can.

Sorry but christianity has lost all its credibility.

Apparently so. The question is whether that loss of credibility is deserved, and whether it can be rectified.

I do have to wonder why, if you think all of Christianity has so little credibility, why you are asking these questions?

 

[Digit]

I think something that has come out of all this is that Climb feels Christianity is judged on what others do with it, for it, in it's name. This is not so, Christianity is a personal relationship between the person and God. The Bible is full of relationships, relational advice and we are even made in His image, being volative, emotional and spiritual beings.

Cheers,
Digit

 

[arunma]

From a source quoted by Digit.


First, it would be prudent to speak of the burden of proof. It's a general rule in philosophy that she who proposes must explain and defend. If someone says that "X exists," the burden is on her to provide a case for the existence of X. The burden is not on the one who denies that X exists. For how can one prove a negative?
In this case, it is the critic who proposes. He claims that the Bible is "full of contradictions," and often proposes a lengthy list such as the one we are about to respond to below. Now, as Christians, we cannot prove that something is NOT a contradiction (i.e., one cannot prove that X [contradictions] do not exist). Instead, all that is required of us is to come up with plausible or reasonable, even possible explanations so that what is purported to be a contradiction is not necessarily a contradiction. Whether or not our explanation is the "true one" is not all that relevant in such contexts.

I don't know who made this statement, but it isn't accurate. As I've already mentioned, it is possible to prove a negative statement. I've even given an example of a famous negative statement that has been proven true. Furthermore it is possible to show that a statement is not contradictory by proving the statement to be true. This might be impractical for many types of statements, but in principle it is possible.

Gods Law?

For future reference, I typically don't bother responding to statements such as these which clearly aren't intended to provoke any sort of discussion. If you'd like to exchange schoolyard taunts, please find another poster.

 

[arunma]

Wait a minute. I'm by no means a scientist (or even a very good student in science class, for that matter), but aren't the only major differences between elements the mass of the atoms and the arrangement of their subatomic particles? Given that, couldn't alchemy be feasible with modern technology?

Elements are distinguished from one another by the number of protons in their nuclei and the number of electrons in the surrounding orbitals. "Alchemy" certainly is feasible. Indeed this is the principle on which the nuclear bomb is based. In the fusion reaction, hydrogen is converted into helium. In principle lead can be turned into gold by a similar process. Of course we don't do this because the process would be far from break-even from an economic standpoint.

Interestingly, stars also produce all of the elements found in nature by this process. As has already been stated, there is a valid analogy to alchemy.

Secondly, We can not validate that Hydrogen produices gravational forces that would exceed the expansion properties of Hydrogen.

IE: Gas will not form into balls, in a Vacuum, it will expand uniformly though the vacuum. As such, to say that it would collect, then that contradicts what we know of the nature of Gas. It will in fact, not "lump together" either by gravity, or other wise, and even if there were variances in density of the hydrogen atoms, it would not be substantial to attract over nature of Gas in a void, (and we at this time left the field of Quantum Physics, and even in the off chance, that they could have attracted, enough additional other hydrogen atoms to form some type of cluster, the "extreme pressure" required to ignite it, would not be a feasibility, as we have nothing today that can even simulate the same or even a small scale effect that would hint that this could happen.

Well...actually this process would work. In fact, the existence of stars is evidence of this. Solar hydrogen is in a plasma state, and has similar expansion properties as gasious hydrogen. In fact, nuclear fusion provides additional outward pressure. The fact that stars even exist demonstrates that a strong enough gravitational force can counter the expansion of hydrogen gas.

Of course if there is something in your reasoning that I am misunderstanding, I'd be most interested to discuss this.