Explaining the God particle

[dad]

So you think that just because a source mentions one thing from your stories that the rest of the stories must also be true?

So does that mean that M*A*S*H is true because there really was a Korean War? Does that mean that Lieutenant Commander Data and the rest of the Enterprise Crew went back in time and met Mark Twain because Mark Twain was a real person?

Ancient history..particularly about Israel is best found in Scripture. It was well preserved, and represented the best available record by far. We could call each word in this record a God particle.

 

[Tiberius]

Geez, dad, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Gracchus]

Geez, dad, you have no idea what you are talking about.

But he is an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect!

 

[dad]

Geez, dad, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Ancient history..particularly about Israel is best found in Scripture. It was well preserved, and represented the best available record by far. We could call each word in this record a God particle.


So where would you look for details of Jewish characters and history, in the Baghavad Gita?

 

[Tiberius]

Ancient history..particularly about Israel is best found in Scripture. It was well preserved, and represented the best available record by far. We could call each word in this record a God particle.


So where would you look for details of Jewish characters and history, in the Baghavad Gita?

You just don't get it, do you?

If the only information about someone comes from one source, and all the important things that this one source describes are not mentioned anywhere outside that one source, would you think that the one source is accurate?

 

[dad]

You just don't get it, do you?

If the only information about someone comes from one source, and all the important things that this one source describes are not mentioned anywhere outside that one source, would you think that the one source is accurate?

That depends on whether there are other sources. You have no sources to dispute any of the infallible prrofs of the men of God found in God's word. So your doubt comes from no source....on this world.

 

[Tiberius]

Do you even bother to read what I write? I was very clear...

If the only information about someone comes from one source, and all the important things that this one source describes are not mentioned anywhere outside that one source, would you think that the one source is accurate?

 

[dad]

Do you even bother to read what I write? I was very clear...

If the only information about someone comes from one source, and all the important things that this one source describes are not mentioned anywhere outside that one source, would you think that the one source is accurate?

That depends on the source. If you want to know about a city that was destroyed over and over again, and of some of the people in that nation that was taken away captive to another nation, you would have no real choice,

 

[Tiberius]

And if you were studying someone who allegedly did incredible things in front of hundreds of witnesses, would you be satisfied if you had only a few accounts that contradicted each other?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And if you were studying someone who allegedly did incredible things in front of hundreds of witnesses, would you be satisfied if you had only a few accounts that contradicted each other?

As long as they were third hand hearsay and not direct witness statements I'd have no problem with them .

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

It is science that has found things. Religion encourages people to stop looking.

I would say that this claim is extremely dubious. Certain streams of thought within religion can encourage people to stop looking for scientific answers (I'm thinking of Boka Haram more than Young Earth Creationism, for the record), but religion has actually encouraged people to pursue education and science. Monasteries helped to preserve some of the knowledge of past philosophers and theorists in the west, before the writings of Aristotle, Plato, and others could filter back in from North Africa and the Middle East.

Some of the religious orders (like the Jesuits) have a strong focus on education, and have played a role in shaping our modern understanding of physics and the Universe. Fr. Georges Lemaitre would be the obvious example, since he discovered the Big Bang. Even earlier than that, it was a Jesuit priest who discovered that radiation at the top of the Eiffel Tower was basically the same as at ground level, prompting the discovery of cosmic rays, including the plethora of mesons whose presence later led to the development of our current knowledge of subatomic structure.

You can go back further and drag up cases like Galileo (which was a debacle), but looking at religion and science as a perpetual conflict is inaccurate. There have been points of conflict, but there have also been points of profound cooperation.

 

[Tiberius]

As long as they were third hand hearsay and not direct witness statements I'd have no problem with them .

lol

As it happens, I heard of a guy about 60 years ago who could turn into a bird and fly away. He did it in front of an audience too, so it must be true! Now, since none of the people who were there have come forward to claim it is false, it MUST be true! So there!

 

[Tiberius]

I would say that this claim is extremely dubious. Certain streams of thought within religion can encourage people to stop looking for scientific answers (I'm thinking of Boka Haram more than Young Earth Creationism, for the record), but religion has actually encouraged people to pursue education and science. Monasteries helped to preserve some of the knowledge of past philosophers and theorists in the west, before the writings of Aristotle, Plato, and others could filter back in from North Africa and the Middle East.

Some of the religious orders (like the Jesuits) have a strong focus on education, and have played a role in shaping our modern understanding of physics and the Universe. Fr. Georges Lemaitre would be the obvious example, since he discovered the Big Bang. Even earlier than that, it was a Jesuit priest who discovered that radiation at the top of the Eiffel Tower was basically the same as at ground level, prompting the discovery of cosmic rays, including the plethora of mesons whose presence later led to the development of our current knowledge of subatomic structure.

You can go back further and drag up cases like Galileo (which was a debacle), but looking at religion and science as a perpetual conflict is inaccurate. There have been points of conflict, but there have also been points of profound cooperation.

But religion encourages the view that "Goddidit". We have people on this very forum who refuse to learn about evolution because they conclude it is false. They don't reach this conclusion by learning about it, finding flaws with it and rejecting it. They reach that conclusion by saying, "I already believe in Goddidit, and I don't want to change my beliefs, so evolution must be wrong."

 

[Jamin4422]

So does that mean that M*A*S*H is true because there really was a Korean War?

There were MASH units in Korea and Vietnam that were a big improvement over the medical care they got during WW2. I knew a guy that got shot during the invasion at Normany and he lay there on the beach for 4 or 5 hours before he got any medical care. Of course it's not a documentary, but they do maintain some degree of historical accuracy. Back when I was in High School I talked to the army dude and most of the jobs they were offering me at the time had to do with working in a MASH unit.

 

[Tiberius]

There were MASH units in Korea and Vietnam that were a big improvement over the medical care they got during WW2. I knew a guy that got shot during the invasion at Normany and he lay there on the beach for 4 or 5 hours before he got any medical care. Of course it's not a documentary, but they do maintain some degree of historical accuracy. Back when I was in High School I talked to the army dude and most of the jobs they were offering me at the time had to do with working in a MASH unit.

Two things...

First, please sort out your quote tags.

Secondly, is this relevant?

 

[Jamin4422]

Secondly, is this relevant?

You should be asking yourself that. Your the one that brought the topic up for discussion.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

But religion encourages the view that "Goddidit". We have people on this very forum who refuse to learn about evolution because they conclude it is false. They don't reach this conclusion by learning about it, finding flaws with it and rejecting it. They reach that conclusion by saying, "I already believe in Goddidit, and I don't want to change my beliefs, so evolution must be wrong."

I think my issue with your comment has more to do with the general "religion" being opposed to the general "science" than anything. It sounds like the conflict theory, where religion and science are two great titans gridlocked in a battle between the darkness of ignorance and the glorious light of reason.

Most of the scientific conflict in the U.S. is pretty isolated as far as the developed world is concerned. It's a very parochial attitude to see religion and science as warriors locked in combat because of that. I think that it's why the conflict theory has so much staying power here in America, but I also think that it's a narrow view.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think my issue with your comment has more to do with the general "religion" being opposed to the general "science" than anything. It sounds like the conflict theory, where religion and science are two great titans gridlocked in a battle between the darkness of ignorance and the glorious light of reason.

Most of the scientific conflict in the U.S. is pretty isolated as far as the developed world is concerned. It's a very parochial attitude to see religion and science as warriors locked in combat because of that. I think that it's why the conflict theory has so much staying power here in America, but I also think that it's a narrow view.

Christians are on the winning side, aren't they?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Christians are on the winning side, aren't they?

There aren't necessarily any "sides" when it comes to science and religion.

That said, if you make sides where there aren't naturally any present, and if you put legitimate scientific concepts with strong evidence on one side and set yourself on the other, then it's not possible to win that battle. Still, Christianity as a whole doesn't do that, so there are no sides when it comes to Christianity and science.

You also sacrifice something of the beauty of the natural world if you claim that we're largely incapable of learning truth about its history from observing it.

 

[AV1611VET]

There aren't necessarily any "sides" when it comes to science and religion.

That said, if you make sides where there aren't naturally any present, and if you put legitimate scientific concepts with strong evidence on one side and set yourself on the other, then it's not possible to win that battle. Still, Christianity as a whole doesn't do that, so there are no sides when it comes to Christianity and science.

You also sacrifice something of the beauty of the natural world if you claim that we're largely incapable of learning truth about its history from observing it.

An interesting perspective ... one that I think the book of Revelation is going to shred to pieces when this dispensation ends.

Science will be turned inside-out, upside-down and backwards as one event unfolds after another.

Those on the winning side, according to the book, will live forever in a New Heaven and a New Earth; with the universe running under a new set of laws.