Religion, Scripture and logical thinking

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: jjkenobi

There are sane, mathematical models that predict that alien life almost assuredly exists in the cosmos. No such models exist for god. So it really isn't comparable. Alien life is just making an assumption that the rules on earth for life to arrive probably apply elsewhere (or may even be looser) then using statistical analysis to make a very good educated guess.

That being said, you are also correct in the lacking evidence part for alien existence. So that must always be taken into consideration as well. So we cannot say definitively that they exist, but we can have a pretty good idea that they do through deductive logic. In fact, using further deductive logic, we can say that it is MORE illogical that life DOESN'T exist in the cosmos given what we know about statistics.

Frank Tippler in his book "The Physics of Immortality" produces sane mathematical models that prove the existence of a God that is notably like the Christian definition.

... snip comment about Tipplers Omega Point ...

Also, this god is CREATED by the universe, as opposed to god creating the universe. So even Tippler's argument doesn't prove a creator exists. Though one could argue that eventually this Omega Point will create a new universe that follows the same course as our universe resulting in a new god, which means our universe is the result of the same thing. This is an interesting take in that the creator god and the god of heaven aren't the same god, but it also raises more questions. Where did the first god that made the first universe come from? Is it an infinite loop that repeats on itself all the time?

Your assumption that this is the case for Tipplers Omega Point is that you are assuming that the 'arrow of time' cannot be overcome.

The crux of the Omega Point argument is that God is atemporal. God can 'reach back' in time and ensure that the conditions necessary for His existence are all in place. He is not stuck at the end of time, or bound by it.

Time in Physics is a tangible. It can be ascribed a value and manipulated (one second is equivalent to a distance of 299,792,458 meters in Special Relativity).

This means that no new universe is created at the Omega Point, instead, this universe has being/is been created.

But I was really only saying that there is sane math for proving the existence of God.

originally posted by: Develo
It has nothing to do with cultural marxism, and everything with an out of control radical branch of Christianity that separated itself from the Church less than 200 years ago as a fearful reaction to a world entering the modern era.

Refusing modernity, science and secularism doesn't make you a better Christian, it doesn't make you more spiritual. It only isolate you more from society, and thus give you less opportunities to truly live your life as a Christian; not against the world but with the world.

Well said Develo.

Though I think it is more common in parts of the US than you realise and there is possibly more to it than that. I remember a study from the University of Chicago some time back. Wanting to understand why around 43% of US adults rejected evolution, which they saw as a "national embarrassment" compared to other modern 1st world nations. They concluded that there was nothing wrong with the education system or teaching methods (same methods work elsewhere), people in the US were obviously as intelligent as in other countries. It would have been easy to blame religion (especially as one of the academics was a noted atheist/Prof. of biology).

The problem was deemed to be societal and the situation unlikely to change until there was a more equitable and tolerant society where people can feel more secure about their future. This has been noticed in the entire western world. When societies improve, they become more secular (and vice versa) and religion increases/decreases along with social dysfunction. In the best functioning societies we see up to 80% or more acceptance of scientific explanations like evolution.

In many ways this does support Marx's observation that religion is "the sigh of the oppressed creature" and "the opium of the people". Certainly appears so for the more fanatical elements.

There are many other indicators of dysfunction IMO. One in three adults believe there is either "certainly" or "probably" breeding populations of massive apes running the length and breadth of the country (bigfoot). A sizeable group believe their own government was instrumental, or at least knew of the 9/11 attacks a priori. About 40% believe a certain Jewish Rabbi (who might not even have existed) will return in their own lifetime to usher in Armageddon,the alien mythology, new age and alternate health charlatanry which are huge industries, creation "science", whole branches of pseudo academia and swathes of pseudo academics.

While it's good (perhaps even important) to have those who challenge orthodoxy, at a certain point it is not indicative of a healthy functioning society. There is no such thing as a Utopia and similar thing exist elsewhere, though not on the same scale and in many ways the figures in the US (along with social dysfunction) look more like those expected from the "developing" world. This obviously doesn't reflect the views of the average person in the US, but are a large enough minority to be significant.

In most of the west it would be rare to see someone running for office mention religion too much (we have atheist leaders in France and Greece, Australia recently had an atheist female Prime Minister) because people don't care and it is a good way to make yourself irrelevant. Yet it's a requirement in the US and it appears using religious revelation as a pretext for war is tolerated (which is surely no different to the fanatical Jihadists of the middle east).

The prediction among most academics is that the US will follow the trend to secularism seen in the western world, it's just going to be a bit slower. In much of Europe we see populations that still identify as "Christians", though often as a form cultural inheritance. So in many ways it is a political issue as you say, though perhaps not as simple as that sounds.

The ideal of Christ is one that I'm sure most atheists would agree with. I know of one scientist (a devout Christian and creationist) who seems to be doing great work. She doesn't deny science and her beliefs don't influence her work. Instead she marvels at what she finds, because she believes for personal reasons there is a god behind it all. She has little time for the creationist movement who try to make science fit their beliefs (rather than the other way around). Easy to respect that.

I think Gandhi echoes the views of many atheists...

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

originally posted by: undo
and here you go again, quoting someone else's interpretation of it. noah's flood account is 2 catastrophes mixed together: a global catastrophe that spawned the ice age and the less catastrophic but still devastating black sea flood, thousands of years later. see the second verse in the whole bible doesn't say the earth WAS void and without form, no, it actually says the earth BECAME void and without form. why the english translators used the wrong word, is beyond me, but they did. this changes the whole meaning of the opening verses. verse 1, universe is created. verse 2, the earth became a void wasteland. ya see, i read it and came to my own conclusions. you're just quoting someone else's stuff. easy targets too. (there's more but explaining it all would take thread incredibly off topic)

Really? Not that it matters at all regarding the obvious fairy tale nature of such verses but...

This is from the "Vulgate" as far as I know. The one that became synonymous with the Roman spread of Christianity across the western world. Why and where does it necessitate your interpretation?

terra autem erat inanis et vacua et tenebrae super faciem abyssi et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas

As a rough understanding..terra (the earth) autem (however/also) erat (he she it/was) inanis (void/without form) et vacua (and empty)...........Could be wrong here, so I might run it past people far more versed in Latin.

Got the feeling your interpretation would be unusual (possibly wrong). Perhaps there is an interoperation from Greek, that you are talking about? What was this verse originally written in anyway, does anyone really know this?

vulgate.org...

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

the actual word is hayah, which is

to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
the proper tense of which is BECAME, not was

written in hebrew

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

the actual word is hayah, which is

to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
the proper tense of which is BECAME, not was

written in hebrew

Thanks for that.

Source?

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

the actual word is hayah, which is

to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
the proper tense of which is BECAME, not was

written in hebrew

Thanks for that.

Source?

strongs concordance + blue letter bible (king james version)
the little numbers after the words in the verses are links to the original words in hebrew
www.blueletterbible.org...

originally posted by: undo

strongs concordance + blue letter bible (king james version)
the little numbers after the words in the verses are links to the original words in hebrew
www.blueletterbible.org...

Thanks again. Interesting.

Though I meant links to the original manuscript, or the academic work around it...so we can know the manuscript age, that it was the oldest known version etc. Not saying this doesn't exist (or that it makes a difference), but it is interesting.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

the hebrew passages were translated from the hebrew masoretic texts, likely into the greek septuagint then the latin vulgate and finally into the king james version. i could be wrong on what texts were in the process of compiliing the king james version, but i'm fairly certain of the masoretic texts, that they would've been used for hebrew, aramaic and chaldean portions of the torah (first five books, including genesis) and other books in the old testament.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

the actual word is hayah, which is

to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
the proper tense of which is BECAME, not was

Became: past of become.
Was: past of be.

It's the same tense. the tense is correct.


Your problem is only with the chosen meaning.

Verb[edit]
הָיָה • (haya) (pa'ál construction)

to be, exist  [quotations ▼]
to happen, take place, occur
נֵס גָּדוֹל הָיָה שָׁם.
nés gadól hayá shám.
A great miracle happened there.

Examples of other occurrences of haya:

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made

And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.

As usual your confirmation bias prevents you to see where you misguide yourself. You only see which confirms your set of beliefs and ignore anything contradicting it. This kind of behavior has a name.

here's a good link . it has a bit of everything
www.hebrewoldtestament.com...

a reply to: Develo

true, i have a confirmation bias on that, particularly because it makes so much sense.

a reply to: chr0naut

have you considered new city jerusalem may be a pyramid instead of a cube?
see this video

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

true, i have a confirmation bias on that, particularly because it makes so much sense.

It makes sense to you because it confirms what you already choose to believe before. Something about DNA manipulation and alien/gods or something. The Christian version of Sitchin's tale.


From an external point of view (mine), it doesn't make any sense at all.




Your approach to these texts is the most dangerous possible. You choose a meaning before and then read them in a way to find what confirms it.

Of course you will find it confirms your beliefs. It's how self-delusion work.

a reply to: undo

Interesting that the English and Latin (Vulgate was translated from earlier Latin and Greek apparently) would translate it this way. Wonder what the earlier Latin and Greek, or even Syrian versions actually said (it's obvious how it was translated). The translations, historical and contemporary I can find either give hayah... "to be/was" or at best make it ambiguous. Even wiki gives it as "to exist/was" lol. I notice the modern word "haya" = "he/it was."

The examples from Develo and even the "blue letter bible" source makes it ambiguous ("to be" being the first definition = "to exist") wouldn't necessarily make it a mistranslation. I doubt it's the obvious mistake you are claiming, but without quibbling and assuming you were right...why would it matter, specifically?

In the beginning god created time, space and quark soup?

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
In the beginning god created time

It's kind of redundant don't you think

originally posted by: Develo

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
In the beginning god created time

It's kind of redundant don't you think

So what are we saying, the earth existed since the beginning of time? No stars forming first, supernovae creating the elements etc? Cosmology theories have it all wrong?

a reply to: Develo

no it confirms science, that the earth is older than 6000 years.

Lol, no one but a few American fundies believe the earth is 6000 years old.


The current theory of the formation of the universe was actually proposed by a Catholic priest.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: chr0naut

have you considered new city jerusalem may be a pyramid instead of a cube?
see this video

The text clearly states that it will have four equal sides and that it will have the same height as its length and width.

Since there is no temple in the New Jerusalem and it is the dwelling place of God, it could be like the Holiest of Holies in both the Tabernacle and the Temple/s which approximated being cubic. That is what I believe to be most likely.

But there are many shapes that could fit that description:

It could be a square pyramid, or a dodecahedron with a square base or a twisted square pyramid, spiraling up to its point or a dome devolving to a square base or a square at its base with a saddle shaped top or a profusion of towers arising from a square base...

I'm sure you get the drift.