Knowing the mind of God

[Cornish Steve]

...didn't you say a while ago that your degree was in "physics philosophy"? It's just that recently you now say your degree is in "physics", which is quite different.

It's in physics, although the degree of course reads 'Doctor of Philosophy'. Actually, my work involved magnetism, which is an area where theories come and go. I had the dubious distinction of evacuating a chemistry lab during my research, so the second half of my work was forced to become more theoretical in nature.

But I cannot understand how you can assert that evolutionists and biologists do not respect scientific methods as much as physicists do. I only have A-level in biology, but I studied hard enough to understand that a typical biologist (and evolutionist) tries to be as truthful as even a mathematician tries to be.

I have no doubt that they do. It's just that I was trained as a physicist and so I think like one. I'm admitting that this may cloud my definition of theory because the nature of physics is quite different from the nature of biology.

 

[Cornish Steve]

since vowels are skipped in Hebrew, does this mean that the prophet wrote something equivalent to SHB and not SHABUA? If so, how many other words in the hebrew language can be constructed around the consonants SHB?

Some vowels are implied by other letters, so it's not quite as bad as that; however, there are ambiguities, yes. The reader must understand which word is implied from the context. To a writer of English, this must sound as if it leads to mass confusion, but it doesn't. It's the nature of the language. (Again, take this with a pinch of salt because I'm not a language expert. Maybe genuine Hebrew speakers can confirm or deny what I say.)

 

[Cornish Steve]

You can challenge him on the detail of the ID debate but to do so you have to do the work, which in the case of irreduceable complexity means understanding the base science of both bacterial structures and cell biology.

I agree, which is why - to some extent - I wish I had continued with a science career. I would simply love to jump into this debate with the detailed knowledge required. I still know enough in some fields to spot flaws in arguments; however, you're right to claim that I don't have the knowledge of people who work this stuff every day. Having said that, I'd still challenge the guy on some things. Most definitely, I'd challenge some of the starting assumptions.

I have an degree in some of this stuff but it's way way beyond me now and well outside almost everybodies capabilities.

But that doesn't stop 99 percent of the people who mouth off with extreme statements that we're all supposed to just accept. Your knowledge and mine is probably more thorough than half of the so-called popular experts in the media.

Science is sceptical - that's its job - but when I first heard the the irriduceable complexity arguments I was very excited and read all the original papers hoping for it to be true because it would cause such an uproar in the scientific world if it was. (Remember what happened when the guys published their paper on cold fusion - it seemed to break known physics and thousands of scientists tried to prove it).
Everyone would love it and I can assure you that hundreds of specialists would have piled into it to make a name for themselves if there was anything in it. But there simply isn't.

Let me predict that this is an area that really will linger for a while and will challenge accepted theory in some areas. Just because someone stated that no combination of elements in a complex object can be reconstituted does not mean that the basic argument is faulty. I admit that there may be small hints of a solution, but it's not even close to being a feasible solution. I'm hoping some young scientist has the guts to overcome the ridicule cast on opponents of evolution today to show that this area needs further analysis, and maybe existing theories need to be challenged and changed.

Well we get back to the standard of proof you personally require and I respectfully suggest you require very little objective evidence to support a claim that confirms your religious beliefs and an impossible amount when it doesn't.

I don't think so. Feel free to challenge me on this. I apply scientific thinking in both cases. I accept nothing at face value.

You appear to be happy to accept the Daniel prophecy as good enough proof for you even though the historians and biblical studies experts that have spent their lifetime studying them can barely agree on anything factually based about what they mean.

Now I must challenge you! A short time spent searching Google does not give you the knowledge needed to make such a sweeping statement. There's a lot of speculative gumf out there in cyberspace. Just because some people come up with their own explanations and publish them on the web does not mean they are credible. Be methodical. What did the author intend by the words? It's very clear in this case.

But on the otherhand you are prepared to accept and defend the creationist's scientist's ideas even though the scientific community has dismissed them as simply wrong.

I'm asking the scientific community to be up-front about flaws and gaps in current thinking and not to write off other views by casting religious aspersions to ridicule them. Do you remember that comment in the video about a Harvard student who asked why bother correcting those stupid people from Alabama and Mississippi? This is the height of arrogance (and, unfortunately, something all too common in academia). A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Well, sometimes a lot of knowledge is even more dangerous because we become blind to everything except our own view of the world.

In our debate, several people have accepted the flaws in some aspects of science. Words such as speculative are now being used correctly. If only some of the leading spokespeople for science would have the same honesty and, yes, humility.

And even now you are trying to throw some doubt in areas where there really isn't any - the earth's age has been shown by several established methods to be approximately 4bn years and there is little controversy about it.

This is absolutely not the case. All theories about the origins of the universe and of our planetary system rest on many assumptions, and those assumptions remain questionable. They are speculative because we cannot cross the time dimension. Most predictions made by existing theory, in fact, have been wrong (the amount of dust on the moon, the total angular momentum of our solar system, etc.). In fact, it happens almost every time a new spacecraft completes a mission: "Scientists were surprised to learn...." When will scientists in this particular field of study (which is one in which I was trained) wake up and face reality? At best, we can infer.

 

[cjd]

Just because some people come up with their own explanations and publish them on the web does not mean they are credible. Be methodical. What did the author intend by the words? It's very clear in this case.

Steve I deliberately did not give you the myriad of authors that throw total scorn on that prophecy - I gave you the 'official' wiki for it. It quotes the names, research and reasoning. It's not a matter of whether I know anything about it - I don't - it's what the experts are saying that counts. Your particular take on it is just one of many, many, interpretations that have been made from people who have spent their lives studying it. I have no reason whatsoever to pick you solution from the many credible alternatives possible. (And that before we make any challenges on whether a prophecy is even possible under any circumstances). Here's just a piece to remind you.

Debate on Weeks

One principal debate regarding the words in the prophecy deals with the meaning of Weeks. The Hebrew word shebu`ah or "week" is also the word for "seven." Secondly, in this instance the Hebrew word is in the male gender when normally the female version is used. There are three interpretations.

1. Skeptical scholars like J. A. Montgomery claim that the weeks are really the same as the years previously decreed. This allows for the fulfillment of the prophecy to reside in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes. He and other skeptics believe that the book was written as a later forgery in an effort to engender resistance against the oppression of Antiochus.
2. Various commentators (e.g., some conservative amillennialists, Orthodox Jews) believe that the seventy weeks represent, to one degree or another, an indefinite time scale that cannot be used for definite prediction. Some Orthodox Jews hold the fulfillment to be in the 70 destruction of the temple. Philip Mauro believed the first 69 weeks to be 69 sevens of years, but the last to be an indefinite period.[1]
3. A large majority of sacred theologians believe each seven represents seven years. Amillennialists who hold this believe the final fulfillment to have already happened; some premillennialists hold that an anacoluthon exists between the first 69 weeks and the last. Some believe that the gap is over now that the nation of Israel has gained Jerusalem as its capital.

Few hold that the weeks in question are sets of 7 days. Some Christians have proposed such theories, but no such theory has gained any degree of acceptance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks

I'm not even particularly concerned about this - there's no science in a prophecy; what I'm trying to get to the bottom of is why you are prepared to throw away your skepticism and scientific training in matters of prophecy (where any objective analysis must cause you to severley doubt its veracity) but then apply them supercritically in areas of science that science itself has proven to a high standard to be in error.

I can only conclude that for religious reasons you are suffering from confirmation bias.

 

[Cornish Steve]

I can only conclude that for religious reasons you are suffering from confirmation bias.

I'm really trying not to, but it's always a danger. I'm certainly willing to go back again and investigate the conflicting claims of others. When I did so before, I became even stronger in my opinion about the 69 weeks. Again, what exactly did the author mean? This is always the correct interpretation. There are no hidden messages as some like to believe.

Also, there are hundreds of these predictions, many quite specific. What about this one? "I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land." This was written more than two millenia before Israel became a sovereign nation in 1948. If you want one yet to occur, here's an intriguing one: "On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south." Modern science has revealed a fault running east to west at this very place.

 

[cjd]

..... what exactly did the author mean? This is always the correct interpretation.

Well that's exactly my point - he was so vague and mystical about it that it is impossible to know - which leaves everyone at liberty to form their own conclusions. It has zero objective worth.

If I was a prophet and really could foresee the future I would be as exact as possible. If I was Daniel I would have said:

"In 180,000 days a Jew called Jesus will be born in Bethlehem and he's the Messiah that we're all waiting for. And for those that can't read, there'll be a comet. Tell your friends"

It's not terribly hard is it?

It's the same with miracles. Why are the modern miracles claimed by people like Hedge or the Lourdes pilgrims always debateable? If I was performing a miracle I'd make a double amputee's legs re-grow, bring a corpse back to life or just ascend people into the clouds.

I conclude that the reason these things are ALWAY dubious is because they ARE dubious.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Well that's exactly my point - he was so vague and mystical about it that it is impossible to know - which leaves everyone at liberty to form their own conclusions. It has zero objective worth.

How more exact can you get? In the language and idioms of the time (which it's wrong to compare directly with our language), the writer says "Watch to see who enters the city gate and is cheered as a king exactly 173,880 days after the decree is given to rebuild that city." I wish I could do that!

Also, someone predicted the obscure little town in which he'd be born. Another predicted that his parents would be forced to flee to Egypt. Another predicted he'd make the blind to see. Another specified the type of animal he'd ride into the city. Another predicted the place and form of his death. Another predicted they'd cast lots for his clothes. Another predicted he'd be given vinegar to drink while dying. Another predicted his legs would not be broken. These and more were written well in advance. How many more do you want?

By the way, it's far more impressive when the predictions are given by different people living in different times and places - which is the case. The result is a composite statement as detailed as you suggested, in fact more so, yet it's not the fluke of one man's imagination.

It's not terribly hard is it?

Would you like to try?

 

[cjd]

How more exact can you get? In the language and idioms of the time (which it's wrong to compare directly with our language), the writer says "Watch to see who enters the city gate and is cheered as a king exactly 173,880 days after the decree is given to rebuild that city." I wish I could do that!

Now you are deliberately obfuscating. If he had actually said "173,880 days" there would be no requirement for debate or your convoluted mathematical formulae. But of course he didn't, he came up with a load of disputatable stuff that is still being fought over thousands of years later.

Also, someone predicted the obscure little town in which he'd be born. Another predicted that his parents would be forced to flee to Egypt. Another predicted he'd make the blind to see. Another specified the type of animal he'd ride into the city. Another predicted the place and form of his death. Another predicted they'd cast lots for his clothes. Another predicted he'd be given vinegar to drink while dying. Another predicted his legs would not be broken. These and more were written well in advance. How many more do you want?

Just like the debate about evolution; that's the wrong methodology (although I'm always happy to google away - please pick your most convincing example). The fact that there are thousands of would be prophets trying to make a living out of prophecy thousands of years ago and, that when picking over what they might have said in a fogotten language ,you can find a meaning that fits your position today, is totally irrelevant.

It only requires one sh*t hot prophecy to prove it right. A prophecy or miracle that was non-disputable and fully witnessed would have the world believing in it. If I took out a one page article in the Times saying that in 5 days time at 12.06 GMT an earthquake would destroy London and it happened people would believe me. No prophet ever does that.

The process of picking prophecies that fit events in hindsight is a total nonsense because shoehorning is such a simple trap to fall into (eg Nostradmus and even the laughable Bible Code).

[The equivalent for evolution would be to find a fossil in the wrong period - I'd have to look up the quote but it's something like if we found a fossilised dog in the pre-Cambrian it would destroy the theory of evolution at a stroke. The fact is, we never have found a fossil out of sequence in the fossil record.]

 

[Cornish Steve]

Now you are deliberately obfuscating. If he had actually said "173,880 days" there would be no requirement for debate or your convoluted mathematical formulae. But of course he didn't,

No, he didn't. He used the language and idioms of his time: "Seven sets of seven plus sixty-two sets of seven will pass". If a decade means ten years, let me invent a new word: a septade, which is seven years. So, explaining more closely in our language, he wrote "Seven septades plus sixty-two septades will pass." The independent observer could only come to one rational interpretation, wouldn't you agree?

By the way, septade was a known measure of time because the law of this people had something called years of jubilee - which occurred after seven times seven years.

The fact that there are thousands of would be prophets trying to make a living out of prophecy thousands of years ago and, that when picking over what they might have said in a fogotten language ,you can find a meaning that fits your position today, is totally irrelevant.

I'm not inventing anything. I'm trying to understand exactly what the author meant. It's pretty clear to me, I must confess.

It only requires one sh*t hot prophecy to prove it right.

My criterion is far stricter than that. Of the hundreds of prophecies, just one of them being wrong would make me an immediate sceptic.

A prophecy or miracle that was non-disputable and fully witnessed would have the world believing in it. If I took out a one page article in the Times saying that in 5 days time at 12.06 GMT an earthquake would destroy London and it happened people would believe me. No prophet ever does that.

Well, I quoted one above that relates to the known rock fault under Jerusalem. Do you count that? It couldn't have been known about at the time of writing.

If you want another that's yet to happen, try this one for size: "In that day, when my people Israel are living in safety, will you not take notice of it? You will come from your place in the far north, you and many nations with you... You will advance against my people Israel like a cloud that covers the land." Let me not put thoughts in your mind. How would you interpret "place in the far north"? There's no need to speculate; it's a case of careful analysis.

The equivalent for evolution would be to find a fossil in the wrong period - I'd have to look up the quote but it's something like if we found a fossilised dog in the pre-Cambrian it would destroy the theory of evolution at a stroke.

You mean like the fossil of dinosaur and human footprints that were found together years ago? Or what about the examples where the layers are reversed? As always, scientists have given reasonable explanations, but that's fitting the facts to the model and not vice versa.

PS - I think we're the only two people still reading this thread.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

<Also, someone predicted the obscure little town in which he'd be born.>

Mayor of Bethlehem: "Right people. Today is the day and this is the place. Watch out for people entering this city on donkeys. If you see any pregnant women, give me a shout."

Also, Mary and Joseph could have had their own plans about the predicted event.

<Another predicted that his parents would be forced to flee to Egypt.>

He was a famous magician with a solid reputation. He told them they should flee, so they trusted him, and did, and thus Christ maintains his reputation.

<Another predicted he'd make the blind to see.>

Easily staged. I could set this up myself down our town centre! Okay it might take a little time so that witnesses will be convinced the person really is blind, and whether people would believe it or not is another matter.

<Another specified the type of animal he'd ride into the city.>

Mayor of Bethlehem: "Right people. Today is the day and this is the place. Watch out for people entering this city on donkeys."

<Another predicted the place and form of his death.>

Could have been done deliberately by the Romans in order to take the piss. (They did this with the crown of thorns!) Politicians have always been politic. They could have been demonstrating that they had great power by killing a foreign, almighty God. Crucifying him in the way predicted would have reinforced his followers' belief that this was indeed the Messiah. What better way could you think of to try to cause his followers to believe in the power of Rome?

<Another predicted they'd cast lots for his clothes.>

Could have been done deliberately by the Romans...

<Another predicted he'd be given vinegar to drink while dying.>

Could have been done deliberately by the Romans..

<Another predicted his legs would not be broken.>

I hereby predict that the legs of 99.99999999999999...% of the current world population of all animals with legs will not have their legs broken when they die!

<These and more were written well in advance. How many more do you want?>

Yaaawn. Keep 'em coming Steve!

Seriously though, I can understand why some people find this bible thingy interesting, but if I didn't know any better, I would say it is for the same reasons that I find the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings highly entertaining.

Dave

 

[Cornish Steve]

Seriously though, I can understand why some people find this bible thingy interesting, but if I didn't know any better, I would say it is for the same reasons that I find the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings highly entertaining.

But there's a big difference. Ronald Tolkien used his childhood fascination with words to create for England a mythology. It's indeed a wonderful series of books, and I really enjoyed the recent trilogy.

Tolkien, though, didn't claim to be God. Jesus did, and that's either the most ridiculous thing to do or it's something to take note of. Much of his life was predicted in advance, he caused a stir by performing miracles, and he performed the one feat that no mere man could do: come back to life. Maybe we should look at the evidence for that. Thousands of supposed eye-witnesses at the time believed in it so strongly that they willingly accepted death. This is well documented by many sources.

I know there's no way to prove beyond any doubt that there's a creator and that he once walked upon the Earth; if there was zero doubt, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Still, there is considerable evidence if we choose to look. It's compelling to me.

 

[Coding Monkey]

There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Dave wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steve wrote:
<Another predicted the place and form of his death.>

Could have been done deliberately by the Romans in order to take the piss. (They did this with the crown of thorns!) Politicians have always been politic. They could have been demonstrating that they had great power by killing a foreign, almighty God. Crucifying him in the way predicted would have reinforced his followers' belief that this was indeed the Messiah. What better way could you think of to try to cause his followers to believe in the power of Rome?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Actually this is a very interesting point which I have never thought about before. I reckon that it is highly likely that the Roman leaders were playing along with this prophecy because surely they would have had their scholars read the prophecies. If the Romans wanted to disprove that Christ was the son of God, they must have known that all they had to do was kill him in a different way than that predicted.

The only logical alternative is to assume that the Romans knew nothing about the predictions. Now that would be ridiculous!

The more I think about these things, the more ridiculous they sound.

Dave

 

[SillyJokes]

I love this thread.

I find the prophesy thing very interesting, not least because it isn't evolution.

Predictably, I'm a sceptic. Ha. I don't believe in anything I haven't got a bit of evidence for. That includes astronomy, colour therapy and it's ilk, ghosts and telling the future.

What I would like to know is...are there many prophesies that don't come true? Are they also well documented? If there were thousands of prophesies and a couple of dozen came true, could it be mere coincidence with a little showhorning help?

People today love their prophesies, I think people then liked the idea too. Maybe they were well known, talked about a lot and so it would be reasonably easy to fulfill them. Particularly things like arriving on a certain day on a common place animal.

Lucky for Jesus the prophesy involved a donkey, which he just nicked off someone, rather than a gold comparisoned elephant which might have been a bit harder to come by.

Incidentally it has been implied that people died for Jesus because he was the son of God. I'm sure they did beleive this and this is why they died. But in recent years people have died on the command of charismatic men like David Kursh and that bunch that wanted to hitch a ride on the comet.

People from other religions die for their beliefs too. All the time. It doesn't take the son of God to get people to lay down their lives.

 

[Cornish Steve]

What I would like to know is...are there many prophesies that don't come true? Are they also well documented? If there were thousands of prophesies and a couple of dozen came true, could it be mere coincidence with a little showhorning help?

People come out with predictions all the time. How many fanatics have looked like fools, standing around waiting for something to happen on a specific date? At least they had the guts to predict ahead of time, and not shoe-horn, but it shows how important it is to really understand the subject. Again, even if one prophecy does not come true as stated, that's enough to undermine the credibility of the source.

Lucky for Jesus the prophesy involved a donkey, which he just nicked off someone, rather than a gold comparisoned elephant which might have been a bit harder to come by.

Lucky for you too. Imagine if your little ones needed an elephant in their nativity play.

Incidentally it has been implied that people died for Jesus because he was the son of God. I'm sure they did beleive this and this is why they died. But in recent years people have died on the command of charismatic men like David Kursh and that bunch that wanted to hitch a ride on the comet.

This is a very valid point. What usually happens, though, is that movements fall apart when the leader is killed. In fact, at the time, one of the leading rabbis of the day suggested exactly this after Jesus' death. I'm quoting:

"But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honoured by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

 

[Cornish Steve]

If the Romans wanted to disprove that Christ was the son of God, they must have known that all they had to do was kill him in a different way than that predicted.

It's even more ironic than that. Romans actually invented this form of death, one of the cruelest ever devised by man.

The more I think about these things, the more ridiculous they sound.

Trust me, Dave. The more you look into these things, and discard all the speculation and hand-waving, the more intriguing they become. The key, I find, is really trying to get at the original meaning. Denominations and sects have come about because humankind just loves to reinterpret and invent new systems - maybe because it makes us feel important. Forget all that and look at the original words honestly. They are quite amazing at times.

 

[cjd]

My criterion is far stricter than that. Of the hundreds of prophecies, just one of them being wrong would make me an immediate sceptic.

Should I start with your list or find my own? [clue: my search term "false prophets" came up with 1,350,000 results]

btw - what's your problem with footprints and dinasaurs?

 

[Cornish Steve]

Should I start with your list or find my own? [clue: my search term "false prophets" came up with 1,350,000 results]

Yup. So that's rather a lot of careful validation! If a supposed prophet gets it wrong just once, they are out of there (think Monty Python and the Holy Grail)! This is why I am impressed that details prophesied in the bible come about with 100 percent accuracy - although in fairness there remain a number yet to occur.

btw - what's your problem with footprints and dinasaurs?

Maybe I'm displaying my ignorance, but I thought that humans and dinosaurs lived in different eras.

 

[cjd]

100% accuracy of the bible? Yikes, old or New Testament? No matter, give me your list.

I thought even creationists had given up on the Poluxy river dinasaur stuff if that's what you mean. (Creationists generally do mean this because it's in their rebuttal literature which very few of them have ever bothered to research themselves so don't know that it's a defunct argument.)

The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by both dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight. In the same way, the distances between footfalls are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths. The creationist explanation for how the two sets of tracks are found together does not quite match the scenario they propose. The creatures who made the tracks were supposed to have been running from the rising waters of the Great Flood. However, there are several thousand feet of water-deposited sedimentary rock beneath the footprints and several thousand feet on top of them, both of which ought, according to creationist geology, have been deposited by the waters of the same Flood the creatures were fleeing. To have produced this sequence, the base rock would have to be deposited by an early ‘high tide’ of the Flood, which then receded long enough for the dinosaurs and humans to run across the valley and leave their tracks, subsequently covering them with a tidal wave that sealed them with a layer of mud, without damaging them. This sequence would have been repeated on numerous occasions, as the dinosaur and ‘human’ tracks appear in a number of superimposed layers. The biggest problem with this, of course, is the question of where the creatures had remained hidden during the early stages of the universal flood if they were rushing to higher land later. But logic never got in the way of religious dogma…
The tracks were investigated by Glen Kuban in the 1980s, whose investigations showed that the tracks do not show human footprints.

And then of course there's the problem that the world only came into existence 6,000 years ago which kind of rules out dinasaurs altogether. But never mind that either as neither of us think that stuff is worth a second glance.

The fact remains that a single fossil out of sequence - I repeat - a single fossil out of sequence - would disprove evolution. Out of the tens of thousands of fossil finds none ever has and you can bet your life everybody is looking for one.

And a single uncontroversial miracle or prophecy would disprove the physical laws of the natural world. And you can bet you're life everybody is looking for one but no one ever has.

Strange isn't it? What would a rational mind deduce from those two facts?

 

[Arcadian]

I'm a tad reluctant to jump in on this as it's a very long thread and I'm not even sure I've followed all of it.

Dinosaurs, evolution, prophecies in the wrong order etc etc. None of these actually matter to someone who truly believes in God and in His son Jesus Christ as their saviour. I'm a rational person with a rational, highly trained logical mind. Does my belief mean that I have irrational momemts or that I'm completely irrational?

Time and time again someone comes up with "proof" that God doesn't exist. I usually don't even look up from my coffee cup. I might read it, listen to it but you could show me whatever proof you like and my faith will be stronger than that proof. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. It's very difficult to explain. Maybe scientists often believe in God because they see the glory of God in so many ways.

 

[Cornish Steve]

And then of course there's the problem that the world only came into existence 6,000 years ago which kind of rules out dinasaurs altogether. But never mind that either as neither of us think that stuff is worth a second glance.

Now, now. You're trying to imply that I believe the Earth is young and not old. I've stated clearly before that I suspect it is old, but I'm not willing to say definitively either way because the evidence is not sufficiently compelling. We have to assume too many things for any firm conclusion to be justified. Because of this, I refuse to dismiss quite so readily either view.

The fact remains that a single fossil out of sequence - I repeat - a single fossil out of sequence - would disprove evolution. Out of the tens of thousands of fossil finds none ever has and you can bet your life everybody is looking for one.

You're risking it! This type of definitive statement is dangerous because awkward new facts have an irritating habit of emerging with regularity. In the video, the professor took advantage of an unwise statement by his opponents about irreducible complexity, namely that no combination of elements could serve a useful purpose. They didn't have to claim anything as extreme. By creating their own Maginot line, however, they allowed their entire model to come under attack when others crossed that line with credibile evidence. In the same way, there's no need for you to make such an extreme claim on behalf of evolution. Its value as a theory is not diminished if someone finds a fossil out of sequence. (Geez - now I'm arguing for the value of evolution! )

The creatures who made the tracks were supposed to have been running from the rising waters of the Great Flood. However, there are several thousand feet of water-deposited sedimentary rock beneath the footprints and several thousand feet on top of them, both of which ought, according to creationist geology, have been deposited by the waters of the same Flood the creatures were fleeing. To have produced this sequence, the base rock would have to be deposited by an early 'high tide' of the Flood, which then receded long enough for the dinosaurs and humans to run across the valley and leave their tracks, subsequently covering them with a tidal wave that sealed them with a layer of mud, without damaging them.

Most ancient civilisations handed down stories about a flood. I challenge you to read them. One of the keys is that water came from under the earth as much as from above it. This puts a very different complexion on the challenge above. Let me quote from one version: "all the springs of the great deep burst forth and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."

And a single uncontroversial miracle or prophecy would disprove the physical laws of the natural world. And you can bet you're life everybody is looking for one but no one ever has.

A miracle does not always undermine physical laws - although some examples have been noted. (Have you seen any of the remarkable evidence of Egyptian chariot wheels in the middle of the Red Sea opposite Saudi Arabia, for example?) Timing and defeating statistical odds seem to be more the norm. On the other hand, aren't you impressed by someone's claim to have come back from the dead? I find that to be the most impressive miracle of all. It implies to me that the person has power over life and death. If there's even a remote possibility of that being true, it's worth our attention!

 

[Arcadian]

A miracle does not always undermine physical laws - although some examples have been noted. (Have you seen any of the remarkable evidence of Egyptian chariot wheels in the middle of the Red Sea opposite Saudi Arabia, for example?) Timing and defeating statistical odds seems to be more the norm. On the other hand, aren't you impressed by someone's claim to have come back from the dead? I find that to be the most impressive miracle of all. It implies to me that the person has power over life and death. If there's even a possibility of that being true, it's worth our attention!

The Dead Sea and the Red Sea are part of a rift valley that is lower now that it was a few thousand years ago. It's perfectly possible that the sea bed was uncovered at a neap tide and people living in the area don't seem to have a problem believing this, whatever their religious beliefs. This was explained to me by a waiter in Eilat's Pizza Hut (a geology student during the day time). But who controls the moon and the tides ...?

I'd like to hear the non-believers' views on Jesus rising from the dead. Surely if he didn't it would have been easy to prove that he didn't.

 

[cjd]

......they allowed their entire model to come under attack when others crossed that line with credibile evidence. In the same way, there's no need for you to make such an extreme claim on behalf of evolution. Its value as a theory is not diminished if someone finds a fossil out of sequence.

You need to make an attempt to grasp this because it's a cornerstone of evolutionary theory and you obviously haven't quite got it yet.

Evolution relies on modification (genetic change in a species) and decent (the reproduction of that change in the offspring of the organism if it has a survival value).

This process creates a continual stream of change in organisms so you see the gradual development from one form to another and branches dying out altogether, stalling or morphing into several distinct species.

Read this paragraph about the evolution of the modern dog (Canis). You don't need to accept or believe any of it - I'm just trying to take you to my point about fossils out of place.

The dog traces its ancestry back to a five-toed, weasellike animal called Miacis, which lived in the Eocene epoch about 40 million years ago. This animal was the forebear of the cat, raccoon, bear, hyena, and civet, as well as of the wolf, fox, jackal, and dog.Miacis, undoubtedly a tree climber, probably also lived in a den. Like all den dwellers, it no doubt left its quarters for toilet functions so that the den would remain clean. The ease of housebreaking a modern dog probably harks back to this instinct. Next in evolutionary line from Miacis was an Oligocene animal called Cynodictis, which somewhat resembled the modern dog. Cynodictis lived about 20 million years ago. Its fifth toe, which would eventually become the dewclaw, showed signs of shortening. Cynodictis had 42 teeth and probably the anal glands that a dog still has. Cynodictis was also developing feet and toes suited for running. The modern civet--a "living fossil"--resembles that ancient animal (see Civet). After a few more intermediate stages the evolution of the dog moved on to the extremely doglike animal called Tomarctus, which lived about 10 million years ago during the late Miocene epoch. Tomarctus probably developed the strong social instincts that still prevail in the dog and most of its close relatives, excluding the fox. The Canidae, the family that includes the true dog and its close relatives, stemmed directly from Tomarctus. Members of the genus Canis--which includes the dog, wolf, and jackal--developed into their present form about a million years ago during the Pleistocene epoch.

So, if anyone found a fossil dog, canis, which occur in the pleistocene era along side miacis which occur in the Eocene era they have proved conclusively that evolution could not possibly have created it and the whole edifice falls.

[It's like finding a child in the same coffin as his great, great grandfather - impossible unless someone went back in time to do it]

It really is a simple as that.

 

[dagr]

I'd like to hear the non-believers' views on Jesus rising from the dead. Surely if he didn't it would have been easy to prove that he didn't.

Sorry to hark back to that BBC programme where the priest talked about the 3 missing gospels, but in one of them it definitely stated how Jesus did NOT die. It didn't say he wasn't crucifed, but that he felt no pain and could not be killed (or something to those words) - a true god on earth.

For me, there are many possible explanations, specially in the days before EEGs and other medical tools where it wasn't uncommon for people who were not "clinically dead" to be buried alive. However, if a believer has faith in the ressurection, then I wont rain on their parade.


(Boy, I've missed a bit of what's been going on here).

 

[Top Hat]

I'd like to hear the non-believers' views on Jesus rising from the dead. Surely if he didn't it would have been easy to prove that he didn't.

I would say he didn't, it's up to the believers to prove he did (and proving either is almost certainly impossible).

If I was a historian writing about any of the contemporaries of Jesus, Julius Cesar, Augustus etc, I would have to look at the written evidence with a critical skeptical eye, was it true or propaganda?

The same has to be true of any writings about Jesus, it was written by followers just how reliable can it be? IMHO not very.

 

[dagr]

I would say he didn't, it's up to the believers to prove he did (and proving either is almost certainly impossible).

....

Although an atheist myself, I disagree with that statement. Believers have nothing to prove, that's why it's called faith. Similarly, that's why I also feel strongly that you can't bring religious beliefs into science. Even if the science and understanding is not complete, the part that is not complete cannot be filled with faith-based belief or speculation - it has to remain "unkown" or "undefined" within the scientific realm.

For me, science and religion can co-exist, just as long as they keep to their own domains. Science has absolutely nothing to say about God (either proving or disproving), and religion has no foundation in science.

 

[cjd]

For me, science and religion can co-exist, just as long as they keep to their own domains. Science has absolutely nothing to say about God (either proving or disproving), and religion has no foundation in science.

I kind of agree. The problem is that religious people often don't have just blind faith, they also have reason and they try to use factual argument to justify their faith.

So instead of treating the statement 'On the 3rd day Jesus rose again from the dead and ascended into heaven' as a piece of poetry or a metaphor or just a nice story they have to say it's a literal fact.

And fact is the realm of science. Because if he really did die and come back to life and he really did ascend into the clouds unassisted, the natural laws of science have been broken and science fails.

So science must ask for evidence to confirm and test the facts. And in this case there is precious little except heresay so science loses interest.

 

[cjd]

A miracle does not always undermine physical laws - although some examples have been noted.

miracle noun 1 an act or event that breaks the laws of nature, and is therefore thought to be caused by the intervention of God or another supernatural force. 2 colloq a fortunate happening; an amazing event • It's a miracle you called round when you did. 3 colloq an amazing example or achievement of something • a miracle of modern technology. Also as adj • miracle drug. work miracles to have an amazingly positive effect • She's worked miracles on him - he hardly drinks at all now.
ETYMOLOGY: 12c: French, from Latin miraculum, from mirari to be amazed at.

ref Chamber's Dictionary
http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/cha...ry=miracle&title=21st&sourceid=Mozilla-search

 

[Cornish Steve]

Believers have nothing to prove, that's why it's called faith. Similarly, that's why I also feel strongly that you can't bring religious beliefs into science.

You can count on me to disagree, although not completely!

I'm not going to accept ancient stories about someone coming back to life after being dead without there being a degree of credibility. Sure, we can't prove absolutely that it happened, but we can, as always, look at the available evidence.

1) Prophecies state time and again that this person would physically die and then be brought back to life.

2) Jesus himself told people in advance what would happen.

3) He had raised other people from the dead.

4) The Romans knew how to kill people. No one survived crucifixion.

5) To quell the thousands who believed Jesus was resurrected, all that was needed was for the authorities to produce a body - but they couldn't.

6) The Roman soldiers guarding the tomb may have paid with their lives for the body to go missing.

7) The factual details are quite precise; for example, both blood and 'water' issued from his side when it was pierced by a sword (very important medically).

8) Other events occurred at the precise moment of his death: an earthquake, total darkness, and the heavy veil in the temple was torn in two.

9) The description of the placement of the headwrap in the tomb is very important because it reveals how resurrection happened.

10) Thousands of eye-witnesses went to their death because they believed so strongly.

11) Persecution and death didn't stop these followers; their numbers actually grew rapidly. All but one of the disciples, for example, were killed.

12) The resurrection was proof that Jesus was who he claimed to be. In other words, there was a hugely important meaning to it.

Throughout the centuries, many have tried to disprove the story - from the authors of so-called false gospels to those looking through the eye of today's medical knowledge. No body has ever been found, and the available evidence has stood up to ever-increasing scrutiny.

Yes, there is an element of faith, but it's not blind faith. Nothing in the facts contradicts it.

Again, I urge each of us (myself included) to examine the facts and not just listen to popular opinion. A number of interesting and objective books have been written about the medical aspects of the case.

 

[dagr]

Steve, I understand your rationale and I never said that believers had blind faith (although some may do, I suppose). But the points you raise cannot be scientifically proven or disproven, and hence cannot be used within science.

Science may be used to affirm the evidence further, or cast more doubt on it, but it remains just evidence (or speculation accordingly), not facts. If people chose to believe them as facts, then that's fine by me, but they are not scientific facts.

 

[cjd]

The evidence that Jesus actually lived is pretty good (though not undisputed) and that he was crucified and died is also good (but also disputed).

But it's not a miracle that he died. The miracle only happens when he pops back into life. No-one claims to have witnessed that. They just found an empty tomb.

The evidence of the resurrection is the word of his followers who claim to have seen him, as written in the bible stories 45 to 140 years later. The bible is interpreted differently depending on the prior persuation and beliefs of the reader. This is an interesting read:

After crucifixion, bodies would have normally been exhibited for some time as a warning to the myriad of other antagonists in Jerulasem; but as a result of the upcoming Passover, Pilate is said to have ordered the speeding up of the death by breaking of the legs. After being let down, their bodies were usually fed to the dogs.[16] Because of this context, some scholars do not consider the burial events historical,[17] while others consider the burial by Joseph of Aramathia found in Mark to be for the most part historically probable.[18]
Mark, possibly the earliest of the Gospels, in the two oldest manuscripts (4th century), breaks off at 16:8 stating that the women came and found an empty tomb "and they said nothing to anyone because they were afraid." (Mk 16:8) The passages stating that he had been seen by Mary Magdelene and the eleven disciples (Mk 16:9-20) was only added later, and the hypothetical original ending lost. Scholars have put forth a number of theories concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus. The Jesus Seminar concluded: "in the view of the Seminar, he did not rise bodily from the dead; the resurrection is based instead on visionary experiences of Peter, Paul, and Mary."[19] Other scholars posit hypothetical scenarios to explain the resurrection appearances through natural means, such as the group of theories known as the swoon hypothesis, with common variants including Jesus being drugged, having fainted, or undergoing a near-death experience, according to which Jesus is revived later. However, most scholars believe supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, and thus consider the resurrection non-historical but instead a philosophical or theological question.[20] What is agreed upon is that Jesus' followers at the very least claimed they saw the risen Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Because it is not possible to find anything conclusive in any of it, the only rational approach is to say that a miracle did not occur and the laws of nature still apply.

In other words it's a matter of faith not fact whether you believe the resurrection part of the story or not - it can't be proven either way.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Steve, I understand your rationale and I never said that believers had blind faith (although some may do, I suppose). But the points you raise cannot be scientifically proven or disproven, and hence cannot be used within science.

Science may be used to affirm the evidence further, or cast more doubt on it, but it remains just evidence (or speculation accordingly), not facts. If people chose to believe them as facts, then that's fine by me, but they are not scientific facts.

You're quite right, and I don't dispute the points you make.

It is important we test the available evidence because if it disproves the story, the story becomes fable. Some evidence is circumstantial, namely the response of followers at the time: They went into hiding and into denial at his death but then nothing stopped them three days later. But, we cannot prove the story to be true. We can only try to disprove it.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Again, apply the principles of science, of modern medicine, of detection, and of common sense.

After crucifixion, bodies would have normally been exhibited for some time as a warning to the myriad of other antagonists in Jerulasem; but as a result of the upcoming Passover, Pilate is said to have ordered the speeding up of the death by breaking of the legs.

Yes. There were two holy days that week, everyone was in town for the Passover, and the local leaders (not the Roman authorities) had passed sentence and pushed for the execution. The Romans were, in effect, doing their bidding. (This, by the way, is why the prophecy about legs not being broken has meaning and why the probability is not as low as Dave claims.)

After being let down, their bodies were usually fed to the dogs. Because of this context, some scholars do not consider the burial events historical, while others consider the burial by Joseph of Aramathia found in Mark to be for the most part historically probable.

Scholars can speculate about dogs as much as they like, but it's speculation and in no way contradicts the written account. We're looking for firm evidence to refute, not arm-waving.

Mark, possibly the earliest of the Gospels, in the two oldest manuscripts (4th century), breaks off at 16:8 stating that the women came and found an empty tomb "and they said nothing to anyone because they were afraid." (Mk 16:8) The passages stating that he had been seen by Mary Magdelene and the eleven disciples (Mk 16:9-20) was only added later, and the hypothetical original ending lost.

I'm not sure what is meant by "hypothetical ending", but ancient historians have only so many manuscripts to work from. Often, there are omissions in some version, but the versions do not contradict one another (which is what is important). If the ending had changed, we should be concerned, but this isn't the case.

Scholars have put forth a number of theories concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus. The Jesus Seminar concluded: "in the view of the Seminar, he did not rise bodily from the dead; the resurrection is based instead on visionary experiences of Peter, Paul, and Mary."

I'm sorry, but I'm quite familiar with the Jesus Project and it's laughable. It was largely a bunch of avowed sceptics doing some intellectual arm-waving - based on very little but their own opinions. I given little weight to their machinations.

Other scholars posit hypothetical scenarios to explain the resurrection appearances through natural means, such as the group of theories known as the swoon hypothesis, with common variants including Jesus being drugged, having fainted, or undergoing a near-death experience, according to which Jesus is revived later.

1) The Romans would never have allowed that.
2) The local leaders wanted to be sure he was dead.
3) The medical evidence (blood and water) proves he was dead.
4) The disciples started denying their involvement and went into hiding.
5) Thousands of people would not die for a person who just swooned.

However, most scholars believe supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, and thus consider the resurrection non-historical but instead a philosophical or theological question.

The first part of the statement is absolutely true: We cannot prove; we can only try to disprove. To conclude, though, that the resurrection is not historical is to be very disingenous. It's either likely or not likely - just as Julius Caesar's words "Veni Vidi Vici" are either likely or not likely. To say something is not historical is to imply that it didn't happen, and that's not right.

What is agreed upon is that Jesus' followers at the very least claimed they saw the risen Jesus.

And were changed people, and mostly died for their belief, and suffered incredible cruelty and ostracism for believing, and yet had a strong sense of community around what they knew.

Given the passage of time, it takes more faith today than it did in the past. Thank goodness, though, for authentic documents and for the facts that we do have. Now I'm sitting in your boat: The 'theory' is valid until disproven. Just one contradictory fact would destroy the whole edifice.

 

[cjd]

Now I'm sitting in your boat: The 'theory' is valid until disproven. Just one contradictory fact would destroy the whole edifice.

If you must use scientific language when discussing faith based evidence then I insist you at least use the correct terminology ;-)

The resurrection (the actual miracle) wasn't even witnessed so is at very best a hypothesis awaiting some facts inorder to determine a theory.

As we're not going to ever find any testable facts to push it up the ranking to the status of a credible theory, we can take it no further. Believe or disbelieve it up to you.

A hypothesis is an idea or proposition that can be tested by observations or experiments, about the natural world. In order to be considered scientific, hypotheses are subject to scientific evaluation and must be falsifiable, which means that they are worded in such a way that they can be proven to be incorrect.

[Now I'm just getting arsy, I know, sorry]

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But, we cannot prove the story to be true. We can only try to disprove it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How can we disprove something so uncertain and steeped in history? How can we disprove something which we are not certain is even possible in the first place?

Steve. How can we possibly start with a tenet which contradicts undeniable natural laws, and then set about disproving it? This is clearly impossible and would take one real loon to attempt it! You have stated that your standards for scientific theories are very high, and I assume by this you mean that statistical confidence levels yielded by mathematics are as close to certain as possible within the constraints of the subject matter. As cjd has already said, the onus is on those who assert the miracles as facts to prove them, not on those non-believers, who trust their senses and intellects, to disprove them.

Almost invariably it is the indoctrinated believers who are trying to convince the non-believers of the existence of God, and that fortune-telling and miracles are real phenomena. Many believers are even willing to kill non-believers if they don't subscribe to their ridiculous ideas. Proper science is fully transparent and willingly submits itself to open debate and development of its theories. By definition it has no room for dogma. You have absolutely no need to advise true scientific minds to question their existing theories because that is fundamental to the way in which they think anyway. Indeed, a proper scientist will do as much as he can to try and disprove his own findings before publishing them. I certainly would because it can be very embarrassing to be picked up on some points. Non-believers don't give a damn whether believers agree with them or not, so they certainly will not want to kill them.

It is also generally true that non-believers tend not to spend too much time on trying to convince believers that some of their beliefs are ridiculous. They will usually give up after a short while because it would seem they are more succeptible to sore heads and holes in their walls. Then they will walk away chuckling and saying under their breaths: "forgive them father, for they know not how silly they sound"!

You must be able to scientifically prove that miracles can occur by actually reproducing them. You cannot prove one unknown by reference to another unknown, or as a last resort when all is lost, simply fall back on faith, to convince non-believers of such universally shattering and mind-blowing ideas.

Dave

 

[creospace]

I think miracles happen everyday and we just let them pass by, the birth of a new born baby?

A single mother who manages to bring a family of 3 kids and get them through school?

 

[Arcadian]

You must be able to scientifically prove that miracles can occur by actually reproducing them.
Dave

That bit sounds a bit barmy if I may say so. We're talking about miracles performed by God and yet you're saying if man can't do the same it didn't happen?

In this science v.theology debate how do the scientists explain how other scientists believe? Are the believers some kind of lesser scientist or do they put their scientific principles to one side in order to believe?

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Sharon wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That bit sounds a bit barmy if I may say so. We're talking about miracles performed by God
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How can you justify one uncertainty (miracles) by reference to another uncertainty (God)?

If you've read the whole thread, then you will know that I also believe in God, it's just not the same one as you believe in, and is not capable of performing the miracles that your God is capable of. However, nobody in their right minds can deny the existence of my God, whereas, as indicated by the very existence of this thread, your God's existence can certainly be disputed!

Dave

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Gary wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think miracles happen everyday and we just let them pass by, the birth of a new born baby?

A single mother who manages to bring a family of 3 kids and get them through school?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

These are exactly the type of "miracles" which can be performed by my God too!

Dave

 

[Arcadian]

I was just about to ask what your God does, Dave! Surely a God by most definitions is omnipotent and can perform miracles or indeed do anything? Forgive me if you've covered that several pages back. We need someone to provide an executive summary now.