|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
And there you go lying again. I did not call anyone a liar in that post, I merely pointed out the Morrison was certainly not critically examining the Gospel accounts, as a lawyer might be expected to do. Which is a fact obvious to anyone who bothers to read Morrison's writing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
ICANT writes: "I believe in a supernatural God. Everybody says why? Scientific fact: The universe has not always existed.Scientific fact: The universe had a beginning to exist. Scientific fact: The universe exists. Well, 1 out of 3 ain't bad; out of 2, really, since your second point merely restates your initial unwarranted assumption. Could you tell me what scientific work demonstrated that the universe has not always existed? You've stated it as a scientific fact (a warning flag for anyone who understands the least bit about science), so there must be a plethora of evidence to support your statement, taking mere seconds on Google. I guess I have to dock you on the third point as well, unless you can demonstrate a scientific consensus on just what comprises the universe and what it means for it to exist. So maybe 0.3 out of 2.0. You're just looking around, saying, "Whoa! Look at me, I exist! There must be a god!" People did that long before any notion of science. You're whistling in the dark, abusing science to justify the same conclusions drawn by primitive peoples.
I have my mind made up. More than made up--tarted up and rouged with the trappings of pseudo-science, trolling the boardwalk for suckers..."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And there you go lying again. I did not call anyone a liar in that post, I merely pointed out the Morrison was certainly not critically examining the Gospel accounts, as a lawyer might be expected to do. Which is a fact obvious to anyone who bothers to read Morrison's writing. ha ha, of course I'm lying, everybody but you lies. The gospel writers were "partisan" therefore we can't trust what they wrote, and Morrison can't be trusted because he appears to take their accounts as truthful. That's really all you're saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Again you misrepresent my point.
The Gospel writers WERE partisan, as should be obvious and therefore their accounts should not be uncritically accepted, especially for events they certainly did not witness. Morrison does uncritically accept the Gospel accounts as reliable (except maybe for the miracles), therefore he is not investigating them as a lawyer would be expected to do. None of this is in any way objectionable or false or accuses anyone of lying
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Pressie,
Pressie writes: ICANT writes:
But the only truthful answer is "We don't Know what existed at T=0".ICANT writes: It had to be a supernatural power ICANT writes: Before the universe there would have been an absence of anything. Let us know when the three ICANT's reach consensus. The truthful answer, "We don't know" is Cavediver's and Son Goku's answer to what existed at T=0. This is not my answer or position. If you disagree with their answer give yours. The answer, "it had to be a supernatural power" is my position and my answer to what existed at T=0. If you disagree with my answer then give yours. The statement, "Before the universe there would have been an absence of anything" is the only conclusion that can be reached if there is no supernatural power. If you disagree with that statement then give your conclusion. I hope this clears it up for you as to what my position is. My statement stands: Scientific fact: The universe has not always existed.Scientific fact: The universe had a beginning to exist. Scientific fact: The universe exists. Since the universe exists there had to be a supernatural power that is outside of the universe to provide the energy required to produce the mass and energy of the universe. Energy and mass can not be created or destroyed is a law of physics. Which would require a supernatural power to supply the energy and mass required to produce the universe as it is known. I call that supernatural power God. If you have an alternative to a supernatural power please present it. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Pressie,
Pressie writes: I take it that you write that scientists are the people who can't make their minds up. How do you reach that assumption if you keep my words in context? I am talking about 1 specific thing. What existed at T=0 and what caused there to be something rather than nothing.
Pressie writes: Hope you do know that it's a virtue and not a vice? In the industry I work in (economic geology) scientists change their minds all the time as new evidence comes along. It works. Very, very well. Getting closer to reality all the time. Working in industry where the survival of a company depends on refining methods and procedures is actually science at work. Working with grants, agendas have to be met and appeased to keep the grants coming. Keeping the grants coming is the most important thing. True science has to take a backseat to the most important thing. Now back to the subject at hand. Is there any way the universe can exist without the energy and mass that constitute the present universe being provided by a supernatural power? I see no alternative. Do you have one? God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
"A believer who unquestioningly accepted the Gospels as accurate?" Really?!? How can you so mischaracterize him after skimming his book? I suggest that you read his first chapter if you haven't already done so. Here are some excerpts:
Imagine a lawyer appealing a court decision. Imagine that he submits a document which he identifies as minutes of the trial Suppose that this document is written by partisans of the accused, who were not present for the trial. That's the sort of lawyer Morrison was. At least according to you. Unless you admit that he was writing as an apologist, not a lawyer, a believer who unquestioningly accepted the Gospels as accurate - even when dealing with matters that none of the authors witnessed - you are not honestly presenting Morrison's work.
Frank Morrison writes:
As Morrison said, he started his study as an UNbeliever who questioned the accuracy of the gospel accounts, quite the opposite of a believer who unquestioningly accepted the gospels as accurate! He believed that the gospels were written long after the fact and were unreliable -- a position similar to your own. This is why I recommended that you read his book to see how the evidence convinced him otherwise.
When, as a very young man, I first began seriously to study the life of Christ, I did so with a very definite feeling that, if I may so put it, His history rested on very insecure foundations. If you will carry your mind back in imagination to the late nineties you will find in the prevailing intellectual attitude of that period the key to much of my thought. It is true that the absurd cult that denied even the historical existence of Jesus had ceased to carry weight. But the work of the higher critics -- particularly the German critics -- had succeeded in spreading a prevalent impression among students that the particular form in which the narrative of His life and death had come down to us was unreliable, and that one of the four records was nothing other than a brilliant apologetic written many years, and perhaps many decades, after the first generation had passed away. ... It was about this time -- more for the sake of my own peace of mind than for publication -- that I conceived the idea of writing a short monograph on what seemed to me to be the supremely important and critical phase in the life of Christ -- the last seven days -- though later I came to see that the days immediately succeeding the Crucifixion were quite as crucial. The title I chose was "Jesus, the Last Phase," a conscious reminiscence of a famous historical study by Lord Rosebery. ... It seemed to me that if I could come at the truth why this man died a cruel death at the hands of the Roman power, how He Himself regarded the matter, and especially how He behaved under the test, I should be very near to the true solution of the problem. Such, briefly, was the purpose of the book I had planned. I wanted to take this last phase of the life of Jesus, with all its quick and pulsating drama, its sharp, clear-cut background of antiquity, and its tremendous psychological and human interest -- to strip it of its overgrowth of primitive beliefs and dogmatic suppositions, and to see this supremely great Person as He really was. I need not stay to describe here how, fully ten years later, opportunity came to study the life of Christ as I had long wanted to study it, to investigate the origins of its literature, to some of the evidence at first hand, and to form my own judgment on the problem it presents. I will only say that it effected a revolution in my thought. Things emerged from old-world story that previously I should have thought impossible Slowly but very definitely the conviction grew the drama of those unforgettable weeks of human history stranger and deeper than it seemed. It was the strangeness of many notable things in the story that first arrested and held my interest. It was only later that the irresistible logic of their meaning came into view. I want to try, in the remaining chapters of this book, to explain why that other venture never came to port, what were hidden rocks on which it foundered, and how I landed to me, an unexpected shore.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Omnivorous,
Omnivorous writes: Could you tell me what scientific work demonstrated that the universe has not always existed? The universe is expanding. which rules out a static universe.The Big Bang Theory requires the universe having a beginning to exist. Stephen Hawking made the following statement concerning the universe.
quote:The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) So I will let you take up your argument as to whether the universe has not always existed and had a beginning about 15 billion years ago with Stephen Hawking.
Omnivorous writes: You're just looking around, saying, "Whoa! Look at me, I exist! There must be a god!" People did that long before any notion of science. You're whistling in the dark, abusing science to justify the same conclusions drawn by primitive peoples. No I am just taking the word of one of the best scientist of our day at his word. The universe has not always existed.The universe began to exist. When we look around the universe exists. Why is there something rather than nothing? If the laws of the conservation of energy and mass is correct there had to be a supernatural power source that supplied the necessary energy and mass to produce the present universe we see. Do you have a viable energy source other than a supernatural power? If so present it rather than grading my work. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Again, my assessment is based on his arguments. If Morrison talks about having the minutes of the trial (as he does), when all he truly has is partisan accounts whose sources are unknown then he is at the least placing great trust in those accounts, inappropriate to a lawyer conducting an unbiased investigation. Everywhere I see the assumption that the Gospels are accurate without any attempt to deal with the obvious questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
No. There didn't. That speculation doesn't answer anything.
I don't care if you call the supernatural power God or Jimbo, there had to be a supernatural power to cause the universe to begin to exist. ICANT writes:
The same applies to any "supernatural power" that might have created it. By your reasoning, your creator requires a creator and that creator requires its own creator and so on, ad infinitum. It's a useless concept.
The pure energy that became the mass of the universe had to come from somewhere. It can not produce it's self.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
ICANT writes: So I will let you take up your argument as to whether the universe has not always existed and had a beginning about 15 billion years ago with Stephen Hawking. Um, no. I'll take it up with you. You're the one misinterpreting his remarks. He has flatly declared that no supernatural agency was required for the Big Bang. I guess the discussion should end here, given your faith in Dr. Hawking... So let me confirm that you accept Stephen Hawking's views on cosmogyny as final. Is that right? Because, you know, what the great man said:
quote: quote: Hawking doesn't say there was nothing before the Big Bang--he says we have no way to know anything about those conditions. Sure, he's saying time began with the Big Bang, and the universe as we know it, as we can know it, began with time. He's said that multiple times in multiple ways. How many would you like? You're simply filling the unknown with what you prefer to believe. Don't blame Dr. Hawking."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi ringo,
ringo writes: No. There didn't. That speculation doesn't answer anything. I just pinched myself to see if I existed and it hurt. Because of that I think I exist. OK you ruled out there being a supernatural power, supplying the energy to supply the energy and mass to produce the universe. What do you propose existed to provide that energy and mass?
ringo writes: By your reasoning, your creator requires a creator and that creator requires its own creator and so on, ad infinitum. It's a useless concept. I have no idea where you get your assertion from. I believe and have stated that the supernatural power has to be outside of the universe and would be required to be eternal. Only if that entity was inside the universe would it be subject to the laws of the universe. But that entity had to establish the rules the universe is subject too. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Omnivorous,
Are you saying Stephen Hawking did not say the following?
quote:The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) Did he say: "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago."? yes/no No explanation necessary. Did he say: "This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology."? yes/no No explanation necessary. Did he say: "Yet it is now taken for granted"? yes/no no explanation necessary. What is currently taken for granted?1. The universe has not existed forever. 2. (It) the universe had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. He did say those things and you have the source from his website so you can check it out for yourself. Now if you want to supply your sources you are quoting I will read them.
Omnivorous writes: Hawking doesn't say there was nothing before the Big Bang--he says we have no way to know anything about those conditions. Actually he proposed an instanton which would have required several things to exist prior to the instanton appearing and creating the universe. But I will look up my notes on this and discuss it later, as I don't want to attribute something to him he did not say. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
Actually, in that lecture he is tracing the intellectual history of modern cosmosyny. That's why most of my previous quotes that contradict yours came from the same lecture--I just read further into the account.
You are cherry-picking narrative bits in order to misrepresent a contemporary, complex view. Hawking has flatly declared that no supernatural or other external agency was required for the Big Bang, so he doesn't even seem to be the appropriate authority to whom you should fallaciously appeal. So I won't trade any more Hawking quotes with you. If his actual words in context don't enlighten you, certainly I cannot. Read the lecture again."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Omnivorous,
Omnivorous writes: You are cherry-picking narrative bits in order to misrepresent a contemporary, complex view. I gave you 3 direct quotes from the lecture by Stephen Hawking.And I asked you did he say each one of them. I will give you one more chance to either confirm or deny that Steven Hawking said what I said he said.
ICANT writes: Did he say: "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago."? yes/no No explanation necessary. Did he say: "This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology."? yes/no No explanation necessary. Did he say: "Yet it is now taken for granted"? yes/no no explanation necessary. I finally found your first quote from The Grand Design. Your second quote was from the article I had quoted part of the first paragraph of his lecture from. I appreciate Stephen Hawking's efforts but his theology about Genesis is completely wrong. There is no place in Genesis that claims that the universe or earth was created in 4004 BC. That is a YEC belief fostered by the visions of Ellen G. White after a bad head injury back in the 1800's. How could the laws that govern the universe exist inside the universe and control the beginning of the universe? Those laws could not exist until after the universe existed.
Stephen Hawking writes: The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. It seems like his conclusions concur with his opening paragraph. I have a couple more quotes to add.
quote: It seems as if he believed that if the universe had existed forever it would be a dead universe.
quote: In discussing the star light in a static universe would have required the stars to light up not too far in the past for them to be operational. For that to have happened he believed they would have to have been lite up by intervention from outside the universe.
Stephen Hawking writes: If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. I always loved this statement. Imaginary time in a imaginary place to do away with the singularity. One way to get rid of a problem. I would like to see an experiment that could accomplish that feat. I did read in his book The Grand Design, that it was possible for a universe to be produced out of nothing. I would like to see an experiment that produced anything out of nothing. It takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe in God. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024