Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 91 (8838 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-20-2018 3:45 PM
271 online now:
Capt Stormfield, DrJones*, dwise1, ICANT, jar, JonF, PaulK (7 members, 264 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Calvin
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 832,119 Year: 6,942/29,783 Month: 1,166/1,708 Week: 57/474 Day: 57/57 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3435
36
3738
...
50NextFF
Author Topic:   Creation
ringo
Member
Posts: 14570
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


(1)
Message 526 of 739 (828163)
02-12-2018 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 521 by ICANT
02-11-2018 4:36 PM


Re: Why NOT A Literal Bible?
ICANT writes:

If the universe is not an eternal entity it had to have a beginning to exist.


My point is that "the beginning" is the beginning of the story, not necessarily the beginning of the universe. "Once upon a time, God created the heavens and the earth."

ICANT writes:

Did the universe have a beginning to exist, how?

Please give me the scientific answer to both parts of that question.


We can only go back as far as shortly after the Big Bang. If there was a Big Crunch that initiated the Big Bang, we have no way of telling.

So trying to make the Bible agree with science won't work.


An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by ICANT, posted 02-11-2018 4:36 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 532 by ICANT, posted 02-13-2018 12:03 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14570
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


(1)
Message 527 of 739 (828164)
02-12-2018 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 522 by ICANT
02-11-2018 4:46 PM


Re: Why NOT A Literal Bible?
ICANT writes:

Which one of the nine problems that proves the BBT is false would satisfy you that the BBT is false?


Those are "shortcomings", not falsifications. They're questions that have not been answered yet.

ICANT writes:

Especially since you say it only takes one to nullify the entire Bible.


That isn't what I said. I said that if there is one falsehood in the Bible, then you can't say that the whole Bible is true. There still may be other truths in it.

I'll give you a different example from the one I gave Phat: If you have the binary number 11111111, you can say that every bit is 1 (true). But if you have the number 11111011, you can not.


An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by ICANT, posted 02-11-2018 4:46 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 530 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2018 9:05 PM ringo has responded
 Message 531 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2018 9:54 PM ringo has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1418
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 528 of 739 (828168)
02-12-2018 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 521 by ICANT
02-11-2018 4:36 PM


Re: Why NOT A Literal Bible?
Question #1 a 2 part question.

Did the universe have a beginning to exist, how?

Please give me the scientific answer to both parts of that question.

I believe the scientific answer would be 'Don't know'. Which is convenient since it's the same as my answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by ICANT, posted 02-11-2018 4:36 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2018 5:29 PM caffeine has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5824
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 529 of 739 (828176)
02-12-2018 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 528 by caffeine
02-12-2018 2:54 PM


Re: Why NOT A Literal Bible?
Hi caffeine,

caffeine writes:

I believe the scientific answer would be 'Don't know'. Which is convenient since it's the same as my answer.

That is the only scientific answer to part two?

Now what about part one, did the universe have a beginning to exist?

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 528 by caffeine, posted 02-12-2018 2:54 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by caffeine, posted 02-14-2018 2:50 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5824
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 530 of 739 (828179)
02-12-2018 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 527 by ringo
02-12-2018 11:21 AM


Re: Why NOT A Literal Bible?
Hi ringo,

ringo writes:

Those are "shortcomings", not falsifications. They're questions that have not been answered yet.

Isn't inflation supposed to correct most of those problems?
That is the reason it was postulated.

Now Sir Roger Penrose says 'inflation' is a fantasy. If inflation is a fantasy as he says then the BBT collapse's.

There are others that agree with him.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by ringo, posted 02-12-2018 11:21 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 535 by ringo, posted 02-13-2018 10:47 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5824
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 531 of 739 (828181)
02-12-2018 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 527 by ringo
02-12-2018 11:21 AM


Re: Why NOT A Literal Bible?
Hi ringo,

ringo writes:

That isn't what I said. I said that if there is one falsehood in the Bible, then you can't say that the whole Bible is true. There still may be other truths in it.

If you are talking about the Bible as it was originally written it was perfect without mistakes of any kind.

If you are talking about translations there are many words translated wrong, some even intentionally. There have been mis-arrangements of the text, some unintentional and some intentionally. Some added and some left out.

So yes you can say that translations have lies in them, or untruths if you prefer.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by ringo, posted 02-12-2018 11:21 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by ringo, posted 02-13-2018 10:49 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5824
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 532 of 739 (828182)
02-13-2018 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 526 by ringo
02-12-2018 11:13 AM


Hi ringo,

ringo writes:

My point is that "the beginning" is the beginning of the story, not necessarily the beginning of the universe.

Well the universe exists.

Did it have a beginning to exist?
or
Has it always existed.

ringo writes:

We can only go back as far as shortly after the Big Bang. If there was a Big Crunch that initiated the Big Bang, we have no way of telling.

There is no such thing as the Big Bang.

There was a beginning to exist that was stretched out.

ringo writes:

So trying to make the Bible agree with science won't work.

Who is trying to make God's Word (the Bible) agree with science?

God's Word simply says that the universe had a beginning to exist.
It said it at least 2800 years before Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding in 1929. This discovery dictated that the universe had a beginning to exist. Even produced Einstein's greatest mistake.

That means science caught up to God's Word and agreed with what God's Word said.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by ringo, posted 02-12-2018 11:13 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 537 by ringo, posted 02-13-2018 10:59 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 540 by Astrophile, posted 02-14-2018 7:46 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5824
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 533 of 739 (828183)
02-13-2018 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 525 by ringo
02-12-2018 11:05 AM


Re: days and dates
Hi ringo,

ringo writes:

So do you understand that Moses had nouns, even if he didn't call them nouns?

I believe Moses had words for people, places, and things.
But he had no word for noun so whatever he called them it was not a noun.

Therefore Moses did not know what a noun was. I know he had what we call nouns. But Moses did not know what we call nouns.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by ringo, posted 02-12-2018 11:05 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by ringo, posted 02-13-2018 10:43 AM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14570
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


(1)
Message 534 of 739 (828189)
02-13-2018 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 533 by ICANT
02-13-2018 1:49 AM


Re: days and dates
ICANT writes:

I believe Moses had words for people, places, and things.
But he had no word for noun so whatever he called them it was not a noun.


Nobody has said that he called them "nouns".

ICANT writes:

Therefore Moses did not know what a noun was.


He did know what a noun was, no matter what he called them. He must have known what they were because he used them.

This is why it's so hard to take you seriously: You don't understand English, so why would we think you understand Hebrew?


An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by ICANT, posted 02-13-2018 1:49 AM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14570
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 535 of 739 (828190)
02-13-2018 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 530 by ICANT
02-12-2018 9:05 PM


Re: Why NOT A Literal Bible?
ICANT writes:

Isn't inflation supposed to correct most of those problems?
That is the reason it was postulated.

Now Sir Roger Penrose says 'inflation' is a fantasy. If inflation is a fantasy as he says then the BBT collapse's.

There are others that agree with him.


You claimed that the Big Bang was proven false. Message 522

Questions do no prove it false.


An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2018 9:05 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 541 by ICANT, posted 02-14-2018 11:33 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14570
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


(3)
Message 536 of 739 (828191)
02-13-2018 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 531 by ICANT
02-12-2018 9:54 PM


Re: Why NOT A Literal Bible?
ICANT writes:

If you are talking about the Bible as it was originally written it was perfect without mistakes of any kind.


You have no way of knowing that because you've never seen it as it was originally written.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 531 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2018 9:54 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14570
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 537 of 739 (828192)
02-13-2018 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 532 by ICANT
02-13-2018 12:03 AM


ICANT writes:

Well the universe exists.

Did it have a beginning to exist?
or
Has it always existed.


That's an open question.

ICANT writes:

There is no such thing as the Big Bang.


Sez you. With your opinion and two dollars, I can buy a cup of coffee.

ICANT writes:

There was a beginning to exist that was stretched out.


Sez you. Your opinion on the Big Bang has less value than your opinion on the best flavour of ice cream.

ICANT writes:

Who is trying to make God's Word (the Bible) agree with science?

God's Word simply says that the universe had a beginning to exist.


Why are you saying that if you're not trying to reconcile the Bible with science? What theological difference does it make whether or not the universe had a beginning?

ICANT writes:

It said it at least 2800 years before Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding in 1929.


But the Bible doesn't say anything about expansion.

ICANT writes:

This discovery dictated that the universe had a beginning to exist.


No. It only means that the universe was once smaller than it is now. A series of contractions and expansions would produce the same observations.

ICANT writes:

That means science caught up to God's Word and agreed with what God's Word said.


But it doesn't agree. The Bible doesn't mention expansion at all.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 532 by ICANT, posted 02-13-2018 12:03 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 543 by ICANT, posted 02-15-2018 2:19 AM ringo has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1418
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 538 of 739 (828230)
02-14-2018 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 529 by ICANT
02-12-2018 5:29 PM


Re: Why NOT A Literal Bible?
That is the only scientific answer to part two?

Now what about part one, did the universe have a beginning to exist?

I was answering Part 1. "Did the universe have a beginning to exist?" "We don't know"

I personally, of course, haven't the faintest idea. From the scientific point of view, it seems to be a matter of dispute among cosmologists.

Now Sir Roger Penrose says 'inflation' is a fantasy. If inflation is a fantasy as he says then the BBT collapse's.

I have a big book by Roger Penrose that either cavediver or Son Goku recommended to me long ago. I've never finished it, but I have read the bit about inflation. Penrose notes:

quote:
(...)I should make clear that my remarks do not tell us that inflationary cosmology is wrong. They merely provide strong reasons to doubt most of the initial motivations behind the inflationary idea.

The initial motivations he discusses are trying solve the flatness problem, horizon problem and smoothness problem (two of these were listed in the Shortcomings of Standard Cosmology you pointed us to earlier). Penrose claims that inflation is not a solution to these problems, and therefore there is no reason to postulate it.

That does not mean the Big Bang's collapse. He spends much of the rest of the book discussing other approaches to these issues that I don't pretend to understand. Unless and until I do get my head around what cosmologists are talking about; I'm sticking with "don't know" for these sorts of questions. I kind of get the impression that even if I ever do grasp modern cosmology I still won't know many answers; but I might have a better idea of what I don't know and why.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2018 5:29 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Astrophile
Member
Posts: 78
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


Message 539 of 739 (828239)
02-14-2018 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by ICANT
02-09-2018 1:10 PM


Re: Why NOT A Literal Bible?
Question #1 a 2 part question.

Did the universe have a beginning to exist, how?

Genesis 1:1
quote:
In the beginning created God the heavens and the earth

That says the universe had a beginning.

You are making the mistake of asking a very difficult question as if it had a simple answer.

First, even if the universe had a beginning, that doesn't necessarily mean that God created it. It could have come from nothing, as Lawrence Krauss says, or it may have come from something in an earlier universe.

Second, the universe may not have had a beginning in time, in the sense that there was a time when the universe didn't exist and a later time when it did exist. Time, or rather space-time, is an essential part of the universe; if time already existed, it was part of a universe. So far as I understand it, time began with the universe, so there was no time when the universe didn't exist. (This is very difficult to understand.)

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, in 'The Grand Design' (page 172) explain it like this:

quote:
In the early universe - when the universe was small enough to be governed by both general relativity and quantum theory - there were effectively four dimensions of space and none of time. That means that when we speak of the "beginning" of the universe, we are skirting the subtle issue that that as we look backwards towards the very early universe, time as we know it does not exist! We must accept that our usual ideas of space and time do not apply to the very early universe. ... If in the early universe all four dimensions behave like space, what happens to the beginning of time.

The realization that time can behave like another direction of space means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in the same way in which we got rid of the edge of the world.


I hope that this attempt at an answer helps you to understand that your question, as you phrased it, over-simplifies a very complex matter, and that there is no simple answer to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by ICANT, posted 02-09-2018 1:10 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 544 by ICANT, posted 02-15-2018 2:56 AM Astrophile has not yet responded

    
Astrophile
Member
Posts: 78
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


Message 540 of 739 (828242)
02-14-2018 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 532 by ICANT
02-13-2018 12:03 AM


Well the universe exists.

Did it have a beginning to exist?
or
Has it always existed.

There appear to be only two possibilities: that the age of the universe is infinite, i.e. that the universe is eternal; or that the age of the universe is finite. The fact that the Bible picked the correct one doesn't prove that it was inspired by a god, any more than predicting that a die will give a number between 1 and 3 and then getting the number 2 proves that one is supernaturally inspired.

Also, the second possibility doesn't necessarily mean that the universe had a beginning as we understand the world, any more than the fact that the Earth's surface area is finite means that one can fall over the edge.

There is no such thing as the Big Bang.

There was a beginning to exist that was stretched out.

How long ago do you think that the beginning of the universe was? And if the universe didn't begin with the Big Bang, how do you think it began?

Who is trying to make God's Word (the Bible) agree with science?

God's Word simply says that the universe had a beginning to exist.
It said it at least 2800 years before Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding in 1929. This discovery dictated that the universe had a beginning to exist. Even produced Einstein's greatest mistake.

That means science caught up to God's Word and agreed with what God's Word said.

Saying that the fact that the universe had a beginning proves that God created the universe is as daft as saying that the fact that my life had a beginning proves that I was brought to my parents by a stork!

As I said, there are only two possibilities, an eternal universe or a universe with some sort of beginning, so the author of the first chapter of Genesis had a 50% chance of being right. However, the first chapter of Genesis also says that the Earth existed before the Sun and the stars, and that plants existed before the Sun, so I don't think that Genesis (or God's Word, if you prefer it) has a particularly good record of scientific accuracy.

Edited by Astrophile, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 532 by ICANT, posted 02-13-2018 12:03 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 552 by caffeine, posted 02-15-2018 2:49 PM Astrophile has not yet responded
 Message 557 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2018 4:20 AM Astrophile has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
3435
36
3738
...
50NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018