Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 376 of 511 (772842)
11-19-2015 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by ICANT
11-19-2015 10:39 AM


ICANT writes:
What is that source if it is not a supernatural power?
A natural power.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by ICANT, posted 11-19-2015 10:39 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by ICANT, posted 11-20-2015 1:56 AM ringo has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 377 of 511 (772872)
11-19-2015 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by ICANT
11-19-2015 10:39 AM


How is dark energy causing the universe to expand?
The universe is expanding at an increasing rate. The evidence for that is based on observation. Dark energy is a name given to whatever is causing such a thing. Accordingly, the two ideas are intimately related.
You on the other hand want to say that a super natural power is holding the universe together. Without making any effort to dispute your claim, we can say that dark energy is not the name scientists give to what is holding the universe together because dark energy does not do any such thing and is not claimed (by anyone I know except you) to do so.
Just what is it that science call's dark matter?
Anyway you look at it there has to be something that supplies the energy to create the dark matter that is causing the expanding.
No there does not have to be any such thing.
I am not capable of explaining dark matter and dark energy to you. Feel free to say anything about them that you like. I won't interfere.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by ICANT, posted 11-19-2015 10:39 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by ICANT, posted 11-20-2015 3:19 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 378 of 511 (772878)
11-20-2015 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by ringo
11-19-2015 11:38 AM


Hi ringo,
ringo writes:
A natural power.
And how would you propose a natural power could begin to exist in non existence?
It would have to be a supernatural power that had existed eternally in the past, in order 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 376 by ringo, posted 11-19-2015 11:38 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Pressie, posted 11-20-2015 4:47 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 385 by ringo, posted 11-21-2015 10:43 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 379 of 511 (772880)
11-20-2015 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by NoNukes
11-19-2015 8:34 PM


Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes:
quote:
'Dark matter' - the mysterious substance thought to 'glue' the universe together - might not exist, throwing current theories of the universe into chaos.
'Dark matter' is thought to make up around 83% of the universe by mass - and to 'hold together' galaxies - but a scan of 400 stars near our Sun found no trace of it.
The study, using the La Silla telescope in Chile, is the biggest of its type ever conducted.
So what DOES hold our universe together? Mysterious 'dark matter' predicted to | Daily Mail Online
NoNukes writes:
I am not capable of explaining dark matter and dark energy to you. Feel free to say anything about them that you like. I won't interfere.
Sorry you don't feel like discussing dark matter so I will see what I can do.
Dark matter is the name given to a unknown, unobserved, thus non existent substance that has been proposed to explain the existence of an observed phenomenon. The calculations regarding the universe just don't add up without something(that is called dark matter). Thus a little something is required to prop up the standard theory again.
The supernatural power that is required to provide all the energy and mass that constitutes the universe since it had to have a beginning to exist, as it could not have existed eternally in the past, fits nicely as a power that could cause the universe to consist. Col. 1:7.
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 377 by NoNukes, posted 11-19-2015 8:34 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by vimesey, posted 11-20-2015 4:54 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 382 by Admin, posted 11-20-2015 7:42 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 383 by Modulous, posted 11-20-2015 5:15 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 384 by kbertsche, posted 11-20-2015 9:47 PM ICANT has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 380 of 511 (772882)
11-20-2015 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by ICANT
11-20-2015 1:56 AM


ICANT writes:
And how would you propose a natural power could begin to exist in non existence?
Why would a natural power have to begin to exist?
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by ICANT, posted 11-20-2015 1:56 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by ICANT, posted 11-24-2015 2:13 AM Pressie has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 381 of 511 (772883)
11-20-2015 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by ICANT
11-20-2015 3:19 AM


unknown, unobserved, thus non existent
Did the Higgs boson exist 5 years ago ?

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by ICANT, posted 11-20-2015 3:19 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 382 of 511 (772886)
11-20-2015 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by ICANT
11-20-2015 3:19 AM


Moderator Provided Information
ICANT writes:
Dark matter is the name given to a unknown, unobserved, thus non existent substance that has been proposed to explain the existence of an observed phenomenon. The calculations regarding the universe just don't add up without something(that is called dark matter). Thus a little something is required to prop up the standard theory again.
You said "dark matter," but this looks to be about dark energy. Dark energy is the name given to whatever is causing the accelerating expansion of the universe. Dark matter is the name given to whatever is causing spinning galaxies to hold together.
Please, no replies to this message.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by ICANT, posted 11-20-2015 3:19 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 383 of 511 (772943)
11-20-2015 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by ICANT
11-20-2015 3:19 AM


unobserved, thus non existent
And thus ends the debate. Thanks for being such a magnanimous loser ICANT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by ICANT, posted 11-20-2015 3:19 AM ICANT has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 384 of 511 (772947)
11-20-2015 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by ICANT
11-20-2015 3:19 AM


ICANT writes:
Sorry you don't feel like discussing dark matter so I will see what I can do.
Dark matter is the name given to a unknown, unobserved, thus non existent substance that has been proposed to explain the existence of an observed phenomenon. The calculations regarding the universe just don't add up without something(that is called dark matter). Thus a little something is required to prop up the standard theory again.
The supernatural power that is required to provide all the energy and mass that constitutes the universe since it had to have a beginning to exist, as it could not have existed eternally in the past, fits nicely as a power that could cause the universe to consist. Col. 1:7.
God Bless,
ICANT, I'll limit myself to just a few comments.
First, I agree with you that dark matter is "unknown, unobserved", but this does NOT mean that it is "non existent". Even though we cannot observe it, we can observe its gravitational effects, as Admin noted (and this should remind you of a passage in John 3).
Dark energy is even more ethereal, and has an "anti-gravity" effect.
But I would caution you against trying to equate either dark matter or dark energy with God Himself. If they exist, they are part of the present universe; they are part of the creation, not the Creator.
Your arguments sound very similar to the ones I heard preachers make as a child. Since like charges repel one another, the atomic nucleus should be unstable. What power holds it together? This must be God! But if these preachers had understood some nuclear physics, they would have known that we had already studied the short-range nuclear forces that hold the nucleus together, and we had a pretty good understanding of how these forces worked. Does God hold the nucleus together? Of course He does! But how does He do this? Through what we identify as short-range nuclear forces. The two concepts can coexist just fine.
I would suggest that the same is true of dark matter and dark energy. I think we will find increasing evidence for these "substances". And as a Christian, I believe these "substances" can be viewed as our human description of how God causes the universe to function and to expand.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by ICANT, posted 11-20-2015 3:19 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by ICANT, posted 11-24-2015 3:33 AM kbertsche has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 385 of 511 (772963)
11-21-2015 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by ICANT
11-20-2015 1:56 AM


ICANT writes:
And how would you propose a natural power could begin to exist in non existence?
Natural powers are the only ones that are known to exist. If a power is needed to answer a question, existing powers come miles ahead of non-existent "super" powers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by ICANT, posted 11-20-2015 1:56 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by ICANT, posted 11-24-2015 1:46 AM ringo has replied

  
Raphael
Member (Idle past 462 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 386 of 511 (772982)
11-21-2015 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Pressie
11-13-2015 6:43 AM


Re: Raphael's many errors Part 3
Pressie writes:
Whether Caeser existed or not, we have lots and lots and lots of other empirical, verifiable evidence that the Romans invaded and ruled Gaul. Your attempt at drawing similarities fails miserably.
The only similarity I was attempting to draw was a literary one, and I was up front about it.
We all know that, whether Caeser existed or not, he was not a Spook. And that the Roman empire ruled Gaul. And that Rome was a place and and they had an empire. And that DNA exists and existed in those days, too.
So how would you define a "spook?" Someone who claims impossible things? Would I be a spook if I said I believe in luck/karma/"good juju" or something like that? I certainly agree that if Jesus was not who he said he was, he was in the category of "spook," as well as probably deranged. But I think the evidence says otherwise
Nope. Not for me. To me belief is the opposite of choice.
You seem to have already made up your mind. How unfortunate. A conversation doesn't seem possible if you are not, at the least, willing to have an open mind.
Raphael gave a classic Gish Gallop!
We've got DNA.
What do you think about that?
I think that by appealing to the "Gish Gallop" trope you simultaneously reveal your personal bias and put my argument in a box. The "Gish Gallop" idea is to spout so much nonsense in an attempt to confuse the opponent, but that's not really what's happening here. I'm merely logically demonstrating my position.
Admin (Percy) writes:
Cicero, a Caesar contemporary and dissenter, wrote a review of Commentarii de Bello Gallico.
I believe this is the first time you have commented on anything I've posted, Percy. It is truly an honor and I enjoy being a part of this community .
This is truth, and important to consider. In response I would say that in the case of the Gospel of Mark, we know that the early church father Papias (who lived from 60-135 AD) commented that Mark was written by the scribe of the Apostle Peter. This would make Mark a collection of eyewitness testimonies. Papias is significant because there is evidence that he may have even been a contemporary of the apostle John. But there are others. Polycarp, Eusebius, Origen, all affirm this.
(Sources: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham, New Testament Introduction by Donald Guthrie)
Regards!
- Raph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Pressie, posted 11-13-2015 6:43 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by Pressie, posted 11-23-2015 6:02 AM Raphael has not replied

  
Raphael
Member (Idle past 462 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 387 of 511 (772983)
11-21-2015 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by PaulK
11-14-2015 7:31 AM


Re: Raphael's many errors Part 3
PaulK writes:
Well I have to give you a big F- and wish you luck on graduating high school. You'll need it.
I am graduating from University in 3 and half weeks. This kind of ad hominem is fun but doesn't really address my argument.
And there is often better evidence than we have for the Gospels...
Well, yes and no. As scholar Richard Bauckman puts it, "all history, meaning all that historians write - historiography - is an inextricable combination of fact and interpretation, the empirically observable and the intuited or construed meaning." So again, it's the same challenge.
Let us note that you are comparing apples and oranges. For Caesar you take the gap between the events and the oldest existing copy. For the Gospels the gap between the events and the original documents. However Caesar wrote at the time he was commanding in Gaul, and he was an eyewitness. That beats the Gospels, which is why you don't mention it
I acknowledge this. However, as I have argued, Mark is an eyewitness account. We have very good reason to believe Mark was the words of Peter, penned by his scribe Johnmark. So I have mentioned it, it's just that what you're saying is quite a stretch.
Given that the Gospels only cover one or maybe three years in Jesus' life, given that the historical Jesus is judged to be unrecoverable, given that we have other evidence for the Roman invasion of Gaul, given the dependencies between the Synoptic Gospels (and quite possibly John) I'd really have to say that you haven't even begun to discuss the matter.
I need to recognize that my earlier statement was pretty dang rash, however I disagree, and I do not believe we could ever come to any sort of common agreement unless we both recognize the tools we presuppose and use in this pursuit of understanding. You presuppose that only "facts" are reliable. This is a presupposition about epistemology and not necessarily true. I, on the other hand, have attempted to demonstrate that testimony (accurate testimony specifically) is also a reliable source of historiography. Let me pose to you this question:
If your wife/mother/best friend had an encounter with an alien, where he recounted specific things that took place, and then his story was corroborated with over a hundred others in your town, where they corroborated the same specific events, even though none of them knew each other, but you had no objective/physical evidence to confirm that it happened, would you believe them? Before you automatically say "no," let me pose another question:
Would not accurate testimony be an excellent historical source if it were indeed accurate? If so, why wouldn't you believe eyewitness testimony if it's the best place to go for accurate information?
I note that the figure of 10-15 years only applies if the story originated in Mark. So thank you for implicitly conceding that much.
Seems like another argument from silence. What evidence do you have that the story did not originate with Mark? This puts you in a sort of awkward position, since I will readily admit that the story probably didn't originate with Mark, since there were hundreds of people telling the same story. The problem, once again, is that the methodology you use to ask your questions is fundamentally biased and skeptical. You assume that it is 1) a "story" 2) that it had to originate somewhere 3)that it is untrue, but you have not proved any of these premises.
In other words it wasn't a mystical experience. And I will note that Luke/Acts denies the Galilee appearances. (A rather significant point, I think)
"Denies" is yet again a pretty biased and deceptive way of speaking here. Luke/Acts simply do not contain that specific story, since Luke's goal was different than the other Gospels.
Unfortunately for you, your argument relies on that "fact" being passed around as an argument for the resurrection. The fact that no source prior to Mark does anything of the sort makes that claim a mere assumption, lacking in credibility.
I see what you are saying. At the same time, we have to get into the context. Paul is writing from what he has heard, testimony and hearsay, so I see no problem with him not including the women.
Of course I have already Nswered that. But I will add that since neither event seems to be of great importance in the rise of Christianity the question is fundamentally mistaken.
I looked over all your previous posts and you never have attempted to answer this question. This is an interesting conclusion since the majority of scholarship on the era disagrees with you.
And yet we know that Ananaias and Sapphira both felt that they could not admit to holding *some* of the money back from the sale of their property, even when confronted on the matter - and the text says that they died for it. That does speak of pressure, with the story of their deaths adding more.
But my friend, the tools you use to approach the story (redaction criticism among others) are inherently biased and fundamentally geared towards criticism of the text, instead of learning from the text. Try a more unbiased approach
Of course the evidence is there in the Bible if you choose to read it and consider it fairly and rationally. Your fantasies about me are irrelevant.
In reality you have made no case for the resurrection, barely started to discuss the evidence and made numerous other errors.
Indeed, the performance of the Christians in this thread is quite damning evidence against the resurrection. The irrationality, the dishonesty, the evasions and the lame excuses hardly speak of an intellectually defensible belief, nor of anything anyone could call Christian in anything but the loosest sense.
I'm can take this. However, I'm a little tired my friend. You seem to be inherently aggressive to this type of argumentation, and have already made up your mind. I understand. You don't seem to recognize 1) Your fundamental predetermined bias 2) The assumptions behind your epistemology 3) Your failure to offer alternative explanations for the phenomenon in question.
I have offered the most logical reasoning and explanation for the formation of the early church (whereas you have offered none).
I have offered the most logical reasoning and evidence for the authorship of the Gospel of Mark (whereas you have offered none).
I'm not resorting to a "na na -boo boo" tactic here, and I am totally willing to hear your alternative explanation. I have an open mind and am willing to listen. But I'm working with what I have read so far. Finally, more ad hominem lends less credibility to your arguments rather than more.
Regards!
- Raph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by PaulK, posted 11-14-2015 7:31 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by PaulK, posted 11-22-2015 4:31 AM Raphael has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 388 of 511 (772986)
11-22-2015 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by Raphael
11-21-2015 9:33 PM


Re: Raphael's many errors Part 3
quote:
I acknowledge this. However, as I have argued, Mark is an eyewitness account. We have very good reason to believe Mark was the words of Peter, penned by his scribe Johnmark. So I have mentioned it, it's just that what you're saying is quite a stretch.
Obviously you have failed to understand the scholars. Mark is not supposed to have been dictated by Peter, simply written by an associate of Peter. It is not an eyewitness account.
quote:
You presuppose that only "facts" are reliable. This is a presupposition about epistemology and not necessarily true. I, on the other hand, have attempted to demonstrate that testimony (accurate testimony specifically) is also a reliable source of historiography.
A ridiculous misrepresentation. Aside from the general weakness of testimony the point you are missing is how to determine if testimony is accurate, and where it is more or less trustworthy.
quote:
Seems like another argument from silence. What evidence do you have that the story did not originate with Mark?
And here we have another foolish error on your part. I suspect that the story may well have originated with Mark. It is you who claims otherwise.
quote:
Denies" is yet again a pretty biased and deceptive way of speaking here. Luke/Acts simply do not contain that specific story, since Luke's goal was different than the other Gospels.
And another foolish and ignorant mistake. Anyone familiar with Luke/Acts should know that it sets the post-resurrection appearances (Paul's vision aside) in and around Jerusalem.
Indeed, the whole point of the Road to Emmaus story is to deny the Galillean appearances.
quote:
I see what you are saying. At the same time, we have to get into the context. Paul is writing from what he has heard, testimony and hearsay, so I see no problem with him not including the women.
The problem, of course is, that you have no sign of the story passing around prior to Mark. Thus any claim that it was being passed around earlier or used as evidence prior to that lacks evidence.
quote:
I looked over all your previous posts and you never have attempted to answer this question. This is an interesting conclusion since the majority of scholarship on the era disagrees with you.
Don't be ridiculous. Message 126 answers your argument
quote:
But my friend, the tools you use to approach the story (redaction criticism among others) are inherently biased and fundamentally geared towards criticism of the text, instead of learning from the text. Try a more unbiased approach
Funny how "Christians" hate people reading and understanding the Bible. Because I did not use any special scholarly tools. I simply read the text and thought a little.
quote:
I'm can take this. However, I'm a little tired my friend. You seem to be inherently aggressive to this type of argumentation, and have already made up your mind. I understand. You don't seem to recognize 1) Your fundamental predetermined bias 2) The assumptions behind your epistemology 3) Your failure to offer alternative explanations for the phenomenon in question.
By which you mean I don't like dishonesty and I don't accept your fantasies about me.
If you are capable of entering university you are capable of doing better. So do it.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Raphael, posted 11-21-2015 9:33 PM Raphael has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 389 of 511 (772991)
11-22-2015 9:03 AM


Moderator Request
Concerning recent posts, stop the carping.
The evidence for the truth of the Gospels is worth serious discussion. Raphael mentioned Father Papias and the Gospel of Mark, and the Wikipedia article on Papias of Hierapolis has information that might form a practical starting point.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 390 of 511 (773012)
11-23-2015 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 386 by Raphael
11-21-2015 8:44 PM


Re: Raphael's many errors Part 3
Raphael writes:
So how would you define a "spook?"
Woooooo!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Raphael, posted 11-21-2015 8:44 PM Raphael has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024