Religion

[Kippaxpete]

According to the Creation Museum (sic) in the US, this was Jesus's preferred mode of transport (because, of course, humans and dinosaurs coexisted).
In case you wondered, this is what you're up against when seeking to engage Mr Simpson in an intelligent conversation. You've been warned.

 

[Octavian]

Fantasy, not scripture. ‘Scripture’ unfortunately (but Incorrectly) implies it is a correct and factual story.

Scripture just means the sacred texts of a religion.

I also do not believe it’s all complete fantasy and there is historical merit to parts of the Gospels and certainly Paul’s Letters. Whether or not the whole story is true or not is another question but even atheist scholars do not believe the Gospels are completely made up.

 

[Fiftyyearsandcounting]

Your "facts" are not facts. The universe does not have an eternal past . Fact
You believe that nothing became something ,billions of years ago . How,? The universe popped into being uncaused? That's a fairy-tale. It's what atheists believe. It's a religious notion. Creation and atheism are both religious. It's the interpretation of facts that counts.
Life comes from life . The law of biogenesis. Fact. Life can't come from non life. That's what you believe apparently but it's not science.
In your view microbes changed into men over billions of years . Particles to people, amoeba to animals? All the species ( kinds ) evolved from ere microbes? Well , that's the general theory of evolution ( GTE) that you espouse. But its not a fact. No one has observed life from non life. Nor has anyone observed a microbe change into all the different kinds ( species) of flora, fauna and humans over millions of years . The extrapolation is fantasy.
it's not factual. You need to get your facts right
Animals belong to their genus or species i.e. kinds . Fact
These do not evolve from one another. No one has seen a dog ( canis) evolve from a non dog. The change is only observed within kinds ( species) of plants or animals .
For instance there is a limit as to how much one can breed different kinds or species of animal. Its observable science. No one has observed change outside the kind or species. But on atheist naturalist macro evolution theory all the kinds ( species) came from a micro molecule,unobserved. That's what you've sided with . But it isn't scientific i e. Observable demonstrable.

Plus ,there are no transitional/ intermediate fossils in the rock record . None. There should be trillions, if a microbe is going to be changing into a man over billions of years. One would expect billions upon billions of animals in transition from whale to cow or from microbe to mongoose. The fossils say a definite No.

"You believe that nothing became something ,billions of years ago . How,? "
I could ask you the same question. From nothing "HE" created himself, then enough enough metal, rock, dust, gases and other elements to make millions of universes, galaxies and trillions and trillions of planets and stars. Only a fool can believe that. The rest of your nonsense is fit only for the residents of Bedlam.

 

[arfurclue]

after quiting drugs, i ve found peace studying the bible. Didnt realize it was apocryphal and codex layered.

Studying the Bible as a way to come to feel ‘in tune’ with peace rather just mentally analyzing it so as to be right or wrong etc seems more in line with its purpose in my eyes. But seemingly many Christians and non Christians alike would disagree - might even tell you that an experiential peace is of little or no value.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Your "facts" are not facts. The universe does not have an eternal past . Fact
You believe that nothing became something ,billions of years ago . How,? The universe popped into being uncaused? That's a fairy-tale. It's what atheists believe. It's a religious notion. Creation and atheism are both religious. It's the interpretation of facts that counts.
Life comes from life . The law of biogenesis. Fact. Life can't come from non life. That's what you believe apparently but it's not science.
In your view microbes changed into men over billions of years . Particles to people, amoeba to animals? All the species ( kinds ) evolved from ere microbes? Well , that's the general theory of evolution ( GTE) that you espouse. But its not a fact. No one has observed life from non life. Nor has anyone observed a microbe change into all the different kinds ( species) of flora, fauna and humans over millions of years . The extrapolation is fantasy.
it's not factual. You need to get your facts right
Animals belong to their genus or species i.e. kinds . Fact
These do not evolve from one another. No one has seen a dog ( canis) evolve from a non dog. The change is only observed within kinds ( species) of plants or animals .
For instance there is a limit as to how much one can breed different kinds or species of animal. Its observable science. No one has observed change outside the kind or species. But on atheist naturalist macro evolution theory all the kinds ( species) came from a micro molecule,unobserved. That's what you've sided with . But it isn't scientific i e. Observable demonstrable.

Plus ,there are no transitional/ intermediate fossils in the rock record . None. There should be trillions, if a microbe is going to be changing into a man over billions of years. One would expect billions upon billions of animals in transition from whale to cow or from microbe to mongoose. The fossils say a definite No.

I enjoy debating things around religion because I find the mythology of religions very interesting despite not believing they are true, and I enjoy researching the history of where the myths of religions originally came from and spread to.

But I have to say that you don’t understand what atheism is at all. Atheism is simply not believing in gods or the myths of religions. That’s it. Atheism is not about anything else. Atheism is not a belief system, it’s certainly not a religion, it is not about believing in the Big Bang or even believing in science of any kind especially if the atheist has never studied the science before. To be an atheist you do not have to be able to explain anything to do with the universe or life on Earth because atheism is simply not believing in gods or the myths of religion. An atheist may not even understand the science around the universe so how can that be part of atheism?

Now for those who have studied the science, they actually don’t theorise that the universe popped into being uncaused. And any work done around this has to be reviewed and proven with mathematics in order to be recognised as a theory.

The Equation of the Universe (According to the Theory of Relation)

Discover a groundbreaking equation connecting matter, space, and time. Explore the correlation between velocity, time, distance, matter, and energy. Uncover the unified process of electro-gravitation. Integrate cosmological time into a coherent equation. Interpret dark energy and explore the...

www.scirp.org

This is far more reliable than just saying “god(s) did it”. And, again, if you believe that nothing doesn’t come from nothing, where did god(s) come from?

You are correct when you say “the universe does not have an eternal past” because before the Big Bang, time did not exist so the notion of a “past” does not exist.

I’ve already twice explained to you how life first came about. For the third time now; before there was life on Earth it was the flow of excess charged particles called protons that came from vents pumping out heated alkaline fresh water into cooler more acidic salt sea water that created a chemical reaction and energy that formed molecules that are called cells, and life began.

Biogenesis is the synthesis of substances by living organisms to be able to multiply or reproduce and create new living organisms. However, for biogenesis to have been able to happen, abiogenesis had to have occurred for first life to come about. Like you say, nothing doesn’t come from nothing, there is evidence and mathematical equations to show how abiogenesis created life.

Please, then, show me the evidence and mathematical equation for god(s). And the evidence and mathematical equation for how these god(s) created life. If you can’t, then I’m afraid it is religion that fails in being believable.

We discovered DNA in 1869 and have been studying DNA since around the late 1940s. DNA proves that evolution is factual:


DNA shows we do not need a fossil record to prove anything because it is all there in our genes.

And like I recently said with regards to human evolution from earlier species of Homo and Australopithecines, palaeontologists have found that with each increase of human brain size and a new human species there were sudden catastrophically huge climate changes that occurred at the same time. In reaction to the need to work out how to survive the new conditions, human genes mutated to cause an increase in brain size and intelligence (that is not to say that one day I was a homoheidelbergensis and the next day I woke up and I was a homosapiens, it takes much longer than that!). And again this is proven in the same way that video shows, in our genes. So even when we have the fossil record, we don’t even need it because our DNA proves it and it’s corroborated with the evidence of climate changes in the geological record as well as corroboration from the astronomical record which show changes in the Earth’s path around the Sun at the same time as these climate changes and evolutionary changes in humans occurred.

 

[arfurclue]

I enjoy debating things around religion because I find the mythology of religions very interesting despite not believing they are true, and I enjoy researching the history of where the myths of religions originally came from and spread to.

But I have to say that you don’t understand what atheism is at all. Atheism is simply not believing in gods or the myths of religions. That’s it. Atheism is not about anything else. Atheism is not a belief system, it’s certainly not a religion, it is not about believing in the Big Bang or even believing in science of any kind especially if the atheist has never studied the science before. To be an atheist you do not have to be able to explain anything to do with the universe or life on Earth because atheism is simply not believing in gods or the myths of religion. An atheist may not even understand the science around the universe so how can that be part of atheism?

Now for those who have studied the science, they actually don’t theorise that the universe popped into being uncaused. And any work done around this has to be reviewed and proven with mathematics in order to be recognised as a theory.

The Equation of the Universe (According to the Theory of Relation)

Discover a groundbreaking equation connecting matter, space, and time. Explore the correlation between velocity, time, distance, matter, and energy. Uncover the unified process of electro-gravitation. Integrate cosmological time into a coherent equation. Interpret dark energy and explore the...

www.scirp.org

This is far more reliable than just saying “god(s) did it”. And, again, if you believe that nothing doesn’t come from nothing, where did god(s) come from?

You are correct when you say “the universe does not have an eternal past” because before the Big Bang, time did not exist so the notion of a “past” does not exist.

I’ve already twice explained to you that life does not come from life when there is no life to start with. For the third time now; before there was life on Earth it was the flow of excess charged particles called protons that came from vents pumping out heated alkaline fresh water into cooler more acidic salt sea water that created a chemical reaction and energy that formed molecules that are called cells, and life began.

Biogenesis is the synthesis of substances by living organisms to be able to multiply or reproduce and create new living organisms. However, for biogenesis to have been able to happen, abiogenesis had to have occurred for first life to come about. Like you say, nothing doesn’t come from nothing, there is evidence and mathematical equations to show how abiogenesis created life.

Please, then, show me the evidence and mathematical equation for god(s). And the evidence and mathematical equation for how these god(s) created life. If you can’t, then I’m afraid it is religion that fails in being believable.

We discovered DNA in 1869 and have been studying DNA since around the late 1940s. DNA proves that evolution is factual:


DNA shows we do not need a fossil record to prove anything because it is all there in our genes.

And like I recently said with regards to human evolution from earlier species of Homo and Australopithecines, palaeontologists have found that with each increase of human brain size and a new human specifies there were sudden catastrophically huge climate changes that occurred at the same time. In reaction to the need to work out how to survive the new conditions, human genes mutated to cause an increase in brain size and intelligence. And again this is proven in the same way that video shows, in our genes. So even when we have the fossil record, we don’t even need it.

Re what you wrote re mathematics, here’s something from David Bohm that may question whether there is another way. And I might question whether ,if humanity decides that a mechanistic way of looking at life is the ultimate way of truth, then will it ever really get to experience life as something other than being a machine?


“To plumb the implicate order, Bohm said, physicists might need to jettison basic assumptions about nature. During the Enlightenment, thinkers such as Newton and Descartes replaced the ancients’ organic concept of order with a mechanistic view. Even after the advent of relativity and quantum mechanics, “the basic idea is still the same,” Bohm told me, "a mechanical order described by coordinates.”

Bohm hoped scientists would eventually move beyond mechanistic and even mathematical paradigms. “We have an assumption now that’s getting stronger and stronger that mathematics is the only way to deal with reality,” Bohm said. “Because it’s worked so well for a while, we’ve assumed that it has to be that way.”
Someday, science and art will merge, Bohm predicted. “This division of art and science is temporary,” he observed. “It didn't exist in the past, and there’s no reason why it should go on in the future.” Just as art consists not simply of works of art but of an “attitude, the artistic spirit,” so does science consist not in the accumulation of knowledge but in the creation of fresh modes of perception. “The ability to perceive or think differently is more important than the knowledge gained,” Bohm explained.”

David Bohm, Quantum Mechanics and Enlightenment

The visionary physicist, whose ideas remain influential, sought spiritual as well as scientific illumination

blogs.scientificamerican.com

 

[SWP's back]

I enjoy debating things around religion because I find the mythology of religions very interesting despite not believing they are true, and I enjoy researching the history of where the myths of religions originally came from and spread to.

But I have to say that you don’t understand what atheism is at all. Atheism is simply not believing in gods or the myths of religions. That’s it. Atheism is not about anything else. Atheism is not a belief system, it’s certainly not a religion, it is not about believing in the Big Bang or even believing in science of any kind especially if the atheist has never studied the science before. To be an atheist you do not have to be able to explain anything to do with the universe or life on Earth because atheism is simply not believing in gods or the myths of religion. An atheist may not even understand the science around the universe so how can that be part of atheism?

Now for those who have studied the science, they actually don’t theorise that the universe popped into being uncaused. And any work done around this has to be reviewed and proven with mathematics in order to be recognised as a theory.

The Equation of the Universe (According to the Theory of Relation)

Discover a groundbreaking equation connecting matter, space, and time. Explore the correlation between velocity, time, distance, matter, and energy. Uncover the unified process of electro-gravitation. Integrate cosmological time into a coherent equation. Interpret dark energy and explore the...

www.scirp.org

This is far more reliable than just saying “god(s) did it”. And, again, if you believe that nothing doesn’t come from nothing, where did god(s) come from?

You are correct when you say “the universe does not have an eternal past” because before the Big Bang, time did not exist so the notion of a “past” does not exist.

I’ve already twice explained to you how life first came about. For the third time now; before there was life on Earth it was the flow of excess charged particles called protons that came from vents pumping out heated alkaline fresh water into cooler more acidic salt sea water that created a chemical reaction and energy that formed molecules that are called cells, and life began.

Biogenesis is the synthesis of substances by living organisms to be able to multiply or reproduce and create new living organisms. However, for biogenesis to have been able to happen, abiogenesis had to have occurred for first life to come about. Like you say, nothing doesn’t come from nothing, there is evidence and mathematical equations to show how abiogenesis created life.

Please, then, show me the evidence and mathematical equation for god(s). And the evidence and mathematical equation for how these god(s) created life. If you can’t, then I’m afraid it is religion that fails in being believable.

We discovered DNA in 1869 and have been studying DNA since around the late 1940s. DNA proves that evolution is factual:


DNA shows we do not need a fossil record to prove anything because it is all there in our genes.

And like I recently said with regards to human evolution from earlier species of Homo and Australopithecines, palaeontologists have found that with each increase of human brain size and a new human species there were sudden catastrophically huge climate changes that occurred at the same time. In reaction to the need to work out how to survive the new conditions, human genes mutated to cause an increase in brain size and intelligence (that is not to say that one day I was a homoheidelbergensis and the next day I woke up and I was a homosapiens, it takes much longer than that!). And again this is proven in the same way that video shows, in our genes. So even when we have the fossil record, we don’t even need it because our DNA proves it and it’s corroborated with the evidence of climate changes in the geological record as well as corroboration from the astronomical record which show changes in the Earth’s path around the Sun at the same time as these climate changes and evolutionary changes in humans occurred.

He’s had this explained to him at length many times but he’s a either a troll or mentally unwell.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Re what you wrote re mathematics, here’s something from David Bohm that may question whether there is another way. And I might question whether ,if humanity decides that a mechanistic way of looking at life is the ultimate way of truth, then will it ever really get to experience life as something other than being a machine?


“To plumb the implicate order, Bohm said, physicists might need to jettison basic assumptions about nature. During the Enlightenment, thinkers such as Newton and Descartes replaced the ancients’ organic concept of order with a mechanistic view. Even after the advent of relativity and quantum mechanics, “the basic idea is still the same,” Bohm told me, "a mechanical order described by coordinates.”

Bohm hoped scientists would eventually move beyond mechanistic and even mathematical paradigms. “We have an assumption now that’s getting stronger and stronger that mathematics is the only way to deal with reality,” Bohm said. “Because it’s worked so well for a while, we’ve assumed that it has to be that way.”
Someday, science and art will merge, Bohm predicted. “This division of art and science is temporary,” he observed. “It didn't exist in the past, and there’s no reason why it should go on in the future.” Just as art consists not simply of works of art but of an “attitude, the artistic spirit,” so does science consist not in the accumulation of knowledge but in the creation of fresh modes of perception. “The ability to perceive or think differently is more important than the knowledge gained,” Bohm explained.”

David Bohm, Quantum Mechanics and Enlightenment

The visionary physicist, whose ideas remain influential, sought spiritual as well as scientific illumination

blogs.scientificamerican.com

For me, the mechanical aspect of it is merely the foundation. Everything else arises from the foundation and the variety of life can be as wide reaching as it can push itself, far wider than a human brain’s creativity could ever imagine and as beautiful as life can be without even thinking about the mechanical aspect.

But it all stems from that mathematical mechanical foundation and while I do think that there is something that connects us all (atoms, the electrical charge in all things, and water; something I’ve concentrated on while meditating) I personally don’t think it’s spiritual.

 

[andyhinch]

I enjoy debating things around religion because I find the mythology of religions very interesting despite not believing they are true, and I enjoy researching the history of where the myths of religions originally came from and spread to.

But I have to say that you don’t understand what atheism is at all. Atheism is simply not believing in gods or the myths of religions. That’s it. Atheism is not about anything else. Atheism is not a belief system, it’s certainly not a religion, it is not about believing in the Big Bang or even believing in science of any kind especially if the atheist has never studied the science before. To be an atheist you do not have to be able to explain anything to do with the universe or life on Earth because atheism is simply not believing in gods or the myths of religion. An atheist may not even understand the science around the universe so how can that be part of atheism?

Now for those who have studied the science, they actually don’t theorise that the universe popped into being uncaused. And any work done around this has to be reviewed and proven with mathematics in order to be recognised as a theory.

The Equation of the Universe (According to the Theory of Relation)

Discover a groundbreaking equation connecting matter, space, and time. Explore the correlation between velocity, time, distance, matter, and energy. Uncover the unified process of electro-gravitation. Integrate cosmological time into a coherent equation. Interpret dark energy and explore the...

www.scirp.org

This is far more reliable than just saying “god(s) did it”. And, again, if you believe that nothing doesn’t come from nothing, where did god(s) come from?

You are correct when you say “the universe does not have an eternal past” because before the Big Bang, time did not exist so the notion of a “past” does not exist.

I’ve already twice explained to you how life first came about. For the third time now; before there was life on Earth it was the flow of excess charged particles called protons that came from vents pumping out heated alkaline fresh water into cooler more acidic salt sea water that created a chemical reaction and energy that formed molecules that are called cells, and life began.

Biogenesis is the synthesis of substances by living organisms to be able to multiply or reproduce and create new living organisms. However, for biogenesis to have been able to happen, abiogenesis had to have occurred for first life to come about. Like you say, nothing doesn’t come from nothing, there is evidence and mathematical equations to show how abiogenesis created life.

Please, then, show me the evidence and mathematical equation for god(s). And the evidence and mathematical equation for how these god(s) created life. If you can’t, then I’m afraid it is religion that fails in being believable.

We discovered DNA in 1869 and have been studying DNA since around the late 1940s. DNA proves that evolution is factual:


DNA shows we do not need a fossil record to prove anything because it is all there in our genes.

And like I recently said with regards to human evolution from earlier species of Homo and Australopithecines, palaeontologists have found that with each increase of human brain size and a new human species there were sudden catastrophically huge climate changes that occurred at the same time. In reaction to the need to work out how to survive the new conditions, human genes mutated to cause an increase in brain size and intelligence (that is not to say that one day I was a homoheidelbergensis and the next day I woke up and I was a homosapiens, it takes much longer than that!). And again this is proven in the same way that video shows, in our genes. So even when we have the fossil record, we don’t even need it because our DNA proves it and it’s corroborated with the evidence of climate changes in the geological record as well as corroboration from the astronomical record which show changes in the Earth’s path around the Sun at the same time as these climate changes and evolutionary changes in humans occurred.

That deserves more than a like.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Dimensions are in the biblical account for all to see . Mathematical measures in context of building a huge vessel are not allegorical.
If Adam were metaphorical then Jesus would be a liar and quite clearly He is not as He has proven Himself to be God incarnate. I've demonstrated elsewhere His willingness to be worshipped and His name as " I Am" to be signs of His deity . No metaphor.
there are multiple passages in the New Testament where Jesus quotes from the early chapters of Genesis in a straightforward, historical manner. Matthew 19:4–6
(He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female) is especially significant as Jesus quotes from both Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24. Jesus’ use of Scripture here is authoritative in settling a dispute over the question of divorce, as it is grounded in the creation of the first marriage and the purpose of it (Malachi 2:14–15).
The passage is also huge in understanding Jesus’ use of Scripture as He attributes the words spoken as coming from the Creator (Matthew 19:4). More importantly, there is no indication in the passage that He understood it figuratively or as an allegory. If Christ were mistaken about the account of creation and its importance to marriage, then why should He be trusted when it comes to other aspects of His teaching?
Also , in a parallel passage in Mark 10:6 Jesus said, “But from the beginning of creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” In the statement “from the beginning of creation” Jesus was saying that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation, on Day Six, not billions of years after the beginning.
He also is a descendent of Adam. Luke’s genealogy presents Adam alongside numerous other historical individuals (Abraham, Joshua, David, etc.) in order to link him as a real person to Jesus, so Adam cannot be interpreted symbolically or allegorically or metaphorically .

“Jesus” hasn’t proven anything. There’s no relaible proof the bloke ever existed.