The problem with your replies is that you aren't providing rational evidence for any of your religious beliefs or claims.
All your posts amount to are the standard "preaching" techniques of this religious cult that tries desperately to denigrate anyone who refuses to join and support it.
It's not going to be productive to simply attempt to denigrate people who refuse to be convinced. In fact, that is actually in direct violation of the teachings of Jesus anyway. Jesus never instructed his disciples to argue with or accuse anyone of anything. To the contrary, he clearly instructed them to move on if people aren't interested in hearing the message.
I'm not sure whether you're lecturing or preaching here. A bit of both?
I fail to see where I have denigrated anybody. I did mention the "vague beliefs" expressed by those with opposing arguments. Is that what you refer to?
But that is exactly what they, themselves, express. "I don't claim to know what our origins are, or what our destiny is..."; "I am comfortable with not knowing...". Sound familiar?
So when a theist does nothing but argue to the bitter death with non-believers I don't see where they are paying attention to the teachings of Jesus.
All due respect, but if I am looking for insight into the "teachings of Jesus", I will look elsewhere than to a non-theist.
"Argue to the bitter death"? That's a colorful way of putting it, isn't it? From my perspective, I'm just visiting a message board dedicated to the discussion and debate of Christianity. And expressing my reasons for being a Christian. Which generates oppositional views, which I then address.
If by "bitter death", you mean until both parties begin to repeat themselves -- well, yes. am willing to engage to that point. A point we seem to have reached, in our discussion.
If I were going to preach to people I would at least follow Jesus' instructions and only preach to those who are interested in hearing the message.
Is that a nice way of saying "shut up"?
Again -- it is perhaps a good thing that the prohibition against "preaching" (however defined -- apparently, it means "sharing the Good News"; which is an odd injunction on a site devoted to Christianity...) does not extend to "lecturing", of which I cetainly have been the recipient of my share -- as here.
I think, in general, theists "preach" (against the rules);
non-theists "lecture" (within the rules).
Perhaps that has a bearing on the subject of the OP?
In the meantime, if you are attempting to argue or debate for why the religion has merit, I haven't seen where you have supplied any compelling arguments.
I certainly regret to hear that.
But I don't see where that is a compelling argument that I haven't made any.
I consider your life to be meaningful, too. That's because I believe you, I, and everything else is a creation of God. "And God so loved the world..."?
It is "meaningful", as opposed to being a mere random dance of atoms, which produces nothing other than "change".
And if you were to discover unequivocally that life really is nothing more, essentially, than "a mere random dance of atoms" produced by change, in what physical way would your life be different?
That strikes me as an odd question, coming from a mindset that is always asking for "physical evidence" of the spiritual (e.g., below). How could I possibly know what pattern energy might arrange itself into in my mind, if it enlightened that it was all that existed? And note -- "it" enlightened me. What else could?
It is also irrelevant. Again: if "energy" is all that exists, then our reality is irrational and absurd. And our personalities are temporal, temporary, and ephemeral.
Volbrigade wrote:
I'm glad you are. And I think the story you recount is wonderful (Kepler, btw, was a Creationsit -- fwiw). And fraught with meaning. Because "God so loved the world...", and all the rest of it.
Most of the early scientists were devoted believers. They were not attempting to disprove God, because they had no idea whatsoever that any such thing was even remotely possible. And then we passed through the 20th century, and scientists have come to realize that the universe is completely explainable without resorting to a belief in the supernatural.
Opinion noted. Substantiate that claim, please.
I suspect it will take the rest of this century before such an understanding will have become commonly understood and accepted by the general public.
Ditto the above. And again -- even if it were true -- what would it matter?
But the fact is, it is not true. And when man began attempting to disprove the existence of God, he began making up absurd, elaborate fables about microbes becoming men, through the fluctuations of a quantum cloud.
Volbrigade wrote:
But if all we are -- if all anything, and everything is -- is a fluctuating quantum fog (is that the term you used?), then that wonderful story has precisely as much meaning or value as the story of Jeffrey Dahmer.
Which is absurd.
And, blessedly --not true.
Unfortunately the story of Jeffrey Dahmer IS true. Dahmer is one of those psychopaths that we discussed earlier. Did you know that Dahmer was a baptized Christian? Society decided that it's concept of morality took precedent over Jeffrey Dahmer's concept of morality, and Jeffrey Dahmer walks among us no more.
And what of it?
Volbrigade wrote:
No, my friend. Only the TRUTH counts for anything.
This I agree with 100%. Physically establishable facts and the truth are inevitably found to go hand in hand I am afraid. As opposed to make it up and declare it to be true. Make it up and declare it to be true does produce mighty interesting fiction, however.
Right. Such as "a quantum cloud turned microbes into men...". And "Societal concepts of moraity...". Meaningless, if true -- but not true, because the physical universe is but a created subset of an eternal reality. And making believe it's not does not change that fundamental, foundational fact.
Volbrigade wrote:
And the truth is, either this reality we inhabit is imbued with meaning by the Infinite Mind that created it: or it is a mindless, meaningless dance of atoms.
Again, "meaningless" is a matter of opinion and perspective.
Exactly! From your perspective, that is. And from your perspective, there can be no differentiating between a charity hospital, Jeffrey Dahmer's antics, and the slaughter of the Amalekites. Just a quantum cloud, doing its quantum cloud thing, until it changes into something else, for no reason.
Volbrigade wrote:
And in your heart of hearts, I think that while you are not prepared to accept the former; you can't accept the latter, either. Or at least, you cannot live your life by it. Without making up some personal "meaning" for it.
I was raised Christian, and believed in it entirely... until I came to realize just how silly the various claims were. And then I left it behind.
Funny. I was an atheist, until I realized how silly the various claims are.
Volbrigade wrote:
I believe the former. And I believe the totality of the evidence -- empirical, as well as circumstantial -- points to its truth. Conclusively.
If you had any actual physical evidence I believe that you would have presented it by now.
The Flood is a physical event, for which there is evidence.
So is the universe, for that matter.
Volbrigade wrote:
Well, your morality is based on "constantly changing energy", which makes no discernment between Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler. So I don't see where you have standing to disparage "my" morality, Biblical morality, or John Wayne Gacy's morality. They are all simply what energy produces, under different and changing circumstances, the way it randomly put a living cell together. Blessed be the quantum cloud.
A society's morality is based on popular opinion. Our society has reached the popular opinion that slavery is immoral (and I agree). Slavery was simply a fact of life for most of human history. Currently our society is struggling with the moral question of abortion. There is no overwhelming majority opinion on abortion. But you see, slavery and abortions are simply events. They either occur, or they do not. The universe at large has no opinion on human events one way or the other. Because the universe is indifferent one way or the other. Because morality is an opinion, and the universe has no opinions.
We agree...
Volbrigade wrote:
I was at this website recently, for info to answer a request by Z. I came across this, which addresses your often-voiced complaint about God's commands re the Canaanites. I agree 100% with it:
Quote:
Genocide and war crimes?
Wars between people groups dominate ancient history, so it shouldn’t surprise us that the Old Testament records a lot of wars. But some skeptics object to some of the commands God gave for the Israelite’s conquest of the Promised Land, i.e. Canaan.
Probably the most cited ‘atrocity’ is the Lord’s command to destroy the Amalekites totally, including their women, children, and property. However, God commanded their destruction because they had opposed Israel when they came up out of Egypt. Deuteronomy says, “Remember what Amalek did to you as you came out of Egypt, how he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary, and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you, and he did not fear God� (Deuteronomy 25:17–18, 1 Samuel 15:2–3). God swore that He would utterly destroy them (Exodus 17). They were going to be driven out of the Promised Land and replaced by Israel because of their sins—which included heinous immorality and child sacrifice. This was God’s judgment against them—Israel was merely God’s agent for that judgment—and so Israel was to destroy everything completely and not take any of it for themselves. When Saul and his army spared King Agag and took some livestock, it was such a serious offence that God in turn judged Saul and permanently removed His favour from him (1 Samuel 15 ff.). In fact, some Amalekites were left in other locations—David defeated a raiding party of Amalekites in 1 Samuel 30.
God’s action against the Amalekites is only immoral to those who do not recognize God’s right to judge the people He created when they rebel against Him. God has the right to deal with His creations the way He chooses (people said to be ‘playing God’ usurp these privileges). In fact, God warned the Israelites that if they practised the abominations of the Canaanites, they would be driven out of the land as well (Deuteronomy 29:18–28).
Here is an (hypothetical) example of one of the vile abominable creatures that rebelled against God. OFF WITH IT'S HEAD!
According to the Bible God ordered the deaths of all of the vanquished enemy, right down to the newborn babies. You are now openly seeking to justify the violent killing of hundreds of helpless children and babies. In a contest of right and wrong, moral verses immoral it would seem that I need only rest my case right here. Anyone who can seek to justify the premeditated cold blooded hacking deaths of babies and children by the hundreds has entirely vacated the moral high ground and has no claim on the concept of morality. If Christians choose to claim that the passages in the Bible that describes such actions were righteous and justified, then Christianity is morally bankrupt and should be abandoned as quickly as possible.
So let us put this question before the court of popular opinion.
QUESTION:
Which person would you consider to be morally superior, a person who can contrive reasons why beheading and disemboweling children and babies might, from time to time, be necessary, or a person who rejects such actions utterly?
If we asked this question of a thousand people at random, in whose favor do you suppose the results would prove to be?
Yes. Let's ask randomly assembled (by the ever changing quantum cloud) bags of chemicals what the pattern of the cloud imprints on the physiology of their brains with regard to the question the cloud manifested in yours.
Two things:
If you're going to attempt a moral position regarding the slaughter of babies in the Bible, I think it would be honorable to state clearly your moral position regarding the slaughter of babies at the abattoirs -- er, abortion clinics -- dotted across the landscape. I think any respondent to the question should do the same.
Also -- if you're right, and God did not command the actions in question, which is His sovereign right as creator of Heaven and Earth; matter, space, and time --
then what happened is simply the pattern the quantum could took at that particular juncture, and was approved by the society that justified it.
Just as the slaughter of babies is approved and justified by our society.
So I really don't see what your objection is.
Neither the universe nor the quantum cloud cares. As a momentary, ephemeral ripple within that cloud -- why should you?
Volbrigade wrote:
That strikes me as an odd question, coming from a mindset that is always asking for "physical evidence" of the spiritual (e.g., below). How could I possibly know what pattern energy might arrange itself into in my mind, if it enlightened that it was all that existed? And note -- "it" enlightened me. What else could?
This goes back to the obvious fact that the truth is whatever it is, and things simply are what they are, whether one chooses them to be that way or not. The point I was making is that if your existence is simply the result of "'a mere random dance of atoms'" produced by change," then that is the way things are, and your life and the things around you, would remain exactly the same. The only thing that would be changed is your perception of reality in reaching this understanding.
Referring to the current condition of the universe as "a mere random dance of atoms" is a rather poetic way of putting it, and one that I rather like. It's not entirely accurate however, because it infers that things are haphazard. Random does not necessarily mean haphazard. Things are the way they are for a very precise set of reasons, even if the steps which occurred in reaching those conditions was somewhat random in nature.
Or at least not driven by intent.
Things which function tend to produce further things which function. Things which do not function produce nothing further. Systems are built upon those things which function. Prokaryotic systems evolved over time in to the more advanced eukaryotic systems. A "mere random dance of atoms," yes. But not haphazard. It all occurred for a very precise set of reasons.
A very simple example is water. Hydrogen is a gas over a wide range of temperatures (-434.5°F is the freezing point). Oxygen is also a gas over a wide range of temperatures (-361.8°F). Combine them together and they become the molecule water, which have the properties of a liquid, and freezes at the relatively high temperature of 32 degrees. No intelligent force was behind the conversion of hydrogen and oxygen into water. It occurs because the atoms hydrogen and oxygen fit together in such a way, in a ratio of 2 hydrogen atoms to 1 oxygen atom, to produce the liquid we call water. Combine the two gases together in a beaker and drops of water immediately begin to form. There is no intelligence in this, it occurs naturally in accordance with the positive and negative electrical charges fundamental to the properties of quantum mechanics. Much like the wind and the rain and lightning and thunder and, well, everything else that occurs naturally in accordance with the properties of quantum mechanics.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Most of the early scientists were devoted believers. They were not attempting to disprove God, because they had no idea whatsoever that any such thing was even remotely possible. And then we passed through the 20th century, and scientists have come to realize that the universe is completely explainable without resorting to a belief in the supernatural.
Volbrigade wrote:
Opinion noted. Substantiate that claim, please.
It's right in my signature. Einstein was a believing Jew as a young man, but as his knowledge of science grew he evolved into what might be considered the very definition of an agnostic. While he never denied the possibility of an intelligent force controlling the functioning of the universe, he made it quite clear that he considered the Biblical concept of God "childish." Skepticism and downright disdain of religious beliefs has been a hallmark of scientists for much of the last 100 years.
Non belief is in fact the fastest growing concept in the world. I have seen it in my own time. When I was 13 years old I became an atheist by default. I did not join an atheist organization. I did not undergo any ritual. I simply no longer believed in the existence of God. At that time, the year was 1961, I did not know and had never met another non believer. At least, not one that openly professed non belief or atheism. Fifty five years later I am surround by non believers. When I was a boy I was surrounded by openly evangelic Christians who referred to the Bible and Jesus constantly. Now I only rarely hear such overt reference to Christian beliefs. I know believing Christians to be sure. But I am no longer saturated in religious claims. So I am indicating from my own personal experience that as the 20th century has progressed and became the 21st century, belief in the supernatural has decreased noticeably and dramatically.
Millennials leaving church in droves, study finds
By Daniel Burke, CNN Religion Editor
Updated 4:14 PM ET, Thu May 14, 2015
Released Tuesday, the survey of 35,000 American adults shows the Christian percentage of the population dropping precipitously, to 70.6%. In 2007, the last time Pew conducted a similar survey, 78.4% of American adults called themselves Christian.
In the meantime, almost every major branch of Christianity in the United States has lost a significant number of members, Pew found, mainly because millennials are leaving the fold. More than one-third of millennials now say they are unaffiliated with any faith, up 10 percentage points since 2007. http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/12/living/pe ... index.html
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
I suspect it will take the rest of this century before such an understanding will have become commonly understood and accepted by the general public.
Volbrigade wrote:
Ditto the above. And again -- even if it were true -- what would it matter?
Obviously I cannot provide evidence for things which have not yet occurred. Which is why I specifically indicated that "I suspect" that modern scientific concepts will be commonly accepted by the end of this century. But I am basing that presumption on the current statistical evidence. Christians of course declare that they will never give up their beliefs in God and Jesus. Relatively few of those making such declaration will still be alive by the end of this century, however. And young people are less and less inclined to buy into religion. Much in the same way I stopped buying into it in 1961. I was simply ahead of the curve.
Volbrigade wrote:
But the fact is, it is not true. And when man began attempting to disprove the existence of God, he began making up absurd, elaborate fables about microbes becoming men, through the fluctuations of a quantum cloud.
As opposed to stories of a man commanding the sun and moon to stand still, hordes of dead people coming up out of their graves, a man riding around inside of a fish for several days, and the story of a corpse coming back to life and then flying away... you mean? Today science has provided us with "absurd, elaborate fables" of robots on Mars and human beings walking on the moon. Which I watched happen live on that "absurd, elaborate fable" known as TV. So unless working technology is a lie, then science is DEMONSTRABLY on to something which is considerably more than an "absurd, elaborate fable." Because all of modern technology is the direct product of the revolution in our basic understanding of the functioning of the universe which first began to be understood in the 1920's, and is now known as quantum mechanics.
Volbrigade wrote:
Right. Such as "a quantum cloud turned microbes into men...". And "Societal concepts of moraity...". Meaningless, if true -- but not true, because the physical universe is but a created subset of an eternal reality. And making believe it's not does not change that fundamental, foundational fact.
It's called quantum foam actually, and it refers to the irresistible nature of quantum mechanics causing ongoing change.
Volbrigade wrote:
Exactly! From your perspective, that is. And from your perspective, there can be no differentiating between a charity hospital, Jeffrey Dahmer's antics, and the slaughter of the Amalekites. Just a quantum cloud, doing its quantum cloud thing, until it changes into something else, for no reason.
Not only untrue, but an example of overt hyperbole.
Volbrigade wrote:
The Flood is a physical event, for which there is evidence.
Floods occur all over the world. And when they do they leave evidence. There is no evidence that the entire earth was once covered in water to a point above even the highest mountain.
Volbrigade wrote:
So is the universe, for that matter.
The existence of the physical universe is evidence that physical existence is possible. As opposed to non existence. Why the universe exists is the question. It's a very BIG question in fact. It is not self evident.
Volbrigade wrote:
Yes. Let's ask randomly assembled (by the ever changing quantum cloud) bags of chemicals what the pattern of the cloud imprints on the physiology of their brains with regard to the question the cloud manifested in yours.
Given that there are approximately seven billion of us currently living on planet earth, we would undoubtedly get seven billion opinions. Unfortunately we humans are eternally fallible creatures without the superpower which we would necessarily have to possess to know things to a 100% degree of certainty. By what method than shall we attempt to judge the likelihood of any particular question for being true? There is always the old "make it up and declare it to be true" method employed by our ancient ancestors, which resulted in thousands of competing beliefs over the centuries, each one replete with amazing stories of miraculous events which both defy common sense and the laws of physics. Or we could go with the observation and experimentation method that has given us modern working technology, and use that method as a way for examining and understanding the universe.
Volbrigade wrote:
Two things:
If you're going to attempt a moral position regarding the slaughter of babies in the Bible, I think it would be honorable to state clearly your moral position regarding the slaughter of babies at the abattoirs -- er, abortion clinics -- dotted across the landscape. I think any respondent to the question should do the same.
I have already indicated that I am not a proponent of abortion. Each of the children that I fathered is alive and well to this day.
Volbrigade wrote:
Also -- if you're right, and God did not command the actions in question, which is His sovereign right as creator of Heaven and Earth; matter, space, and time --
then what happened is simply the pattern the quantum could took at that particular juncture, and was approved by the society that justified it.
Quantum mechanics does not make moral judgements. Humans make moral judgements. Because without a concept of morality society could not survive. Humans have proven themselves to be the most dangerous species on the planet. Without a unifying concept of how to get along with each other, we would constantly be attempting to be eradicating each other. Even WITH a concept of morality we are constantly killing each other. The only hope for our continued survival as a species is to reach and maintain levels of civilized behavior that are universally understood and accepted as applying to all of us. Because it is a good evolutionary strategy for continued survival. These concepts are conceptual laws, not physical laws, this is true. But certain things must be understood to be unacceptable under any circumstances. Genocide must necessarily be first on the list. No one could order me to methodically kill children and babies. Not any king, not any president, not God himself. I would renounce all fealty to such a being. And if the question became, "If you love me you will follow my orders," my response would be, "Why would anyone choose to love such a being?"
The Bible indicates that God personally ordered genocide. If the Bible is the truth, then God is a monster. Let Him do His own dirty work. But I am willing to give God the benefit of the doubt by concluding that the the Bible is simply the work of men, and often has very little to do with the truth. A God that never existed to begin with is a God that is off the hook.
Volbrigade wrote:
So I really don't see what your objection is.
Neither the universe nor the quantum cloud cares. As a momentary, ephemeral ripple within that cloud -- why should you?
Because unlike the universe as a whole I have clear personal objectives. Like succeeding in staying alive, and being as comfortable and happy as possible in the process.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.
That strikes me as an odd question, coming from a mindset that is always asking for "physical evidence" of the spiritual (e.g., below). How could I possibly know what pattern energy might arrange itself into in my mind, if it enlightened that it was all that existed? And note -- "it" enlightened me. What else could?
This goes back to the obvious fact that the truth is whatever it is, and things simply are what they are, whether one chooses them to be that way or not. The point I was making is that if your existence is simply the result of "'a mere random dance of atoms'" produced by change," then that is the way things are, and your life and the things around you, would remain exactly the same. The only thing that would be changed is your perception of reality in reaching this understanding.
You can't know that. I came to Christ fairly late in life. I was an atheist before that. Who knows what sorts of decisions I would've made, what sorts of actions I would've taken, if I had continued to believe that matter was all that existed. And what their consequences would’ve been.
And anyway, personal circumstances are not the point. The point is: if everything is the result of the constantly changing, impersonal quantum foam (love that term! I must remember it), then, again, there is no ultimate difference between the tender love of a mother for her child, and the tender murder committed by a real life Hannibal Lecter. Despite your opinion, or society's, which has exactly the same property of that murder, in being merely a temporary, changing manifestation of the foam. Any differentiation on the basis of a “moral consensus� is, again, strictly “make believe�.
Referring to the current condition of the universe as "a mere random dance of atoms" is a rather poetic way of putting it, and one that I rather like. It's not entirely accurate however, because it infers that things are haphazard. Random does not necessarily mean haphazard. Things are the way they are for a very precise set of reasons...
There. "Reasons". Do you see how it is impossible to talk about these things without smuggling in theistic concepts? Quantum foam can't have "reasons". Only a mind can have "reasons".
There is a very precise set of reasons, indeed. And they come from the Mind of God.
There is no intelligence in this, it occurs naturally in accordance with the positive and negative electrical charges fundamental to the properties of quantum mechanics. Much like the wind and the rain and lightning and thunder and, well, everything else that occurs naturally in accordance with the properties of quantum mechanics.
And, of course, that can no more be substantiated than "everything else that occurs naturally in accordance with the properties of quantum mechanics, which is ordained by God."
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Most of the early scientists were devoted believers. They were not attempting to disprove God, because they had no idea whatsoever that any such thing was even remotely possible. And then we passed through the 20th century, and scientists have come to realize that the universe is completely explainable without resorting to a belief in the supernatural.
Volbrigade wrote:
Opinion noted. Substantiate that claim, please.
It's right in my signature. Einstein was a believing Jew as a young man, but as his knowledge of science grew he evolved into what might be considered the very definition of an agnostic. While he never denied the possibility of an intelligent force controlling the functioning of the universe... etc.
You misunderstood what I was asking, it appears. I should've been more precise. I was asking you to substantiate the part in bold. That there is a great "falling away" in these latter days was pre-written, and serves as part of the great corpus of circumstantial evidence that the Bible is true.
And so as not to compound my error, let me be precise: I am not asking you to substantiate the claim that scientists believe the universe is "completely explainable". Rather, please substantiate that the universe actually IS fully explainable.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
I suspect it will take the rest of this century before such an understanding will have become commonly understood and accepted by the general public.
Volbrigade wrote:
Ditto the above. And again -- even if it were true -- what would it matter?
Obviously I cannot provide evidence for things which have not yet occurred. Which is why I specifically indicated that "I suspect" that modern scientific concepts will be commonly accepted by the end of this century. But I am basing that presumption on the current statistical evidence. Christians of course declare that they will never give up their beliefs in God and Jesus. Relatively few of those making such declaration will still be alive by the end of this century, however. And young people are less and less inclined to buy into religion. Much in the same way I stopped buying into it in 1961. I was simply ahead of the curve.
Yes, there is alarming ignorance among the young -- and not just in regard to Biblical truth. 50 years ago, The Beatles were "bigger than Christ." Now, it's Justin Beiber and Beyonce. Not a good trend.
But, I have seen with my own eyes a few among this current generation of Millennials and Nones who are mighty warriors for Christ. They are educated, informed, and alive in the spirit. This age requires strength and wisdom to overcome deception -- all ages do, of course, but the steady flow of lies and disinformation has become a raging cataract.
Not only that, but the Gospel is spreading like wild fire in areas where the "bad news" of man's depravity is in evidence: China, the Muslim world. But yes, you are right. In the decadent and debauched West, Christianity is sliver of a minority. Its persecution has already begun, and will continue to strengthen -- and it will be approved of by the lukewarm, apostate, denominational churches.
Volbrigade wrote:
But the fact is, it is not true. And when man began attempting to disprove the existence of God, he began making up absurd, elaborate fables about microbes becoming men, through the fluctuations of a quantum cloud.
As opposed to stories of a man commanding the sun and moon to stand still, hordes of dead people coming up out of their graves, a man riding around inside of a fish for several days, and the story of a corpse coming back to life and then flying away... you mean? Today science has provided us with "absurd, elaborate fables" of robots on Mars and human beings walking on the moon. Which I watched happen live on that "absurd, elaborate fable" known as TV. So unless working technology is a lie, then science is DEMONSTRABLY on to something which is considerably more than an "absurd, elaborate fable." Because all of modern technology is the direct product of the revolution in our basic understanding of the functioning of the universe which first began to be understood in the 1920's, and is now known as quantum mechanics.
This is old ground. If we must cover it again -- so be it.
Operational science is totally unconcerned with the worldview of those who practice it. Diligent adherence to the scientific method will produce aircraft, smartphones, and Mars landers, no matter if the scientist worships Buddha, Krishna, Allah, or Randomness. Or, of course, Jesus Christ.
Not so with science directed toward origins and history. With those, the presupposition that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and true history of the universe, will produce a categorically different interpretation of the data and evidence, than will the presupposition that something other than the God of the Bible is responsible for our reality.
The real question is: which is true?
And the answer is: if God is true, than everything in the Bible is validated by "Let light be."
And if the quantum foam is true, then our reality is irrational and absurd. Like the idea that microbes became men.
The Good News is: quantum physics is friendly to Christianity. It appears our reality is a sort of "digital simulation" of a "higher", "hyperdimensional" reality (the "holographic universe).
Of course, that is what the Bible has maintained all along.
Because it is propositional truth, imparted from the source or all truth, and of reality itself.
Volbrigade wrote:
Right. Such as "a quantum cloud turned microbes into men...". And "Societal concepts of moraity...". Meaningless, if true -- but not true, because the physical universe is but a created subset of an eternal reality. And making believe it's not does not change that fundamental, foundational fact.
It's called quantum foam actually, and it refers to the irresistible nature of quantum mechanics causing ongoing change.
Yes. Again, great term. Love it.
Volbrigade wrote:
Exactly! From your perspective, that is. And from your perspective, there can be no differentiating between a charity hospital, Jeffrey Dahmer's antics, and the slaughter of the Amalekites. Just a quantum cloud, doing its quantum cloud thing, until it changes into something else, for no reason.
Not only untrue, but an example of overt hyperbole.
Opinion. Substantiate, please. From the perspective of the quantum foam, in what way are the items listed any different?
Volbrigade wrote:
The Flood is a physical event, for which there is evidence.
Floods occur all over the world. And when they do they leave evidence. There is no evidence that the entire earth was once covered in water to a point above even the highest mountain.
Untrue. There is compelling evidence, and it is worldwide. We can only speculate how high the "highest mountain" was, in the pre-Flood pangea. But catastrophic plate tectonics explains the current height of Everest. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean its true. It is a theory. One that incorporates the evidence -- e.g., marine fossils at the summits of mountain ranges.
Volbrigade wrote:
So is the universe, for that matter.
The existence of the physical universe is evidence that physical existence is possible. As opposed to non existence. Why the universe exists is the question. It's a very BIG question in fact. It is not self evident.
Creation demands a creator; Design demands a designer; "everything that has a beginning must have a cause." We're beginning to wear a path over the same ground, aren't we?
Volbrigade wrote:
Yes. Let's ask randomly assembled (by the ever changing quantum cloud) bags of chemicals what the pattern of the cloud imprints on the physiology of their brains with regard to the question the cloud manifested in yours.
Given that there are approximately seven billion of us currently living on planet earth, we would undoubtedly get seven billion opinions. Unfortunately we humans are eternally fallible creatures without the superpower which we would necessarily have to possess to know things to a 100% degree of certainty. By what method than shall we attempt to judge the likelihood of any particular question for being true? There is always the old "make it up and declare it to be true" method employed by our ancient ancestors, which resulted in thousands of competing beliefs over the centuries, each one replete with amazing stories of miraculous events which both defy common sense and the laws of physics. Or we could go with the observation and experimentation method that has given us modern working technology, and use that method as a way for examining and understanding the universe.
"And yet I show you a more excellent way..."
Why not discard the myths and fables, and embrace the truth that God created the universe, and creatures of free will within it? And from that foundation, "go with the observation and experimentation method that has given us modern working technology, and use that method as a way for examining and understanding the universe"?
That is the path to truth. All other paths must necessarily lead to error.
Volbrigade wrote:
Two things:
If you're going to attempt a moral position regarding the slaughter of babies in the Bible, I think it would be honorable to state clearly your moral position regarding the slaughter of babies at the abattoirs -- er, abortion clinics -- dotted across the landscape. I think any respondent to the question should do the same.
I have already indicated that I am not a proponent of abortion. Each of the children that I fathered is alive and well to this day.
That's because you know that human life has intrinsic value. And that your life, and the lives of your children, have real and profound meaning. But that is in contradiction to your stated belief that quantum foam, and change, are responsible for everything. You therefore state that meaning is whatever you determine it to be. Which means it is "made up" -- exactly the same dispersion that you cast at the existence of God. Which means that your worldview is fundamentally irrational, self-contradictorty, and absurd. And the only mitigation for that reality is that since we're all just part of a mindless, impersonal quantum foam, it doesn't really matter that it's irrational, self-contradictorty, and absurd.
Truth, reason, and rationality await your embrace. They "stand at the door and knock."
Volbrigade wrote:
Also -- if you're right, and God did not command the actions in question, which is His sovereign right as creator of Heaven and Earth; matter, space, and time --
then what happened is simply the pattern the quantum could took at that particular juncture, and was approved by the society that justified it.
Quantum mechanics does not make moral judgements. Humans make moral judgements. Because without a concept of morality society could not survive. Humans have proven themselves to be the most dangerous species on the planet. Without a unifying concept of how to get along with each other, we would constantly be attempting to be eradicating each other. Even WITH a concept of morality we are constantly killing each other. The only hope for our continued survival as a species is to reach and maintain levels of civilized behavior that are universally understood and accepted as applying to all of us. Because it is a good evolutionary strategy for continued survival. These concepts are conceptual laws, not physical laws, this is true. But certain things must be understood to be unacceptable under any circumstances. Genocide must necessarily be first on the list. No one could order me to methodically kill children and babies. Not any king, not any president, not God himself. I would renounce all fealty to such a being. And if the question became, "If you love me you will follow my orders," my response would be, "Why would anyone choose to love such a being?"
I don't disagree.
But every word you write here can be summarily dismissed with "if all that exists is a mindless, impersonal quantum foam -- then what of it? What difference does it make?" On what grounds do you repudiate the people group that says "all that matters is OUR survival? All that matters is the perpetuation of OUR genes, which are superior; and we must assist evolution by eliminating all inferior gene pools"? What does the quantum foam have to say about that?
Incidentally -- the part I boldened is critical. Chesterton's "empirical evidence for the Fall."
The Bible indicates that God personally ordered genocide. If the Bible is the truth, then God is a monster. Let Him do His own dirty work. But I am willing to give God the benefit of the doubt by concluding that the the Bible is simply the work of men, and often has very little to do with the truth. A God that never existed to begin with is a God that is off the hook.
Not necessarily. I submit that you don't have enough information to make that determination. You are not omniscient: God is. He is working all things to the good, for those that love Him, within the context of our free will. A tough job.
You might bear in mind that while God gave the order, the Jews disobeyed it. All of which is faithfully recorded. Why? Paul says that "all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition". What is the meaning to be gained ?
Well, none, of course, if you ask quantum foam. But then, it won't tell you anything, anyway. It cares not one whit whether babies are slaughtered or not.
But God does.
Why, then, in these specific instances (e.g., the Midianites, the Amelakites) did He order these specific actions by one specific people against another?
Good question!
Shall we enter into a study of it, with the leading of the Holy Spirit?
Volbrigade wrote:
So I really don't see what your objection is.
Neither the universe nor the quantum cloud cares. As a momentary, ephemeral ripple within that cloud -- why should you?
Because unlike the universe as a whole I have clear personal objectives. Like succeeding in staying alive, and being as comfortable and happy as possible in the process.
This may sound flip, but it's to make a point:
I asked the quantum foam, and it really doesn't care about your comfort or happiness. Or even your life.
Volbrigade wrote:
You can't know that. I came to Christ fairly late in life. I was an atheist before that. Who knows what sorts of decisions I would've made, what sorts of actions I would've taken, if I had continued to believe that matter was all that existed. And what their consequences would’ve been.
You claim to have become a Christian now however, and you therefore see reality through the eyes of Christian claims of supernatural intervention by God. If you came to the conclusion that these claims were not true, your entire worldview would be altered once again. But the universe itself would remain just as it has always been.
Volbrigade wrote:
And anyway, personal circumstances are not the point. The point is: if everything is the result of the constantly changing, impersonal quantum foam (love that term! I must remember it), then, again, there is no ultimate difference between the tender love of a mother for her child, and the tender murder committed by a real life Hannibal Lecter. Despite your opinion, or society's, which has exactly the same property of that murder, in being merely a temporary, changing manifestation of the foam. Any differentiation on the basis of a “moral consensus� is, again, strictly “make believe�.
First, let me point out that when I use the term "make believe," I am referring to the tendency of people to imagine a solution to a question, and to then decide that this solution which they made up from their imaginations must necessarily be the correct solution. Make believe. As opposed to the empirical method of careful observation, examination and experimentation that is employed by science. There is a very distinct and obvious difference between answers amassed through direct observation and experimentation, and answers manufactured in one's imagination and then declared to be true.
The implication of the term "quantum foam" is that quantum mechanics is an unyielding force for change, eternally bubbling and churning away. The result is that things which are possible have an increased probability for becoming extent over vast amounts of time. Once something like protolife occurs, the pressure to change and evolve into more advanced forms is unrelenting.
Viruses are an example. Viruses do not respire, and do not excrete as true life does. All they do is replicate themselves. They can be broken up and destroyed, but viruses do not die, because they were never alive to begin with. As long as they remain intact, they can remain inert indefinitely. And then when the conditions are right, they replicate themselves. Viruses exist because their existence is possible, not because their existence has any special meaning to the universe. Viruses serve no actual function, other than to replicate themselves. But they exist because they are possible within the rules of quantum mechanics.
Volbrigade wrote:
There. "Reasons". Do you see how it is impossible to talk about these things without smuggling in theistic concepts? Quantum foam can't have "reasons". Only a mind can have "reasons".
There is a very precise set of reasons, indeed. And they come from the Mind of God.
By reasons, I meant that things occur based on the events that preceded them. An unbroken chain of cause and effect. So everything that occurs does so due to a precise set of reasons.
You made up the whole "mind of God " concept. And you have your reasons. Those reasons are derived from emotional needs and desires rather than as a response to any physical evidence. Which I am afraid, makes it suspect.
Volbrigade wrote:
And, of course, that can no more be substantiated than "everything else that occurs naturally in accordance with the properties of quantum mechanics, which is ordained by God."
The ""everything else that occurs naturally in accordance with the properties of quantum mechanics" part is the result of extensive observation and experimentation. That this observation and experimentation is valid is substantiated by the reality of modern working technology. That "which is ordained by God" part you simply invented and tacked on the end. Because no such thing is observed.
Volbrigade wrote:
You misunderstood what I was asking, it appears. I should've been more precise. I was asking you to substantiate the part in bold. That there is a great "falling away" in these latter days was pre-written, and serves as part of the great corpus of circumstantial evidence that the Bible is true. Wink
And so as not to compound my error, let me be precise: I am not asking you to substantiate the claim that scientists believe the universe is "completely explainable". Rather, please substantiate that the universe actually IS fully explainable.
I am afraid that I cannot provide a statement of belief from every actual scientist that is currently actively working in the field of physical science, if that it what you are requesting.
Volbrigade wrote:
Yes, there is alarming ignorance among the young -- and not just in regard to Biblical truth. 50 years ago, The Beatles were "bigger than Christ." Now, it's Justin Beiber and Beyonce.
Not a good trend.
The move to abandon religion by the younger generation represents an unprecedented change in the religious makeup of the population of the US. And it is not only occurring in the US. Europe is already reached a position of being roughly 50% religious and 50% secular.
Fifty years ago there were perhaps 1.5 billion living Christians. John Lennon indicated that the Beatles had even more fans than Jesus. He was making a statement about just how popular they had become, which even he was dumbfounded about. The Beatles were a band derived from western society, and as a result the vast majority of their fans were Christians as well. This overlap was not in conflict with itself. As John Lennon later explained, he was not comparing the Beatles to Jesus, or claiming that they were better or greater. Lennon may well have been right fifty years ago that the Beatles had even more fans than Jesus had, although there is no way to verify that. Do Beiber and Beyonce have more fans than Jesus? I seriously doubt it.
Volbrigade wrote:
But, I have seen with my own eyes a few among this current generation of Millennials and Nones who are mighty warriors for Christ. They are educated, informed, and alive in the spirit. This age requires strength and wisdom to overcome deception -- all ages do, of course, but the steady flow of lies and disinformation has become a raging cataract.
And yet the statistics consistently indicate that the total number of Christians in the US has fallen from about 90% twenty years ago to about 70% today. The bulk of the change in the makeup of the US population has been taken up by those with no religious convictions at all. I have been observing this change occurring for myself my entire life. Christians are spectacularly good at rallying their troops. And the troops are very vocal. The problem is that each year there are fewer troops to rally. At the current rate of change there will be more non believers than believers in the US by the middle of this century. Once that tipping point has occurred, Christianity will go into a free fall. Just as belief in Odin and Zeus went into a free fall. And became defunct. No one gives much thought to defunct religions, I am afraid. Other than historians.
Volbrigade wrote:
Not only that, but the Gospel is spreading like wild fire in areas where the "bad news" of man's depravity is in evidence: China, the Muslim world. But yes, you are right. In the decadent and debauched West, Christianity is sliver of a minority. Its persecution has already begun, and will continue to strengthen -- and it will be approved of by the lukewarm, apostate, denominational churches.
The most significant gains in Christianity have been occurring in Africa. There has been a distinct ebb and flow in religious belief in Africa however. Christian missionaries tend to offer food and medicine to sick and starving people. A powerful incentive. Muslims tend to offer death to those who do not convert to Islam. Also a powerful incentive.
Evidence indicates that the claimed explosion of millions of conversions to Christianity in China is mainly a case of zealous hyperbole produced by Christian missionaries.
Volbrigade wrote:
Operational science is totally unconcerned with the worldview of those who practice it. Diligent adherence to the scientific method will produce aircraft, smartphones, and Mars landers, no matter if the scientist worships Buddha, Krishna, Allah, or Randomness. Or, of course, Jesus Christ.
True.
Volbrigade wrote:
Not so with science directed toward origins and history. With those, the presupposition that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and true history of the universe, will produce a categorically different interpretation of the data and evidence, than will the presupposition that something other than the God of the Bible is responsible for our reality.
The real question is: which is true?
And the answer is: if God is true, than everything in the Bible is validated by "Let light be.
Visible light is a packet (photon) of electromagnetic energy physically produced when excited electrons change their orbits. This is occurring in an ongoing process in the sun, but we humans have discovered various other way of producing light as well. This does NOT qualify us as God's I am afraid. "Let there be light" is simply a statement of the obvious fact that light exists, and we have developed specialized cells to detect it and to utilize it to our advantage.
Volbrigade wrote:
And if the quantum foam is true, then our reality is irrational and absurd. Like the idea that microbes became men.
Things which are genuinely irrational do not occur. Absurd things occasionally do, however.
Volbrigade wrote:
The Good News is: quantum physics is friendly to Christianity. It appears our reality is a sort of "digital simulation" of a "higher", "hyperdimensional" reality (the "holographic universe).
Physics (science in general) is neither hostile nor friendly to religion. Scientific discoveries are made according to the best observation and experimentation. Insofar as discoveries sustain or deny religion, that is pure happenstance.
Volbrigade wrote:
Exactly! From your perspective, that is. And from your perspective, there can be no differentiating between a charity hospital, Jeffrey Dahmer's antics, and the slaughter of the Amalekites. Just a quantum cloud, doing its quantum cloud thing, until it changes into something else, for no reason.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Not only untrue, but an example of overt hyperbole.
Volbrigade wrote:
Opinion. Substantiate, please. From the perspective of the quantum foam, in what way are the items listed any different?
First, as I already pointed out everything that occurs does so for a very specific set of reasons. These reasons have nothing to do with intelligent design however. Let's take dust bunnies for example. Why did God design and create dust bunnies? What purpose do they serve? They can be explained scientifically however as nothing more than a collection of bundles of hair and dust brought together by the movement of the air and static electricity. Dust bunnies, like everything else, are the result of quantum mechanics in action.
Wikipedia
Dust Bunnies
Dust Bunnies (or dustbunnies), also called dust mice, are small clumps of dust that form under furniture and in corners that are not cleaned regularly. They are made of hair, lint, dead skin, spider webs, dust, and sometimes light rubbish and debris, and are held together by static electricity and felt-like entanglement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_bunny
Volbrigade wrote:
Untrue. There is compelling evidence, and it is worldwide. We can only speculate how high the "highest mountain" was, in the pre-Flood pangea. But catastrophic plate tectonics explains the current height of Everest. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean its true. It is a theory. One that incorporates the evidence -- e.g., marine fossils at the summits of mountain ranges.
The "compelling evidence" is that mountain tops were once sea floors. Plate tectonics explains this in exactly the same way it explains the highest mountains, which includes Everest. At about 29,000 feet high, Everest is the highest in the world. The highest above sea level at least. The subcontinent of of India is moving north on a tectonic plate and has crashed into the continent of Asia as a result. The result are wrinkles in the earth's crust we refer to as mountains. Mt. Everest is still raising in height as a result. How high was it 5,000 years ago? Everest is about 348,000 inches above sea level, and is raising at a rate of about .1576 inches a year. So doing the math Everest was approximately 28,212 feet high 5,000 years ago. Give or take. Some weathering has been occurring all along of course, so the exact figure is impossible to know.
This brings up an interesting point. For many years it was claimed, by Christians, that natural weathering over the course of millions of years, let alone billions of years, should have worn all of the mountains down. The continents should all be nothing but flat plains, which clearly they are not. It was actually a very good argument. At least until the "theory" of plate tectonics was arrived at. And now we know that some mountain ranges are still in the process of raising as a result of the movement of giant plates which compose the earth's crust.
Would it surprise you if I told you that quantum mechanics was responsible? Pressures deep in the earth cause the rock to become compressed. When things become compressed they become hot. The reason for this is because matter is composed of particles with positive and negative charges. Because particles with positive and negative charges are either attracted to each other or repelled by each other, they are forced to move as a result of being closely compressed. This movement is what we recognize as heat. Quantum mechanics at work.
When I was un undergraduate in the late sixties and early seventies, I took my first geology class. For one of my term papers I did a report on plate tectonics and continental drift. Something of a new and novel idea at them time. My professor spent an entire class deriding my paper, and ridiculing the notion of plate tectonics, which he considered hokum. That was just under 50 years ago. Today the entire concept of geology is predicated on plate tectonics, much in the same way that biology is predicated on evolution and natural selection. Modern courses in these subjects make no sense without the concept of plate tectonics, and the concept of natural selection. That is how much our knowledge of the natural sciences has changed in fifty years.
So it's not surprising that the general public has not yet caught up. Especially since science teaches things that many do not wish to believe.
I actually got an A on my paper, by the way. My professor did not hold with the concept of plate techtonics, be he thought I did a good job of presenting the idea.
Volbrigade wrote:
Creation demands a creator; Design demands a designer; "everything that has a beginning must have a cause."
Only if the universe was "created." If it was formed by natural forces than nothing of the sort is demanded. And we observe no actual beginnings. Just an ongoing chain of cause and effect as far back as we can see.
Volbrigade wrote:
We're beginning to wear a path over the same ground, aren't we?
Sometimes complicated ideas require that explanations be presented in various different ways before they begin to become clear. I can continue to attempt to find different ways to explain these ideas for as long as you like. This is not just a discussion between the two of us. There are an unknown number of others observing us. And they will continue to read what we say here for as long as the forum continues to exist. Personally, I am very satisfied with the way the discussion has been going. You provide a very excellent and well thought out argument for your position. Which in turn allows me to present my most thoroughly detailed explanation for just why your argument does not actually hold up to the facts, reason, logic, and common sense. We are spreading the two arguments out in the open for all to see, and allowing everyone to reach their own conclusions.
Volbrigade wrote:
Why not discard the myths and fables, and embrace the truth that God created the universe, and creatures of free will within it? And from that foundation, "go with the observation and experimentation method that has given us modern working technology, and use that method as a way for examining and understanding the universe"?
Why not discard my "myths and fables," and embrace your myths and fables? My "myths and fables" have directly led to all of modern working technology. Yours declare that a man who lived 2,000 years ago is going to come back "soon" and usher in the end of the world. When I indicate that working technology has a better track record for proving to be valid than your ongoing 2,000 year old empty claim does, that is not simply my opinion. That is an obvious and undeniable fact.
Volbrigade wrote:
That's because you know that human life has intrinsic value. And that your life, and the lives of your children, have real and profound meaning. But that is in contradiction to your stated belief that quantum foam, and change, are responsible for everything. You therefore state that meaning is whatever you determine it to be. Which means it is "made up" -- exactly the same dispersion that you cast at the existence of God. Which means that your worldview is fundamentally irrational, self-contradictorty, and absurd. And the only mitigation for that reality is that since we're all just part of a mindless, impersonal quantum foam, it doesn't really matter that it's irrational, self-contradictorty, and absurd.
My life has meaning to me, yes. As does that of my family. I have never denied that. A hundred years from now you and I will be gone, and no one will even remember that we existed. And neither of us will care. Care is for those who are alive to experience. And whether that possibility makes you sad or depressed, whether you consider it unfair and choose to deny it, makes no difference at all. Because things are the way things are, and what we cannot change we must necessarily accept.
Volbrigade wrote:
But every word you write here can be summarily dismissed with "if all that exists is a mindless, impersonal quantum foam -- then what of it? What difference does it make?" On what grounds do you repudiate the people group that says "all that matters is OUR survival? All that matters is the perpetuation of OUR genes, which are superior; and we must assist evolution by eliminating all inferior gene pools"? What does the quantum foam have to say about that?
Quantum foam doesn't care. Consequently I do not worship quantum foam. There is no requirement that we eliminate all inferior gene pools. Pressure to survive tends to eliminate inferior gene pools. Humans are perfectly capable of instigating unnatural selection however. Just a look at the various breeds of dogs shows that very clearly. Dogs have undergone thousands of years of selective breeding (unnatural selection) by humans to satisfy human specifications. This is because evolution does not have a mind or a goal. The struggle to survive tends to select those individuals best suited to survive and propagate.
How long do you suppose that this little guy would last in the wild? Probably not very long. It's too small to run fast, and too small to defend itself. A human will find it cute though, and it's association with a human may very well cause it to survive the better part of 20 years. Humans can instigate unnatural selection. Various other animals do it to, to varying degrees.
Volbrigade wrote:
Not necessarily. I submit that you don't have enough information to make that determination. You are not omniscient: God is. He is working all things to the good, for those that love Him, within the context of our free will. A tough job.
If I discover that someone has been involved in ordering the chopping of babies to pieces, I do not need any more time to reach any further conclusion on what sort of person they are. It's case closed.
Volbrigade wrote:
You might bear in mind that while God gave the order, the Jews disobeyed it. All of which is faithfully recorded. Why? Paul says that "all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition". What is the meaning to be gained ?
I have a better explanation. No God exists, then or now, and the Jews used their religious beliefs, not only to justify what was after all simply a land grab, but to mollify the soldiers that were required to carry out the hideous orders of their leaders by insuring the soldiers that their faith in and love of God required it of them. Damned if you do, and literally damned if you don't.
Volbrigade wrote:
Well, none, of course, if you ask quantum foam. But then, it won't tell you anything, anyway. It cares not one whit whether babies are slaughtered or not.
Again, this is true. Quantum foam has no opinions. As far as I know.
Volbrigade wrote:
But God does.
Why, then, in these specific instances (e.g., the Midianites, the Amelakites) did He order these specific actions by one specific people against another?
Good question!
Shall we enter into a study of it, with the leading of the Holy Spirit?
Shall we count the ways that you are attempting to justify something hideous and vile as necessary and righteous? Wave your hand and tell me again and again that the mass murder of children and babies can sometimes be necessary and justified. But, I am afraid, the force does not work on everyone. And hopefully, it will not work on those that are following this discussion either.
Volbrigade wrote:
I asked the quantum foam, and it really doesn't care about your comfort or happiness. Or even your life.
The foam spoke truly. It's up to me to look after my own comfort and happiness as best I can, within the conditions that I find myself in.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.
You can't know that. I came to Christ fairly late in life. I was an atheist before that. Who knows what sorts of decisions I would've made, what sorts of actions I would've taken, if I had continued to believe that matter was all that existed. And what their consequences would’ve been.
You claim to have become a Christian now however, and you therefore see reality through the eyes of Christian claims of supernatural intervention by God. If you came to the conclusion that these claims were not true, your entire worldview would be altered once again. But the universe itself would remain just as it has always been.
Yes.
The universe would continue to be a creation of God, whether I continued to believe it was or not.
Volbrigade wrote:
And anyway, personal circumstances are not the point. The point is: if everything is the result of the constantly changing, impersonal quantum foam (love that term! I must remember it), then, again, there is no ultimate difference between the tender love of a mother for her child, and the tender murder committed by a real life Hannibal Lecter. Despite your opinion, or society's, which has exactly the same property of that murder, in being merely a temporary, changing manifestation of the foam. Any differentiation on the basis of a “moral consensus� is, again, strictly “make believe�.
First, let me point out that when I use the term "make believe," I am referring to the tendency of people to imagine a solution to a question, and to then decide that this solution which they made up from their imaginations must necessarily be the correct solution. Make believe. As opposed to the empirical method of careful observation, examination and experimentation that is employed by science. There is a very distinct and obvious difference between answers amassed through direct observation and experimentation, and answers manufactured in one's imagination and then declared to be true.
True, but irrelevant.
The kind of solipsism that you describe cannot be fairly applied to either the Christian, or the materialist m2m paradigms. As I mentioned before, a strong case can be made for either one. Very intelligent, educated, brilliant people belong to both camps. There is a long list of PhD scientists who are Creationists, and even more who are (compromising) "long-age" believers.
The determining factor as to which "camp" you will join, which view you will embrace, is your free will.
The implication of the term "quantum foam" is that quantum mechanics is an unyielding force for change, eternally bubbling and churning away. The result is that things which are possible have an increased probability for becoming extent over vast amounts of time. Once something like protolife occurs, the pressure to change and evolve into more advanced forms is unrelenting.
Viruses are an example. Viruses do not respire, and do not excrete as true life does. All they do is replicate themselves. They can be broken up and destroyed, but viruses do not die, because they were never alive to begin with. As long as they remain intact, they can remain inert indefinitely. And then when the conditions are right, they replicate themselves. Viruses exist because their existence is possible, not because their existence has any special meaning to the universe. Viruses serve no actual function, other than to replicate themselves. But they exist because they are possible within the rules of quantum mechanics.
The idea that quantum foam came up with viruses, by chance + time, is completely faith-based. The "faith" being, of course, that God does not exist, and therefore didn't create them.
OTOH, from the Biblical perspective, the question is: were viruses a part of God's original "very good" creation? Or are they the product of entropy, as a result of the Fall? Or perhaps even diabolical, supernatural meddling with the created order?
We may never know, this side of glory. But either view as to how they arose makes no difference at all in terms of observations as to what they are now, how they work.
That pretty much goes for the entire m2m evolutionist paradigm. Whether man came from a monkey or not has nothing to do with what he is now: other than leading m2m evolutionists to make faulty assumptions with regard to the amount of genome we share with chimps, "junk DNA", natural history, and on and on and on.
Volbrigade wrote:
There. "Reasons". Do you see how it is impossible to talk about these things without smuggling in theistic concepts? Quantum foam can't have "reasons". Only a mind can have "reasons".
There is a very precise set of reasons, indeed. And they come from the Mind of God.
By reasons, I meant that things occur based on the events that preceded them. An unbroken chain of cause and effect. So everything that occurs does so due to a precise set of reasons.
You made up the whole "mind of God " concept. And you have your reasons. Those reasons are derived from emotional needs and desires rather than as a response to any physical evidence. Which I am afraid, makes it suspect.
I simply invert your answer. You deny the whole "mind of God" concept. "From emotional (and, I would add in many cases, for many people, "sexual") needs and desires rather than as a response to any physical evidence."
Volbrigade wrote:
And, of course, that can no more be substantiated than "everything else that occurs naturally in accordance with the properties of quantum mechanics, which is ordained by God."
The ""everything else that occurs naturally in accordance with the properties of quantum mechanics" part is the result of extensive observation and experimentation. That this observation and experimentation is valid is substantiated by the reality of modern working technology. That "which is ordained by God" part you simply invented and tacked on the end. Because no such thing is observed.
A non sequitur. Again, the reality of quantum mechanics, as of working technology, is exactly the same, whether your stance is that they stand alone, or go beyond that and say that QM and gravity and EM operate according to God's blueprint and instruction.
But QM is not a satisfactory explanation for anything but QM. God is an explanation for everything: in every sense, the true "unified theory of everything". Because He is also the ultimate reality.
Volbrigade wrote:
You misunderstood what I was asking, it appears. I should've been more precise. I was asking you to substantiate the part in bold. That there is a great "falling away" in these latter days was pre-written, and serves as part of the great corpus of circumstantial evidence that the Bible is true. Wink
And so as not to compound my error, let me be precise: I am not asking you to substantiate the claim that scientists believe the universe is "completely explainable". Rather, please substantiate that the universe actually IS fully explainable.
I am afraid that I cannot provide a statement of belief from every actual scientist that is currently actively working in the field of physical science, if that it what you are requesting.
That's an opinion. I can provide numerous PhD scientists who disagree with it, and offer newer and better explanations for the existence of our universe than the various (gravity-based) "Big Bang" theories, all of which are beset by problems that require ad hoc solutions, and faith in the creative power of (e.g.) "quantum foam".
Volbrigade wrote:
Yes, there is alarming ignorance among the young -- and not just in regard to Biblical truth. 50 years ago, The Beatles were "bigger than Christ." Now, it's Justin Beiber and Beyonce.
Not a good trend.
The move to abandon religion by the younger generation represents an unprecedented change in the religious makeup of the population of the US. And it is not only occurring in the US. Europe is already reached a position of being roughly 50% religious and 50% secular.
Fifty years ago there were perhaps 1.5 billion living Christians. John Lennon indicated that the Beatles had even more fans than Jesus. He was making a statement about just how popular they had become, which even he was dumbfounded about. The Beatles were a band derived from western society, and as a result the vast majority of their fans were Christians as well. This overlap was not in conflict with itself. As John Lennon later explained, he was not comparing the Beatles to Jesus, or claiming that they were better or greater. Lennon may well have been right fifty years ago that the Beatles had even more fans than Jesus had, although there is no way to verify that. Do Beiber and Beyonce have more fans than Jesus? I seriously doubt it.
I'm a little disappointed that someone with as many posts on a "debating Christianity" site has such a superficial notion of what being a Christian is, as is expressed in this, and your following, response. It is not just a box you check on a form. It is not just a sound you make with your mouth.
It is a regenerate state entered into upon the acceptance of the grace and mercy afforded by Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, and faith in his birth, life and ministry, atoning death, and bodily Resurrection. That regenerate state is a relationship between the believer and God, in which the former has been “justified� to, aligned with, the Latter.
It is an eternal condition which transcends all mere — and temporal — divisions of gender, race, class, culture, and religious and denominational differences. It is the next — and final — step in in “evolution�; a step not of improvement, but of transformation. A transformation into a new and different kind of creature; a step into a spiritual mode of existence which begins in this life, and is completed in the next.
The point of my comment was that there were few Christians who were Beatle fans then; and I am sure there are even fewer who are Beiber and Bey fans now. I was actually making a contextual comment on the decline of our society, which is -- or should be -- self-evident; I submit the choice presented in the most recent presidential election as "exhibit A".
We are abandoning Christianity, as a society, not because we are getting smarter and more critical; but because we are getting dumber and more gullible -- a trend reflected in the movement from The Beatles, Who, Stones, and all the others from the "Elizabethan Era" of Rock Music (great, original, diverse); to the Bee and Bey and Ga Ga and Brittany; who, in a word, suck. And are as monotonous and interchageable as hip hop "artists".
Do not ask me to "substantiate" any of that -- I acknowledge that I am unable to. Any more than I can find a tune inside of a piano.
But that doesn't mean it's not a fact.
Volbrigade wrote:
But, I have seen with my own eyes a few among this current generation of Millennials and Nones who are mighty warriors for Christ. They are educated, informed, and alive in the spirit. This age requires strength and wisdom to overcome deception -- all ages do, of course, but the steady flow of lies and disinformation has become a raging cataract.
And yet the statistics consistently indicate that the total number of Christians in the US has fallen from about 90% twenty years ago to about 70% today. The bulk of the change in the makeup of the US population has been taken up by those with no religious convictions at all. I have been observing this change occurring for myself my entire life. Christians are spectacularly good at rallying their troops. And the troops are very vocal. The problem is that each year there are fewer troops to rally. At the current rate of change there will be more non believers than believers in the US by the middle of this century. Once that tipping point has occurred, Christianity will go into a free fall. Just as belief in Odin and Zeus went into a free fall. And became defunct. No one gives much thought to defunct religions, I am afraid. Other than historians.
Those statistics are as meaningless as the morality of quantum foam.
If 90% of any culture or nation, or even neighborhood, were truly regenerate Christians, you would have a fair representation of Heaven.
Obviously, we don't. Anywhere on Earth. And its only going to get worse -- at some point, by orders or magnitude. And that is because we are turing our back on God, after turning TO him from our defunct "made up" paganism for 2 millennium.
Volbrigade wrote:
Not only that, but the Gospel is spreading like wild fire in areas where the "bad news" of man's depravity is in evidence: China, the Muslim world. But yes, you are right. In the decadent and debauched West, Christianity is sliver of a minority. Its persecution has already begun, and will continue to strengthen -- and it will be approved of by the lukewarm, apostate, denominational churches.
The most significant gains in Christianity have been occurring in Africa. There has been a distinct ebb and flow in religious belief in Africa however. Christian missionaries tend to offer food and medicine to sick and starving people. A powerful incentive. Muslims tend to offer death to those who do not convert to Islam. Also a powerful incentive.
Evidence indicates that the claimed explosion of millions of conversions to Christianity in China is mainly a case of zealous hyperbole produced by Christian missionaries.
Thank you for mentioning Africa. A severe oversight on my part. As for your comments re China -- I dispute the opinion stated. But as this is a discussion of "Resurrections and Hyperdimensions", I'll refrain from pursuing that sidetrack.
Volbrigade wrote:
Operational science is totally unconcerned with the worldview of those who practice it. Diligent adherence to the scientific method will produce aircraft, smartphones, and Mars landers, no matter if the scientist worships Buddha, Krishna, Allah, or Randomness. Or, of course, Jesus Christ.
True.
Volbrigade wrote:
Not so with science directed toward origins and history. With those, the presupposition that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and true history of the universe, will produce a categorically different interpretation of the data and evidence, than will the presupposition that something other than the God of the Bible is responsible for our reality.
The real question is: which is true?
And the answer is: if God is true, than everything in the Bible is validated by "Let light be.
Visible light is a packet (photon) of electromagnetic energy physically produced when excited electrons change their orbits. This is occurring in an ongoing process in the sun, but we humans have discovered various other way of producing light as well. This does NOT qualify us as God's I am afraid. "Let there be light" is simply a statement of the obvious fact that light exists, and we have developed specialized cells to detect it and to utilize it to our advantage.
There is NOTHING "simple" about the third verse of the Bible, my friend. Nor of the stage-by-stage reversal of entropy and disorder that follow: design and order from "without form, and void" to man's dominion over the earth.
The materialist will say "a poetic account, which obviously gets the order of events wrong, from primitive ignorance."
The believer will respond "poetic it is, true; written for the understanding of ALL men, at ALL times -- including our own; when we can understand that out of (e.g.) a created "quantum foam", God is able to do to anything.
Volbrigade wrote:
And if the quantum foam is true, then our reality is irrational and absurd. Like the idea that microbes became men.
Things which are genuinely irrational do not occur. Absurd things occasionally do, however.
You should have spent some time with me in my reckless, heedless youth. I could've shown you things -- and people -- that were both irrational, AND absurd. Even "absurdly irrational". Or maybe "irrationally absurd"?
Volbrigade wrote:
The Good News is: quantum physics is friendly to Christianity. It appears our reality is a sort of "digital simulation" of a "higher", "hyperdimensional" reality (the "holographic universe).
Physics (science in general) is neither hostile nor friendly to religion. Scientific discoveries are made according to the best observation and experimentation. Insofar as discoveries sustain or deny religion, that is pure happenstance.
We both agree, and disagree. As we do on so many things.
All religions are false, to one degree or another. Including -- especially? -- the secular-materialist m2m evolutionist one (in all of its "Whateverist" manifestations).
Christianity is not a "religion". It is the Truth.
Everthing that we learn from science that is true corresponds with the Bible, which is revealed, propositional truth.
And that is not by "happenstance".
It is by Design.
Volbrigade wrote:
Exactly! From your perspective, that is. And from your perspective, there can be no differentiating between a charity hospital, Jeffrey Dahmer's antics, and the slaughter of the Amalekites. Just a quantum cloud, doing its quantum cloud thing, until it changes into something else, for no reason.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Not only untrue, but an example of overt hyperbole.
Volbrigade wrote:
Opinion. Substantiate, please. From the perspective of the quantum foam, in what way are the items listed any different?
First, as I already pointed out everything that occurs does so for a very specific set of reasons. These reasons have nothing to do with intelligent design however. Let's take dust bunnies for example. Why did God design and create dust bunnies? What purpose do they serve? They can be explained scientifically however as nothing more than a collection of bundles of hair and dust brought together by the movement of the air and static electricity. Dust bunnies, like everything else, are the result of quantum mechanics in action.
Wikipedia
Dust Bunnies
Dust Bunnies (or dustbunnies), also called dust mice, are small clumps of dust that form under furniture and in corners that are not cleaned regularly. They are made of hair, lint, dead skin, spider webs, dust, and sometimes light rubbish and debris, and are held together by static electricity and felt-like entanglement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_bunny
Cute and whimsical. But a dodge. "Dust bunnies" are exactly the sort of phenomenon you'd expect from a universe subject to entropy. As such, they confirm my case, not yours. Will the quantum foam ever cause one to spring to life, given enough time and chance?
I want to know by what standard we are to discern between the examples provided, given that they are all simply manifestations of quantum foam, and so are we, and that is all there is.
Volbrigade wrote:
Untrue. There is compelling evidence, and it is worldwide. We can only speculate how high the "highest mountain" was, in the pre-Flood pangea. But catastrophic plate tectonics explains the current height of Everest. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean its true. It is a theory. One that incorporates the evidence -- e.g., marine fossils at the summits of mountain ranges.
The "compelling evidence" is that mountain tops were once sea floors. Plate tectonics explains this in exactly the same way it explains the highest mountains, which includes Everest. At about 29,000 feet high, Everest is the highest in the world.
...
Would it surprise you if I told you that quantum mechanics was responsible? Pressures deep in the earth cause the rock to become compressed. When things become compressed they become hot.... etc.
All very good.
With regard to the mechanics of the Flood, the main difference between Biblical and Whateverist science is time. The former say "weeks". The latter say "100s of millions of years".
As far as the physical processes unleashed when God directly intervened in His creation -- I see no reason why QM would not be involved. Nor, indeed, how it could not be.
Volbrigade wrote:
Creation demands a creator; Design demands a designer; "everything that has a beginning must have a cause."
Only if the universe was "created." If it was formed by natural forces than nothing of the sort is demanded. And we observe no actual beginnings. Just an ongoing chain of cause and effect as far back as we can see.
I understand that is the view that you subscribe to.
There is another one, however, which incorporates the Bible as propositional truth, and Jesus Christ as the resurrected only begotten Son of God.
Which is why we're having this discussion.
Volbrigade wrote:
We're beginning to wear a path over the same ground, aren't we?
Sometimes complicated ideas require that explanations be presented in various different ways before they begin to become clear. I can continue to attempt to find different ways to explain these ideas for as long as you like. This is not just a discussion between the two of us. There are an unknown number of others observing us. And they will continue to read what we say here for as long as the forum continues to exist. Personally, I am very satisfied with the way the discussion has been going. You provide a very excellent and well thought out argument for your position. Which in turn allows me to present my most thoroughly detailed explanation for just why your argument does not actually hold up to the facts, reason, logic, and common sense. We are spreading the two arguments out in the open for all to see, and allowing everyone to reach their own conclusions.
Why, thank you for the compliment! I am enjoying our correspondence. You, too, motivate me to "put on my thinking cap."
Your reference to the potential "cloud of witnesses" has renewed my vigor, as I confess I was beginning to flag a bit -- "how long will this go, neither of us capable of persuading the other to their point of view?" -- and looking for an opportunity to extricate myself. But to what end? The same conversation, elsewhere?
And so I say -- "play on!"
Volbrigade wrote:
Why not discard the myths and fables, and embrace the truth that God created the universe, and creatures of free will within it? And from that foundation, "go with the observation and experimentation method that has given us modern working technology, and use that method as a way for examining and understanding the universe"?
Why not discard my "myths and fables," and embrace your myths and fables? My "myths and fables" have directly led to all of modern working technology. Yours declare that a man who lived 2,000 years ago is going to come back "soon" and usher in the end of the world. When I indicate that working technology has a better track record for proving to be valid than your ongoing 2,000 year old empty claim does, that is not simply my opinion. That is an obvious and undeniable fact.
To that, I say this:
Newton wrote over a million words on the topic of Revelation.
And the foundation for practical, practicing science was established in the Christianized West, when it was still Christianized. Many important technological milestones were established before Darwin ever published on "favored races". So I think technological development would've proceeded just fine, thank you, under the auspices of a Created, ordained order, and the need for our justification with its Creator.
Except: maybe you have a point, in a way you haven't considered. War has always been a major component in technological advancement. And the Darwinist view, which became the prevailing one in materialist philosophy (i.e., Marxism, statist fascism), that man is nothing more than an advanced, irrational animal, certainly expanded the scope of warfare. To the point of killing massive numbers of civilians and noncombatants --including innocent children.
Which brings us to the rest of your post, and your most important objection to Christian belief.
The universe would continue to be a creation of God, whether I continued to believe it was or not.
Or Allah, or Brahma, or Odin, or Zeus, or... well, whichever deity the individual I happen to be in a discussion with chooses to personally believe in. Quetzalcoatl, Ptah, Mbombo...
These are declarations of individual faith and nothing more.
Volbrigade wrote:
The kind of solipsism that you describe cannot be fairly applied to either the Christian, or the materialist m2m paradigms. As I mentioned before, a strong case can be made for either one. Very intelligent, educated, brilliant people belong to both camps. There is a long list of PhD scientists who are Creationists, and even more who are (compromising) "long-age" believers.
Science only "knows" those things that can be physically established to be true. Beyond that is speculation. And scientists are certainly not shy about speculating. But concepts such as multiverses and multi-dimensional space, while compelling and fascinating, are still simply conjecture. Conjecture based on compelling evidence at times. Like the concept of the big bang. But conjecture. Conjecture has proven itself to be accurate in the past, in the sense that it took actual physical evidence to verify it. Like Einstein's theories on relativity. So it is always wise to remember not to allow our conjecture to be considered established fact. That is too near to the old "make it up and declare it to be true method." And in that method lies fallacy and foolishness.
Volbrigade wrote:
The idea that quantum foam came up with viruses, by chance + time, is completely faith-based. The "faith" being, of course, that God does not exist, and therefore didn't create them.
Completely
adverb
Totally; utterly.
The concept of God is "completely" (totally; utterly) derived from the imagination. Since no such physical example of such a Being can be produced, God exists ONLY in the imagination of those that imagine that such a Being exists. Direct physical observation however indicates that the earliest forms of life were extremely simple, and that life became increasingly more complicated as time passed. A LOT of time.
If the concept of quantum mechanics in action is entirely "faith based," then your computer and smartphone work entirely on faith. Because modern technology is "completely" based on understanding the function of quantum mechanics. If quantum mechanics is not a valid concept, then we "totally and utterly" have no way of explaining why modern technology works at all.
Volbrigade wrote:
OTOH, from the Biblical perspective, the question is: were viruses a part of God's original "very good" creation? Or are they the product of entropy, as a result of the Fall? Or perhaps even diabolical, supernatural meddling with the created order?
Perhaps diabolical forces are at work causing modern technology to seem to work as expected, in an effort to confuse humankind. In much the same way that some believers have declared that the fossilized remains of dinosaurs and other extinct creatures which are found right around the world, were put there by "demonic forces" (Satan) to confuse humankind. And of course if the demonic forces are this clever and this audacious in their plan to sow doubt and confusion among humans, then perhaps they are responsible for causing technolgy to work as well. We are so utterly confused that we only think we are responsible. Which would seem to be the only other explanation for why technology works at all. And that would be ironic, because my late aunt use to declare TV to be the work of the devil. She had not the faintest notion how it worked, but she knew that it brought "worldly" things into people's homes. And God did not approve.
Volbrigade wrote:
That pretty much goes for the entire m2m evolutionist paradigm. Whether man came from a monkey or not has nothing to do with what he is now: other than leading m2m evolutionists to make faulty assumptions with regard to the amount of genome we share with chimps, "junk DNA", natural history, and on and on and on.
If you learn nothing else at all from these discussions, try to understand that apes and monkeys are not the same thing.
Careful study of the chimp genome and human genome have shown conclusively that that humans and chimps are almost identical genetically. The differences between humans and chimps only occur in about 2% of the genetic make up of the two species. Again this has been observed to be true in numerous studies. Now you seem to be indicating that scientists have been fudging their findings for some reason. Because what you prefer not to believe, you simply choose to deny. As if science is simply a giant conspiracy whose goal is to undermine religion. But science is not concerned with religion. Science is simply concerned with following the evidence where ever it leads. That the science does not serve to support religious views is simply happenstance. Or is science itself simply another example of "diabolical" forces at work?
Volbrigade wrote:
I simply invert your answer. You deny the whole "mind of God" concept. "From emotional (and, I would add in many cases, for many people, "sexual") needs and desires rather than as a response to any physical evidence."
For there to be a "mind of God" there first needs to be physical evidence that such a Being exists. Otherwise, the "mind of God" simply and entirely exists in the minds of those that imagine that such a Being exists. And nowhere else.
Volbrigade wrote:
Again, the reality of quantum mechanics, as of working technology, is exactly the same, whether your stance is that they stand alone, or go beyond that and say that QM and gravity and EM operate according to God's blueprint and instruction.
But QM is not a satisfactory explanation for anything but QM. God is an explanation for everything: in every sense, the true "unified theory of everything". Because He is also the ultimate reality.
I am at a loss to think of a single thing that quantum mechanics is not the cause of. Even your imagination, where your concept of God exists, operates on the principle of positive and negative electrical impulses traveling along the synapses in your brain from to neuron to neuron. Quantum mechanics explains EVERYTHING.
Volbrigade wrote:
I'm a little disappointed that someone with as many posts on a "debating Christianity" site has such a superficial notion of what being a Christian is, as is expressed in this, and your following, response. It is not just a box you check on a form. It is not just a sound you make with your mouth.
It is a regenerate state entered into upon the acceptance of the grace and mercy afforded by Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, and faith in his birth, life and ministry, atoning death, and bodily Resurrection. That regenerate state is a relationship between the believer and God, in which the former has been “justified� to, aligned with, the Latter.
It is an eternal condition which transcends all mere — and temporal — divisions of gender, race, class, culture, and religious and denominational differences. It is the next — and final — step in in “evolution�; a step not of improvement, but of transformation. A transformation into a new and different kind of creature; a step into a spiritual mode of existence which begins in this life, and is completed in the next.
The point of my comment was that there were few Christians who were Beatle fans then; and I am sure there are even fewer who are Beiber and Bey fans now. I was actually making a contextual comment on the decline of our society, which is -- or should be -- self-evident; I submit the choice presented in the most recent presidential election as "exhibit A".
Belief represents a particular perspective on reality. I understand that and have said so repeatedly. The problem is, this perspective on reality can be vastly different from person to person. That billions of perspectives on reality, many of them utterly different and even in conflict with each other, should ALL be true and valid is a statistical impossibility I am afraid. Unless of course you suppose that your devotion to your beliefs are somehow superior than the devotion held by those who subscribe to a belief in other religions? But you see, all in is all in.
Volbrigade wrote:
Those statistics are as meaningless as the morality of quantum foam.
If 90% of any culture or nation, or even neighborhood, were truly regenerate Christians, you would have a fair representation of Heaven.
Obviously, we don't. Anywhere on Earth. And its only going to get worse -- at some point, by orders or magnitude. And that is because we are turing our back on God, after turning TO him from our defunct "made up" paganism for 2 millennium.
I am afraid that you missed the point. Which is that Christianity, and religion in general, is currently in the process of eroding away. Unwavering devotion to one's beliefs can not change the fact that everyone dies. Where did all of the devoted believers in Odin, or Zeus go? THEY DIED, with no one to replace them.
Volbrigade wrote:
Thank you for mentioning Africa. A severe oversight on my part. As for your comments re China -- I dispute the opinion stated. But as this is a discussion of "Resurrections and Hyperdimensions", I'll refrain from pursuing that sidetrack.
I will happily provide you with the information on China anyway.
2010: the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life estimated over 67 million Christians in China,0] of which 35 million "independent" Protestants, 23 million Three-Self Protestants, 9 million Catholics and 20,000 Orthodox Christians.
2012: Liu Peng, a scholar of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, considered by the Pew Forum as the government's leading expert on unregistered churches, declared to the Global Times: It is hard to say precisely how many Christians there are in China. I reckon there might be 50 million. They come from various strata of society and half of them attend house churches».
2014: scholars at a conference for the 60th anniversary of the Three-Self Church showed that China has about 23 million to 40 million Protestants, 1.7% to 2.9% of the total population. Each year, about 500,000 people are baptized as Protestants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China
Christian estimates of conversions in China are based almost exclusively on guess-timates provided by Christian missionaries, and range from 50 million to more than 100 million. Official Chinese government figures however put the rate at about 25 million, nation-wide.
Hebei Province: Christian: 3.05%
(Hebei has the largest Catholic population in China, with 1 million members according to the local government. and 1.5 million Catholics according to the Catholic Church. The province is considered as the center of Catholicism in China.) Total population 73,326,101.
Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region: According to the Chinese General Social Survey of 2009, Christianity is the religious identity of 2% of the population of the province.
Total population:24,706,321 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_Mongolia
Jilin Province: Christians:No specific estimate given.
Total population: 27,462,297
Heilongjiang Province: Christians No specific estimate given .
Total population: 38,312,224
The combined estimate for the number of Christians in Northeast China, which includes the provinces of Liaoning, Jilin and Heilongjiang, is stated to be approx. 2.1%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_ ... east_China
This works out to an estimated 24,960 million Christians in China. Roughly 1.9% of the total population of China.
Volbrigade wrote:
There is NOTHING "simple" about the third verse of the Bible, my friend. Nor of the stage-by-stage reversal of entropy and disorder that follow: design and order from "without form, and void" to man's dominion over the earth.
The materialist will say "a poetic account, which obviously gets the order of events wrong, from primitive ignorance."
The third verse of the Bible was written by ancient people who had absolutely NO concept of what light is, or how it comes into being.
Volbrigade wrote:
The believer will respond "poetic it is, true; written for the understanding of ALL men, at ALL times -- including our own; when we can understand that out of (e.g.) a created "quantum foam", God is able to do to anything.
Including creating evil. Evil which then diabolically creates viruses and other diabolical things.
Volbrigade wrote:
You should have spent some time with me in my reckless, heedless youth. I could've shown you things -- and people -- that were both irrational, AND absurd. Even "absurdly irrational". Or maybe "irrationally absurd"?
I never underwent a reckless period, even in my youth. I have been married to the same woman (first and only wife) for 45 years. I have always considered reckless behavior to be self destructive. Destroying oneself has always seemed to me a very foolish thing to do. Especially when the world is so full of such obvious examples of the consequences of self destruction. It's great that you did not destroy yourself. But you don't need the crutch of religion to stop living a self destructive lifestyle. You only need to recognize that a self destructive lifestyle destroys lives. And to stop doing things which are self destructive.
Volbrigade wrote:
We both agree, and disagree. As we do on so many things.
All religions are false, to one degree or another. Including -- especially? -- the secular-materialist m2m evolutionist one (in all of its "Whateverist" manifestations).
Islam is the truth as well. Or so I have been assured many times by Muslims. They are certainly every bit as devoted to their beliefs as you are. Could billions of Muslims simply be completely and utterly wrong in a conviction that they hold to be so undeniably valid? And if that is true, what does it say about the statistical possibility that you have also been utterly deceived as well?
Volbrigade wrote:
Christianity is not a "religion". It is the Truth.
Everthing that we learn from science that is true corresponds with the Bible, which is revealed, propositional truth.
And that is not by "happenstance".
It is by Design.
A claim held with the utmost of certainty by every religious belief that has ever existed. Someone clearly has been wrong all along, I am afraid. But that, of course, is ALWAYS the "other guy."
Volbrigade wrote:
Cute and whimsical. But a dodge. "Dust bunnies" are exactly the sort of phenomenon you'd expect from a universe subject to entropy. As such, they confirm my case, not yours. Will the quantum foam ever cause one to spring to life, given enough time and chance?
I want to know by what standard we are to discern between the examples provided, given that they are all simply manifestations of quantum foam, and so are we, and that is all there is.
Did the diabolical forces create dust bunnies as well? How utterly diabolical of them! Yet another attempt to confuse us all.
Volbrigade wrote:
I want to know by what standard we are to discern between the examples provided, given that they are all simply manifestations of quantum foam, and so are we, and that is all there is.
Quantum mechanics doesn't produce dust bunnies for any purpose at all. They exist for no better reason then that they are possible within a range of conditions that exist naturally according to the rules of quantum mechanics.
With regard to the mechanics of the Flood, the main difference between Biblical and Whateverist science is time. The former say "weeks". The latter say "100s of millions of years".
As far as the physical processes unleashed when God directly intervened in His creation -- I see no reason why QM would not be involved. Nor, indeed, how it could not be.
The Bible says weeks. Careful observation indicate that marine layers were lain down over the course of millions of years. Which explains why the layers are thousands of feet thick, something which could not have occurred in mere weeks.
Notice the difference between religion and science. Science asks the question, "what does the evidence show?" Religion asks the question "how can the evidence be made to conform to our belief system?"
Volbrigade wrote:
I understand that is the view that you subscribe to.
There is another one, however, which incorporates the Bible as propositional truth, and Jesus Christ as the resurrected only begotten Son of God.
Which is why we're having this discussion.
Yes, this goes right to the heart of the question. The Bible proposes that God did it all. Science look at the evidence for what it can tell us.
And, yes, you believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. I have provided a perfectly good explanation for just how that rumor got started. And so far you have been oddly reluctant to explain just how your totally unrealistic claim, a claim which defies all common sense, is somehow more likely to be the answer than my perfectly reasonable natural explanation is. If there is no actual good reason to suppose that a corpse came back to life and flew away (or occupied a hyperdimension), then why choose to suppose that a corpse came back to life and flew away? Unless of course you prefer to believe that it's true because holding such a belief comes complete with the promise of a bag of goodies?
Volbrigade wrote:
Why, thank you for the compliment! I am enjoying our correspondence. You, too, motivate me to "put on my thinking cap." Smile
Your reference to the potential "cloud of witnesses" has renewed my vigor, as I confess I was beginning to flag a bit -- "how long will this go, neither of us capable of persuading the other to their point of view?" -- and looking for an opportunity to extricate myself. But to what end? The same conversation, elsewhere?
And so I say -- "play on!"
My experience has been that many Christian apologists become frustrated at this point. Some even become "snippy." Which is a puzzle to me. I am providing a perfect opportunity, a perfect soapbox, for Christians to make their case. I suspect a good deal of the frustration comes from the certainty that many christians hold that the Christian case is air tight, and no cogent argument against it is possible. And when faced with a perfectly cogent argument, they become convinced that I am somehow cheating. Or at least lying. Which is why I try to support the things that I say with evidence. I acknowledge the possibility that I might be the one who is wrong. Humans are always subject to being wrong. But I am neither cheating or lying. Nor am I making this up as I go along. Every claim that I make is rooted in solid evidence. Otherwise there would be no point in making them.
I do actually have a life however. So there may be times when I do not always respond immediately.
Volbrigade wrote:
To that, I say this:
Newton wrote over a million words on the topic of Revelation.
Until the 20th century, most scientists were devoted to their religious beliefs.
Volbrigade wrote:
And the foundation for practical, practicing science was established in the Christianized West, when it was still Christianized. Many important technological milestones were established before Darwin ever published on "favored races". So I think technological development would've proceeded just fine, thank you, under the auspices of a Created, ordained order, and the need for our justification with its Creator.
This was only true in the "Christianized west," after the power of the church to do dire things to those individuals who suggested that the universe worked in ways that did not conform to Christian dogma, was broken. Even Galileo, the most respected scientist of his day, was threatened with torture by the Catholic church for daring to suggest that the earth was not the center of all creation. He promptly recanted, and was held under house arrest until his death.
Volbrigade wrote:
Except: maybe you have a point, in a way you haven't considered. War has always been a major component in technological advancement. And the Darwinist view, which became the prevailing one in materialist philosophy (i.e., Marxism, statist fascism), that man is nothing more than an advanced, irrational animal, certainly expanded the scope of warfare. To the point of killing massive numbers of civilians and noncombatants --including innocent children.
Technological advancements in weaponry, mainly. On the other hand, some of the most significant breakthroughs in technology have been made almost entirely as a result of idle curiosity. The revolution that Einstein created came purely as a result of Einstein's "thought experiments." Questions that he had, mainly about the properties of light, which he eventually worked out for no better reason than that he was curious. Pure science, with no motivation other than the desire to know.
In case you are unaware, Marxism and fascism are ideologically at totally opposite ends of the political spectrum. The only thing that they had in common was the tendency to manifest control for themselves in the form of totalitarian forms of government. I use the word "had" tentatively. Although both fascism and Marxism are discredited, neither has gone away.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.
The universe would continue to be a creation of God, whether I continued to believe it was or not.
Or Allah, or Brahma, or Odin, or Zeus, or... well, whichever deity the individual I happen to be in a discussion with chooses to personally believe in. Quetzalcoatl, Ptah, Mbombo...
These are declarations of individual faith and nothing more.
Your response is a declaration of opinion, and nothing more. And a spurious one, at that. YHWH is categorically different than any other "god". No other "god" entered their creation at a specific juncture of space and time, and became a man who was born, lived, died an atoning death, and was bodily resurrected into a hyperdimensional mode of existence in front of named witnesses; who spread the Good News of this event despite persecution and execution -- Good News which continues to inform all people to this very day.
Volbrigade wrote:
The kind of solipsism that you describe cannot be fairly applied to either the Christian, or the materialist m2m paradigms. As I mentioned before, a strong case can be made for either one. Very intelligent, educated, brilliant people belong to both camps. There is a long list of PhD scientists who are Creationists, and even more who are (compromising) "long-age" believers.
Science only "knows" those things that can be physically established to be true. Beyond that is speculation. And scientists are certainly not shy about speculating. But concepts such as multiverses and multi-dimensional space, while compelling and fascinating, are still simply conjecture. Conjecture based on compelling evidence at times. Like the concept of the big bang. But conjecture. Conjecture has proven itself to be accurate in the past, in the sense that it took actual physical evidence to verify it. Like Einstein's theories on relativity. So it is always wise to remember not to allow our conjecture to be considered established fact. That is too near to the old "make it up and declare it to be true method." And in that method lies fallacy and foolishness.
Einstein followed the work of Newton, who conjectured the Laws of Gravity and Motion from the basis of a firm belief in God's created order. Even Einstein spoke, not ironically, about seeking to understand "the Mind of God".
As science has abandoned Godly principles (which are the same as Biblical principles) it has become more and more irrational and mystical.
"Microbes became men".
"There are infinite parallel universes".
"Mindless energy is eternal".
"All that exists is the manifestation of a quantum foam, operating by chance + time".
"Whales speak French at the bottom of the sea."
"The horses of Arabia fly about on silver wings".
The last two, I borrowed from Martin Balsam's character, a medicine show con man in the wonderful "Little Big Man". To make a point. And for comic relief. The two are not exclusive of each other.
The assertion that any of the first assertions derive from "physical evidence" is disingenuous. They derive from a materialistic bias, applied to an examination of the natural order.
How much further along, and deeper, our understanding of that order would be right now if we had adhered to the Biblical understanding that informed the science established by giants like Newton (et. al.), which produced the technology that we both enjoy, and which threatens us because of our abandonment of the moral reason provided by that Biblical understanding, we'll never know.
Volbrigade wrote:
The idea that quantum foam came up with viruses, by chance + time, is completely faith-based. The "faith" being, of course, that God does not exist, and therefore didn't create them.
Completely
adverb
Totally; utterly.
The concept of God is "completely" (totally; utterly) derived from the imagination. Since no such physical example of such a Being can be produced...
... because, by definition, such a Being supersedes and transcends the physical reality that He created, then we must either infer, or reject, His existence based on the totality of our reality; and not merely the superficial examination of matter, which is like looking for a song inside of a piano.
A critical piece of the investigation that will guide our inference is: is there credible evidence to suggest that Being communicates with us? Has It left any record of that communication? Has He incarnated in the form of a Man, as part of that communication? Did that man rise from he dead, in validation of that fact...?
Etc.
A dull determination to remain focused on the mundanity of "physical evidence" will, it is conceded, allow one the inference that there is no God.
But it is an erroneous inference, based on a sliver of evidence (in fact, a sliver of a sliver, since physicists tell us the universe is predominantly "dark" matter and energy. As recently as a few years ago, it was 96%. I recently came across something that put the number at 46%. Stay tuned. As with the interpretation of radiometric dating, the numbers are subject to alteration, in order to support the fantasy).
Volbrigade wrote:
OTOH, from the Biblical perspective, the question is: were viruses a part of God's original "very good" creation? Or are they the product of entropy, as a result of the Fall? Or perhaps even diabolical, supernatural meddling with the created order?
Perhaps diabolical forces are at work causing modern technology to seem to work as expected, in an effort to confuse humankind. In much the same way that some believers have declared that the fossilized remains of dinosaurs and other extinct creatures which are found right around the world, were put there by "demonic forces" (Satan) to confuse humankind. And of course if the demonic forces are this clever and this audacious in their plan to sow doubt and confusion among humans, then perhaps they are responsible for causing technolgy to work as well. We are so utterly confused that we only think we are responsible. Which would seem to be the only other explanation for why technology works at all. And that would be ironic, because my late aunt use to declare TV to be the work of the devil. She had not the faintest notion how it worked, but she knew that it brought "worldly" things into people's homes. And God did not approve.
Yes. People come to all kinds or whacky conjectures about things. Especially if they're operating on ignorance, limited information, materialistic biases, etc. Some highly esteemed and reputable m2m evolutionists have seriously proposed that life on earth was "seeded" by extraterrestrial civilizations, in a desperate ploy to circumvent the impossibility of it arising by natural processes -- expressing a childlike deliberate blindness to the insufficiency of such an idea. Where did the ET civilization come from?
Thank God, literally, we have the authority of Scripture to guide us in our conjectures.
By the way -- your aunt (bless her heart ) is far closer to the truth, in her awareness of the diabolical nature of much which is presented to us under the auspices of "The Prince of the Power of the Air" ( ), than is the blunt materialist who accepts it all as indifferent quantum foam.
Volbrigade wrote:
That pretty much goes for the entire m2m evolutionist paradigm. Whether man came from a monkey or not has nothing to do with what he is now: other than leading m2m evolutionists to make faulty assumptions with regard to the amount of genome we share with chimps, "junk DNA", natural history, and on and on and on.
If you learn nothing else at all from these discussions, try to understand that apes and monkeys are not the same thing.
Careful study of the chimp genome and human genome have shown conclusively that that humans and chimps are almost identical genetically. The differences between humans and chimps only occur in about 2% of the genetic make up of the two species. Again this has been observed to be true in numerous studies...
Gee. Thanks for the clarification. Now I know the difference between the organ grinder's pet, and Bonzo the chimp.
Your information is at least 10 years obsolete.
Changes occur so fast in the field of genetic microbiology, information is coming in so fast, and there is so much of it -- most of it yet to be analyzed -- that presuppositions and premises are being overturned left and right.
It was once assumed that we were about 98% the same as Bonzo -- just as the designation of much of the DNA code as vestigial "junk" was assumed -- but further analysis has abolished those assumptions. I suggest you do a google search on the latest comparisons of the Chimp-human genome. Here: I'll get you started:
Human and Chimp DNA--Nearly Identical?
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. *
Resources › Life Sciences Resources › Zoology
For the past several decades, the standard mantra has been that humans are 98 percent genetically identical to chimpanzees. However, this claim is based on cherry-picked data and does not take into account the vastly different regions of the two respective genomes.
Major research published over the past decade comparing human and chimpanzee DNA was recently reviewed and critiqued.1 In every single publication, researchers only reported on the highly similar DNA sequence data and discarded the rest—apparently because it was too dissimilar. In fact, when the DNA similarities from these studies were recalculated using the omitted data, markedly lower levels—between 81 and 86 percent similarity—were found. Even the well-known chimpanzee genome paper published by evolutionists in 2005 provides a genomic similarity of only about 80 percent when the discarded nonsimilar data are included and only 70 percent when the estimated size of the chimpanzee genome is incorporated.2,3
I simply invert your answer. You deny the whole "mind of God" concept. "From emotional (and, I would add in many cases, for many people, "sexual") needs and desires rather than as a response to any physical evidence."
For there to be a "mind of God" there first needs to be physical evidence that such a Being exists. Otherwise, the "mind of God" simply and entirely exists in the minds of those that imagine that such a Being exists. And nowhere else.
The universe, and all that it is in it -- including our free will -- is evidence of the "Mind of God". Or, in your view, the "mindlessness of quantum foam". Or, as other materialists put it, the "we don't know, and will therefore make no assertion as to how or why a universe."
Which is the best explanation for our reality? That is a matter for our free wills to determine. "Choose ye this day!"
But the truth is not a matter of our opinions. It comes from "the Mind of God".
Volbrigade wrote:
Again, the reality of quantum mechanics, as of working technology, is exactly the same, whether your stance is that they stand alone, or go beyond that and say that QM and gravity and EM operate according to God's blueprint and instruction.
But QM is not a satisfactory explanation for anything but QM. God is an explanation for everything: in every sense, the true "unified theory of everything". Because He is also the ultimate reality.
I am at a loss to think of a single thing that quantum mechanics is not the cause of. Even your imagination, where your concept of God exists, operates on the principle of positive and negative electrical impulses traveling along the synapses in your brain from to neuron to neuron. Quantum mechanics explains EVERYTHING.
Except why quantum mechanics exists.
And why anything matters, or makes a difference, at all, if that's all there is.
Volbrigade wrote:
I'm a little disappointed that someone with as many posts on a "debating Christianity" site has such a superficial notion of what being a Christian is, as is expressed in this, and your following, response. It is not just a box you check on a form. It is not just a sound you make with your mouth.
It is a regenerate state entered into upon the acceptance of the grace and mercy afforded by Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, and faith in his birth, life and ministry, atoning death, and bodily Resurrection. That regenerate state is a relationship between the believer and God, in which the former has been “justified� to, aligned with, the Latter.
It is an eternal condition which transcends all mere — and temporal — divisions of gender, race, class, culture, and religious and denominational differences. It is the next — and final — step in in “evolution�; a step not of improvement, but of transformation. A transformation into a new and different kind of creature; a step into a spiritual mode of existence which begins in this life, and is completed in the next.
The point of my comment was that there were few Christians who were Beatle fans then; and I am sure there are even fewer who are Beiber and Bey fans now. I was actually making a contextual comment on the decline of our society, which is -- or should be -- self-evident; I submit the choice presented in the most recent presidential election as "exhibit A".
Belief represents a particular perspective on reality. I understand that and have said so repeatedly. The problem is, this perspective on reality can be vastly different from person to person. That billions of perspectives on reality, many of them utterly different and even in conflict with each other, should ALL be true and valid is a statistical impossibility I am afraid. Unless of course you suppose that your devotion to your beliefs are somehow superior than the devotion held by those who subscribe to a belief in other religions? But you see, all in is all in.
I'm sorry.
I fail to see your point here.
Volbrigade wrote:
Those statistics are as meaningless as the morality of quantum foam.
If 90% of any culture or nation, or even neighborhood, were truly regenerate Christians, you would have a fair representation of Heaven.
Obviously, we don't. Anywhere on Earth. And its only going to get worse -- at some point, by orders or magnitude. And that is because we are turing our back on God, after turning TO him from our defunct "made up" paganism for 2 millennium.
I am afraid that you missed the point. Which is that Christianity, and religion in general, is currently in the process of eroding away. Unwavering devotion to one's beliefs can not change the fact that everyone dies. Where did all of the devoted believers in Odin, or Zeus go? THEY DIED, with no one to replace them.
Oh. I see. I get it.
What you're saying is that if people cease to believe the truth, then it ceases to be true. That is in keeping with your implication, elsewhere, that morality is a matter of consensus. Materialism and relativism go hand in hand, don't they? And the quantum foam don't care.
But don't worry. Christian belief will inform this world until "the fullness of the Gentiles" is brought in. Until the last person who will be saved, is saved. And then "those that dwell upon the earth" will be unimpeded in their "belief in anything." And everyman will be "free to do what is right in their own eyes".
In my opinion, of course.
I'm not sure how enjoyable that will be, however...
Volbrigade wrote:
Thank you for mentioning Africa. A severe oversight on my part. As for your comments re China -- I dispute the opinion stated. But as this is a discussion of "Resurrections and Hyperdimensions", I'll refrain from pursuing that sidetrack.
I will happily provide you with the information on China anyway.
60 million, 50 million, 25 million...
those are all a lot of people. No one knows for sure what the accurate count is. What we do know is that people are turning in droves from the meaninglessness and hopelessness of dreary statist materialism, to the utter hope and comfort and strength and joy and peace and power that comes with being an adopted child of God, a co-heir with Jesus Christ.
We also know that the Church in China prays for its American counterpart, which is beset by compromise and the lassitude that accompanies prosperity and complacency.
Volbrigade wrote:
There is NOTHING "simple" about the third verse of the Bible, my friend. Nor of the stage-by-stage reversal of entropy and disorder that follow: design and order from "without form, and void" to man's dominion over the earth.
The materialist will say "a poetic account, which obviously gets the order of events wrong, from primitive ignorance."
The third verse of the Bible was written by ancient people who had absolutely NO concept of what light is, or how it comes into being.
The third verse of the Bible was written by Moses, under the inspiration of God. You're right -- he could not have had our modern understanding of the properties of light.
Volbrigade wrote:
The believer will respond "poetic it is, true; written for the understanding of ALL men, at ALL times -- including our own; when we can understand that out of (e.g.) a created "quantum foam", God is able to do to anything.
Including creating evil. Evil which then diabolically creates viruses and other diabolical things.
Touche.
I have no issue with a well-placed quip. Moving along…
Volbrigade wrote:
You should have spent some time with me in my reckless, heedless youth. I could've shown you things -- and people -- that were both irrational, AND absurd. Even "absurdly irrational". Or maybe "irrationally absurd"?
I never underwent a reckless period, even in my youth. I have been married to the same woman (first and only wife) for 45 years. I have always considered reckless behavior to be self destructive. Destroying oneself has always seemed to me a very foolish thing to do. Especially when the world is so full of such obvious examples of the consequences of self destruction. It's great that you did not destroy yourself. But you don't need the crutch of religion to stop living a self destructive lifestyle. You only need to recognize that a self destructive lifestyle destroys lives. And to stop doing things which are self destructive.
How can quantum foam "destruct" its "self"?
My intent here was not to talk about my life, per se. It was intended as a comment: that if you were unfamiliar with irrationality, then perhaps you had not been its presence, as I have. Your response confirms that conjecture, in one sense. I still maintain that you are unable to recognize irrationality, even in your own arguments; and that is a product of your belief that quantum foam is all that exists. Which is an inherently irrational belief.
Your response, however, brings to mind a scene from an outstanding (and, imo, underrated) western movie called "Open Range". Without going into the details, there is a scene in which the two protagonists find themselves in an imminent gunfight with another group of cowboys. As soon as the other group arrives in town -- just a matter of hours, if not minutes -- then the fight will ensue, to settle their differences.
The two go to the general store, in the lull before the storm -- a brief span, which they have every reason to think will be their last moments on this earth. They take their limited provisions, and buy the best cigars the store has to offer, and pieces of its most expensive candy.
During their banter with the proprietor, it comes to light that he has never tasted the candy the two are buying. It's too expensive for him. Causing the older character, "Boss" (the unsurpassable Robert Duval), to exclaim, with a measure of disdain, "you mean you've stood here right in front of (the candy) for all these years, and you never even tasted it?"
My point:
"Boss"'s response is indicative of mine. You mean you have spent your life believing that nothing exists but "quantum foam", of which we are merely manifestations of: that there is no morality or meaning to this temporary, temporal existence, other than what we agree to (collectively -- morals) or assign, individually (meaning): and that when we die, that's it -- finito, a return to disassociated matter, forever --
and you never indulged in a reckless period? Never "tasted the candy" that was right in your "store"?
Well -- fwiw, I say "good on you".
And you were right not to do so.
I, by the guidelines of my faith, can provide reasons why you were right to do so.
Can you? I'm afraid not "doing things which are self destructive" doesn't quite cut it -- is, indeed, contradictory to your "quantum foam" belief system.
Imho.
Volbrigade wrote:
We both agree, and disagree. As we do on so many things.
All religions are false, to one degree or another. Including -- especially? -- the secular-materialist m2m evolutionist one (in all of its "Whateverist" manifestations).
Islam is the truth as well. Or so I have been assured many times by Muslims. They are certainly every bit as devoted to their beliefs as you are. Could billions of Muslims simply be completely and utterly wrong in a conviction that they hold to be so undeniably valid?
They are wrong. But "simply and utterly" are misused qualifiers. I refer you this quote from C. S. Lewis:
If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all those religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view. But, of course, being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic—there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong; but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others.
And if that is true, what does it say about the statistical possibility that you have also been utterly deceived as well?
Nothing. Statistical probability has nothing to do with it.
Reason and rationality, as applied to the sum total of our reality, does. And what constitutes that "sum total" is an epistemological matter: I admit knowledge from "outside outside our time domain." The materialist disallows it -- which is the source of his error.
Volbrigade wrote:
Christianity is not a "religion". It is the Truth.
Everthing that we learn from science that is true corresponds with the Bible, which is revealed, propositional truth.
And that is not by "happenstance".
It is by Design.
A claim held with the utmost of certainty by every religious belief that has ever existed. Someone clearly has been wrong all along, I am afraid. But that, of course, is ALWAYS the "other guy."
Wrong and right.
No other religious belief entails the reality of God's designed and ordered cosmos, as the one designed by YHWH is. Please refer back to my comments re Newton.
But you're right -- it is "the other guy", if he insists on denying and rejecting the truth.
Note: in the following, segment, the formatting got a little tangled. Rather then attempting to untangle the knot, I am simply putting my latest comments in bold, and colorizing them.
Volbrigade wrote:
I want to know by what standard we are to discern between the examples provided, given that they are all simply manifestations of quantum foam, and so are we, and that is all there is.
Quote:
Quantum mechanics doesn't produce dust bunnies for any purpose at all. They exist for no better reason then that they are possible within a range of conditions that exist naturally according to the rules of quantum mechanics.
And are thus of no different character or nature than Florence Nightingale, or a suicide bomber.
With regard to the mechanics of the Flood, the main difference between Biblical and Whateverist science is time. The former say "weeks". The latter say "100s of millions of years".
As far as the physical processes unleashed when God directly intervened in His creation -- I see no reason why QM would not be involved. Nor, indeed, how it could not be.
The Bible says weeks. Careful observation indicate that marine layers were lain down over the course of millions of years. Which explains why the layers are thousands of feet thick, something which could not have occurred in mere weeks.
Notice the difference between religion and science. Science asks the question, "what does the evidence show?" Religion asks the question "how can the evidence be made to conform to our belief system?"
Sorry. I can't allow that. "Science" asks precisely the same question as you ascribe to "Religion". That you can neither recognize nor acknowledge that leads to such error as the belief that "quantum foam" is all there is -- instead of understanding that it is a creation of God.
Volbrigade wrote:
I understand that is the view that you subscribe to.
There is another one, however, which incorporates the Bible as propositional truth, and Jesus Christ as the resurrected only begotten Son of God.
Which is why we're having this discussion.
Yes, this goes right to the heart of the question. The Bible proposes that God did it all. Science look at the evidence for what it can tell us.
And, yes, you believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. I have provided a perfectly good explanation for just how that rumor got started. And so far you have been oddly reluctant to explain just how your totally unrealistic claim, a claim which defies all common sense, is somehow more likely to be the answer than my perfectly reasonable natural explanation is. If there is no actual good reason to suppose that a corpse came back to life and flew away (or occupied a hyperdimension), then why choose to suppose that a corpse came back to life and flew away? Unless of course you prefer to believe that it's true because holding such a belief comes complete with the promise of a bag of goodies?
Yes. That is a good explanation, as I acknowledge. So does the Bible.
But it is not the true explanation. Still, you are free to believe it, if you like. Free will, and all of that.
Jesus gloriously conquered death. And all those who put their faith and trust in Him will share in that conquest. That is the central truth to our realty; which informs and gives it meaning. And quite a nice bag of goodies, as well.
I pity those who refrain from taking the "candy" in this life; and obstinately refuse it in the next, as well.
Volbrigade wrote:
Why, thank you for the compliment! I am enjoying our correspondence. You, too, motivate me to "put on my thinking cap." Smile
Your reference to the potential "cloud of witnesses" has renewed my vigor, as I confess I was beginning to flag a bit -- "how long will this go, neither of us capable of persuading the other to their point of view?" -- and looking for an opportunity to extricate myself. But to what end? The same conversation, elsewhere?
And so I say -- "play on!"
My experience has been that many Christian apologists become frustrated at this point. Some even become "snippy." Which is a puzzle to me. I am providing a perfect opportunity, a perfect soapbox, for Christians to make their case. I suspect a good deal of the frustration comes from the certainty that many christians hold that the Christian case is air tight, and no cogent argument against it is possible. And when faced with a perfectly cogent argument, they become convinced that I am somehow cheating. Or at least lying. Which is why I try to support the things that I say with evidence. I acknowledge the possibility that I might be the one who is wrong. Humans are always subject to being wrong. But I am neither cheating or lying. Nor am I making this up as I go along. Every claim that I make is rooted in solid evidence. Otherwise there would be no point in making them.
I do actually have a life however. So there may be times when I do not always respond immediately.
Do you think that "snippiness" might be provoked by a certain tone of smug condescension? Just a question...
As I indicated -- you're making a good case, and presentation, for your point. With even a bit of comic relief added -- some of it intentional.
But you are SO right, about "having a life". I have been at work on this response for 1.5 hours. And I'm not done yet: I will have to proofread it, and make numerous edits. All the while backing up as I go, copying and pasting. I am typing this on a still open window, but when I click "preview" my session will have expired, and I stand to lose even the 1.5 hours I have spent, and its questionable value will be rendered void. Not to mention the formatting issues, when dealing with quotes...
And so I wrap up here.
RE the rest of this convo (technology and warfare):
You make my point. Neither Newton's nor Einstein's breakthroughs, made a result of contemplating "God's Mind", were technological in nature. They were theoretical -- as is the idea that microbes morphed into men.
Nothing surpasses war, in terms of spurring technological advances. I'm sure if you consider that statement for just a moment, you will concede to it. The Wright Brothers took off in 1902; 15 years later, there were dogfights over Europe; 23 years later, there was the Blitzkrieg and bombing of London. Within a few years of that were rockets and the atom bomb. Submarines.
The space race was a military enterprise, engaged in to prevent dominance from our enemies. Look at the advances in technology it spawned -- including that of computer technology.
This point is really self-evident.
Now, in wrapping up:
I promised to return to the matter of the Canaanite slaughter.
A promise is a promise.
But I am fatigued now. So --
In preparing my answer, I did some research (naturally). I wanted to be sure to provide the best responses available, to what is a very understandable objection to the veracity, trustworthiness, and character of God's word, and of God Himself.
I found this. I think it does a noble job of addressing the matter.
If you have comments with regard to it, I'll be happy to address them.
Volbrigade wrote:
Your response is a declaration of opinion, and nothing more. And a spurious one, at that. YHWH is categorically different than any other "god". No other "god" entered their creation at a specific juncture of space and time, and became a man who was born, lived, died an atoning death, and was bodily resurrected into a hyperdimensional mode of existence in front of named witnesses; who spread the Good News of this event despite persecution and execution -- Good News which continues to inform all people to this very day.
Every God of every religion you can name is a reflection of the assumptions and perspectives of that particular belief system. The result has been a polyglot of concepts covering a wide array of differing beliefs. And yet all religions have certain things in common. True religions are always based on some premise of supernatural intervention. And the focus of this supernatural intervention is invariably a Being who can not be shown to have any actual physical existence. A Being who can only be described from the imagination of those that subscribe to that particular belief system.
The individual known as Yeshua who represents the basis of Christian belief may well have been an actual historical person. The activities of this individual were not impressive enough during his lifetime to provoke a single historical mention of him to have been written while he was alive, however. Years after his execution, rumors then in circulation which concerning his miraculous activities began to gain traction, and stories of his activities exploded into a profusion of documents written during the period that transpired between the end of the first century, and early in the third century. The individual that they detail, who has become known to history as Jesus the Christ, never existed. That individual is entirely a myth. A myth which may have been based on an actual individual. Myths which have inevitably been infused with supernatural claims. The individual known as Yeshua, if he existed at all, can never hope to be recovered from the many and various stories and claims that came to be written about him during the centuries after his death.
So does the fact that Jesus MAY have existed, make him "categorically different than any other "'god?'" No, not really. Hercules for example, may well have been an actual Greek king. At least there is some historical reason to suspect so. The Greeks certainly considered Hercules (Heracles) to have been historically real. So in fact did the Romans, and many early Christians.
Wikipedia
Heracles
Christian chronology
In Christian circles a Euhemeristic reading of the widespread Heracles cult was attributed to a historical figure who had been offered cult status after his death. Thus Eusebius, Preparation of the Gospel (10.12), reported that Clement could offer historical dates for Hercules as a king in Argos: "from the reign of Hercules in Argos to the deification of Hercules himself and of Asclepius there are comprised thirty-eight years, according to Apollodorus the chronicler: and from that point to the deification of Castor and Pollux fifty-three years: and somewhere about this time was the capture of Troy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heracles
A heroic figure raised to cult status and then deified after his death by his adoring followers. Imagine that!
Volbrigade wrote:
Einstein followed the work of Newton, who conjectured the Laws of Gravity and Motion from the basis of a firm belief in God's created order. Even Einstein spoke, not ironically, about seeking to understand "the Mind of God".
Newton's work was valid, although limited. Einstein never denied the possibility of a creator Being (neither in fact do I), but often spoke of God in the way that one might
refer to mother nature. In other words, he was attempting to understand the mysteries of nature. Here is a more complete example of the letter Einstein wrote to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind in 1954 shortly before Einstein died.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can [for me] change this. These subtilized interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them."
Volbrigade wrote:
As science has abandoned Godly principles (which are the same as Biblical principles) it has become more and more irrational and mystical.
Science has not "abandoned Godly principles" so much, as science has simply followed the evidence where the evidence leads it. Anything else would not be science. And the universe, as it turns out, is somewhat mind blowing and astonishingly complex. We are limited in what we are physically capable of perceiving. What we cannot directly see and perceive is very difficult to conceptualize. And yet a practical application of these principles, relativity, space/time and quantum mechanics has led directly to all of our modern technology. Whether we can clearly conceptualize it or not, it cannot be denied that it is valid, since practical applications of these concepts produce devices which actually work.
Volbrigade wrote:
"Microbes became men".
So the evidence indicates.
Volbrigade wrote:
"There are infinite parallel universes".
This is speculation, since we do not yet have any unmistakable evidence of it. The speculation IS based on certain firm evidence however.
Volbrigade wrote:
"Mindless energy is eternal".
All experimentation and observation has so far left us with the understanding that this is a fact. Like it or not. Future evidence COULD always alter this observation of course.
Recognizing and accepting that fact is how science works.
Volbrigade wrote:
"All that exists is the manifestation of a quantum foam, operating by chance + time".
"Quantum foam" is simply a way of describing the ongoing movement of the quanta, based on attraction and repulsion of positively and negatively charged bits of quanta interacting with itself, and creating a roiling churning action at the quantum level which results in a never ending drive for change. It's not actually foamy.
Volbrigade wrote:
"Whales speak French at the bottom of the sea."
Now you are...
Volbrigade wrote:
"The horses of Arabia fly about on silver wings".
... just being silly.
Volbrigade wrote:
The last two, I borrowed from Martin Balsam's character, a medicine show con man in the wonderful "Little Big Man". To make a point. And for comic relief. The two are not exclusive of each other.
"Little Big Man" makes the list of my top 20 greatest movies of all time. Actually I have two lists; the list of movies I think are the greatest movies of all time, and the list of movies that are my favorites. The two lists are not necessarily mutually inclusive. For example, "Schindler's List," and "Sophie's Choice" are sublimely good movies. They do not make my list of favorites however, because I have only ever been able to watch each of them one time. (It took years before I could even say the words "Sophie's Choice" without weeping.) "Little Big Man" makes both lists.
Volbrigade wrote:
The assertion that any of the first assertions derive from "physical evidence" is disingenuous. They derive from a materialistic bias, applied to an examination of the natural order.
"I was afraid of that." (Old Lodge Skins)
Volbrigade wrote:
How much further along, and deeper, our understanding of that order would be right now if we had adhered to the Biblical understanding that informed the science established by giants like Newton (et. al.), which produced the technology that we both enjoy, and which threatens us because of our abandonment of the moral reason provided by that Biblical understanding, we'll never know.
I don't suppose that there is anyone who doesn't think that we are still just scratching the surface of understanding the full scope of the functioning of the universe. We have a long way to go yet. If our continued efforts to understand the functioning of the universe serves to leave Biblical understanding behind, then so be it. Progress occurs when outmoded things or ideas are discarded. On the other hand, if our continued efforts to understand the functioning of the universe serves to bring us full circle back to Biblical concepts, then so be it. Currently however research has tended to result in a distinct movement away from Biblical concepts.
Volbrigade wrote:
... because, by definition, such a Being supersedes and transcends the physical reality that He created, then we must either infer, or reject, His existence based on the totality of our reality; and not merely the superficial examination of matter, which is like looking for a song inside of a piano.
By definition magic or sorcery is the use of rituals, symbols, actions, gestures, and language with the aim of exploiting supernatural forces. But that doesn't mean that magic is real and actually physically exists. Both magic and religion suppose that the supernatural is real and can affect the physical world. But you see, no ACTUAL evidence for the existence of the supernatural has ever ever actually been confirmed. What we find without fail, is that the physical world operates according to physical rules, and is invariably unaffected by make believe.
Volbrigade wrote:
A critical piece of the investigation that will guide our inference is: is there credible evidence to suggest that Being communicates with us? Has It left any record of that
communication? Has He incarnated in the form of a Man, as part of that communication? Did that man rise from he dead, in validation of that fact...?
The evidence seems to indicate "that Being" only ever communicates with the choir. I am 68, and "that Being" has never once made any effort to communicate with me. Even when, as a child, I believed that such a Being existed. And prayed to Him, fully expecting an answer. Belief, I have been told many many times by Christians, first requires believing. Oddly enough, it doesn't work for those who do not already believe. It didn't work for me even when I DID believe. And then I grew up.
Volbrigade wrote:
A dull determination to remain focused on the mundanity of "physical evidence" will, it is conceded, allow one the inference that there is no God.
But it is an erroneous inference, based on a sliver of evidence (in fact, a sliver of a sliver, since physicists tell us the universe is predominantly "dark" matter and energy. As recently as a few years ago, it was 96%. I recently came across something that put the number at 46%. Stay tuned. As with the interpretation of radiometric dating, the numbers are subject to alteration, in order to support the fantasy).
The visible universe is a collection of clusters of stars we call galaxies. The area in between these galaxies is known as intergalactic space. And it is truly vast. It also seems to contain very diffuse amounts of matter. And (stop me if you have heard this) matter is energy. The matter/energy that seems to exist in intergalactic space is extremely diffuse and spread out. It does not shine and is difficult to detect. But intergalactic space is enormous. And our understanding of dark matter/energy is very rudimentary. Take any current figure you might read as to it's total amount with a grain of salt.
Volbrigade wrote:
Yes. People come to all kinds or whacky conjectures about things. Especially if they're operating on ignorance, limited information, materialistic biases, etc. Some highly esteemed and reputable m2m evolutionists have seriously proposed that life on earth was "seeded" by extraterrestrial civilizations, in a desperate ploy to circumvent the impossibility of it arising by natural processes -- expressing a childlike deliberate blindness to the insufficiency of such an idea. Where did the ET civilization come from?
The possibility the life on earth was seeded by extraterrestrial civilizations is generally very resoundingly disparaged by most scientists as Von Daniken style hokum. Pure nonsense conceived to sell books get ratings on TV. Don't mistake the "Ancient Aliens" and "Hunting Sasquatch" nonsense on TV as science based.
What I have noticed my entire life is that those with the least amount of actual understanding of the way nature and the natural universe works are overwhelmingly more likely to suppose that things happen according to some form of supernatural intervention. On the other hand, those with the greatest degree of actual understanding of the workings of nature and the natural universe are overwhelmingly less likely to suppose that things happen according to some form of supernatural intervention. I have reached the somewhat obvious conclusion that the greater the degree of actual knowledge a person possesses concerning the natural sciences, the less likely they are to subscribe to ancient superstitions. Again, this is based on direct personal observation.
Volbrigade wrote:
Thank God, literally, we have the authority of Scripture to guide us in our conjectures.
Scriptures written entirely by men. Men with plans, motives and ulterior motives of their own. Fallible corruptible men. If the Bible has the authority of God behind it, then why is it wrong? Take this very obvious example found in Ezekiel.
Ezek.29
[1] In the tenth year, in the tenth month, in the twelfth day of the month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
[2] Son of man, set thy face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him, and against all Egypt:
[3] Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself.
[4] But I will put hooks in thy jaws, and I will cause the fish of thy rivers to stick unto thy scales, and I will bring thee up out of the midst of thy rivers, and all the fish of
thy rivers shall stick unto thy scales.
[5] And I will leave thee thrown into the wilderness, thee and all the fish of thy rivers: thou shalt fall upon the open fields; thou shalt not be brought together, nor gathered: I
have given thee for meat to the beasts of the field and to the fowls of the heaven.
[6] And all the inhabitants of Egypt shall know that I am the LORD, because they have been a staff of reed to the house of Israel.
[7] When they took hold of thee by thy hand, thou didst break, and rend all their shoulder: and when they leaned upon thee, thou brakest, and madest all their loins to be at a stand.
[8] Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring a sword upon thee, and cut off man and beast out of thee.
[9] And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste; and they shall know that I am the LORD: because he hath said, The river is mine, and I have made it.
[10] Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia.
[11] No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years.
[12] And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries.
[13] Yet thus saith the Lord GOD; At the end of forty years will I gather the Egyptians from the people whither they were scattered:
[14] And I will bring again the captivity of Egypt, and will cause them to return into the land of Pathros, into the land of their habitation; and they shall be there a base kingdom.
[15] It shall be the basest of the kingdoms; neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations: for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations.
[16] And it shall be no more the confidence of the house of Israel, which bringeth their iniquity to remembrance, when they shall look after them: but they shall know that I am the Lord GOD.
[17] And it came to pass in the seven and twentieth year, in the first month, in the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
[18] Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it:
[19] Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.
[20] I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.
[21] In that day will I cause the horn of the house of Israel to bud forth, and I will give thee the opening of the mouth in the midst of them; and they shall know that I am the
LORD.
Ezek.30
[1] The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,
[2] Son of man, prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Howl ye, Woe worth the day
[3] For the day is near, even the day of the LORD is near, a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen.
[4] And the sword shall come upon Egypt, and great pain shall be in Ethiopia, when the slain shall fall in Egypt, and they shall take away her multitude, and her foundations shall be broken down.
[5] Ethiopia, and Libya, and Lydia, and all the mingled people, and Chub, and the men of the land that is in league, shall fall with them by the sword.
[6] Thus saith the LORD; They also that uphold Egypt shall fall; and the pride of her power shall come down: from the tower of Syene shall they fall in it by the sword, saith the Lord GOD.
[7] And they shall be desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities shall be in the midst of the cities that are wasted.
[8] And they shall know that I am the LORD, when I have set a fire in Egypt, and when all her helpers shall be destroyed.
[9] In that day shall messengers go forth from me in ships to make the careless Ethiopians afraid, and great pain shall come upon them, as in the day of Egypt: for, lo, it cometh.
[10] Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also make the multitude of Egypt to cease by the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon.
[11] He and his people with him, the terrible of the nations, shall be brought to destroy the land: and they shall draw their swords against Egypt, and fill the land with the slain.
[12] And I will make the rivers dry, and sell the land into the hand of the wicked: and I will make the land waste, and all that is therein, by the hand of strangers: I the LORD have spoken it.
[13] Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also destroy the idols, and I will cause their images to cease out of Noph; and there shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt: and I will put a fear in the land of Egypt.
[14] And I will make Pathros desolate, and will set fire in Zoan, and will execute judgments in No.
[15] And I will pour my fury upon Sin, the strength of Egypt; and I will cut off the multitude of No.
[16] And I will set fire in Egypt: Sin shall have great pain, and No shall be rent asunder, and Noph shall have distresses daily.
[17] The young men of Aven and of Pi-beseth shall fall by the sword: and these cities shall go into captivity.
[18] At Tehaphnehes also the day shall be darkened, when I shall break there the yokes of Egypt: and the pomp of her strength shall cease in her: as for her, a cloud shall cover her, and her daughters shall go into captivity.
[19] Thus will I execute judgments in Egypt: and they shall know that I am the LORD.
[20] And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the first month, in the seventh day of the month, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
[21] Son of man, I have broken the arm of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and, lo, it shall not be bound up to be healed, to put a roller to bind it, to make it strong to hold the sword.
[22] Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and will break his arms, the strong, and that which was broken; and I will cause the sword to fall out of his hand.
[23] And I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries.
[24] And I will strengthen the arms of the king of Babylon, and put my sword in his hand: but I will break Pharaoh's arms, and he shall groan before him with the groanings of a deadly wounded man.
[25] But I will strengthen the arms of the king of Babylon, and the arms of Pharaoh shall fall down; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall put my sword into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall stretch it out upon the land of Egypt.
[26] And I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and disperse them among the countries; and they shall know that I am the LORD.
I included the entire passage because I wanted to establish just how very detailed this prophecy is. Egypt was to be destroyed utterly by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. It says so very clearly in the Bible. Now, here is the problem with this prophecy. IT NEVER HAPPENED! The Egyptian army under Necho II was nearly destroyed by the Babylonians at Carchemish and as a result pulled back west of the Nile to prepare for the Babylonian invasion of Egypt proper. An invasion which never occurred. Nebuchadrezzar postured and made dire threats against the Egyptians, promising to visit just the sort of destruction on Egypt as described in the prophesy. These threats were apparently accepted and believed to have actually occurred by those that wrote the Book of Ezekiel. BUT THE THINGS DESCRIBED IN EZEKIEL NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED! Instead Nebuchadrezzar was distracted for several years crawling about on all fours under the delusion that he was an animal. And then Babylon was distracted by the rise of the Persian empire. Babylon never did invade and destroy Egypt.
Instead the Egyptian pharaoh Necho II, thwarted in his attempts to reestablish the extended Egyptian empire, turned his attention to trade. As a result, rather then being turned into a land of desolation and destruction as the prophesy foretold, Egypt actually entered into a period of peaceful prosperity that would last for centuries. Egypt would submit to becoming a vassal state of the Persian empire under Cyrus the Great, by agreeing to pay tribute, but was never actually invaded. Around the year 332 BC Egypt was successfully invaded by Alexander the Great, and became a vassal state of the Greeks. But Egypt submitted to Alexander with little resistance, and Alexander did not visit the sort of destruction upon Egypt envisioned in the prophesy of Ezekiel. Bottom line:The Bible got it wrong! The Bible is IN ERROR and therefore CANNOT be inerrant.
Answer.com
"Did the prophecy in Ezekiel 29 verses 10-13 happen?"
"Answer:
Egypt was never in desolate or uninhabited since this prophecy was made. Clearly a failed Prophecy and the probability of it ever happening is very nil to non-existent." http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_proph ... -13_happen
Yes, "the probability of it ever happening is very nil to non-existent." Especially since the prophesy specifically charges Nebuchadrezzar with visiting the described destruction on Egypt. Nebuchadrezzar died around the year 562 BC, and like all good dead people everywhere, is still quite reliably dead.
Someone, providing us with the "authority of the scriptures," got it wrong. And the apparent reason for that seems to be because Nebuchadnezzar made huge boasts and threatened Egypt with exactly the sort of total destruction described in Ezekiel. And the Jewish author of Ezekiel assumed that the boasting either was or soon would be translated into for action.
The Jews were very angry at Egypt for the death of King Josiah. But no invasion of Egypt by the Babylonians was ever actually undertaken. Nebuchadnezzar was distracted for several years by insanity, crawling around on all fours under the delusion that he was an animal. He eventually recovered but was then distracted by the threat from the Persians. In the meantime, Egypt actually underwent a long period of prosperity.
Volbrigade wrote:
By the way -- your aunt (bless her heart Cool ) is far closer to the truth, in her awareness of the diabolical nature of much which is presented to us under the auspices of "The Prince of the Power of the Air" ( Wink ), than is the blunt materialist who accepts it all as indifferent quantum foam.
My aunt eventually relented and allowed a TV into her house. But only on the condition that it would only accept and play religious programming.
Volbrigade wrote:
Gee. Thanks for the clarification. Now I know the difference between the organ grinder's pet, and Bonzo the chimp. Rolling Eyes
Your information is at least 10 years obsolete.
Changes occur so fast in the field of genetic microbiology, information is coming in so fast, and there is so much of it -- most of it yet to be analyzed -- that presuppositions and premises are being overturned left and right.
It was once assumed that we were about 98% the same as Bonzo -- just as the designation of much of the DNA code as vestigial "junk" was assumed -- but further analysis has abolished those assumptions. I suggest you do a google search on the latest comparisons of the Chimp-human genome.
You're right. A new and more detailed study indicates that humans and chimps are actually about 96% exactly the same.
GENOME RESEARCH
Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack
Ajit Varki1 and Tasha K. Altheide
Glycobiology Research and Training Center, Departments of Medicine and Cellular & Molecular Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA
The chimpanzee genome sequence is a long-awaited milestone, providing opportunities to explore primate evolution and genetic contributions to human physiology and disease. Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor ∼5-7 million years ago (Mya). The difference between the two genomes is actually not ∼1%, but ∼4%—comprising ∼35 million single nucleotide differences and ∼90 Mb of insertions and deletions.
That doesn't really seem to undermine my point however. Which is that humans and chimps EVOLVED along different paths from a common ancestor.
Volbrigade wrote:
The universe, and all that it is in it -- including our free will -- is evidence of the "Mind of God". Or, in your view, the "mindlessness of quantum foam". Or, as other materialists put it, the "we don't know, and will therefore make no assertion as to how or why a universe."
Which is the best explanation for our reality? That is a matter for our free wills to determine. "Choose ye this day!"
But the truth is not a matter of our opinions. It comes from "the Mind of God".
Except we really only have something approximating free will if there is NO God. The Christian Biblical God created humans with a plan in mind, and everything has already been predetermined and is proceeding inexorably in accordance with His foreknowledge and purposes towards a pre-determined conclusion which is specified in the Bible. You couldn't change anything if you tried.
And why anything matters, or makes a difference, at all, if that's all there is.
You believe that God is responsible for quantum mechanics. So explain to me why God exists, and we can move forward from there.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Belief represents a particular perspective on reality. I understand that and have said so repeatedly. The problem is, this perspective on reality can be vastly different from person to person. That billions of perspectives on reality, many of them utterly different and even in conflict with each other, should ALL be true and valid is a statistical impossibility I am afraid. Unless of course you suppose that your devotion to your beliefs are somehow superior than the devotion held by those who subscribe to a belief in other religions? But you see, all in is all in.
Volbrigade wrote:
I'm sorry.
I fail to see your point here.
People believe that their particular belief is true and beyond question with every fiber of their being. They have gone all in. And yet as we can see from the multitude of various beliefs, some of them directly contradicting each other, believing in something with every fiber of one's being is no protection at all from simply being dead wrong. For the majority however, being right or wrong is not really what is important. Maintaining the belief system at all costs is what is all important.
Volbrigade wrote:
Oh. I see. I get it.
What you're saying is that if people cease to believe the truth, then it ceases to be true. That is in keeping with your implication, elsewhere, that morality is a matter of
consensus. Materialism and relativism go hand in hand, don't they? And the quantum foam don't care.
Hmm. No that is not what I am saying at all. Truth is whatever it is. There was a time, most of human history in fact, when religious beliefs were the only possible answer to the big question of existence. So answers were invented by various religions to explain the question of existence, and at the same time ease people's fear of death. We are moving into a age now however when the question of existence is being answered by the physical evidence. The transition from millennia of comforting make believe to confronting stark reality on it's own terms is not going to be a smooth one. Like it or not though, it is currently underway. People are going to have to find a way to deal philosophically and emotionally with a physically reality that is constructed on fact and not tailored to make then feel warm and fuzzy.
Volbrigade wrote:
The third verse of the Bible was written by Moses, under the inspiration of God. You're right -- he could not have had our modern understanding of the properties of light.
Jewish Encyclopedia
Genesis
Scientific Criticism.
Since the time of Astruc (1753) modern criticism has held that Genesis is not a uniform work by one author, but was combined by successive editors from several sources that are themselves partly composite, and has received its present form only in the course of centuries; its composition from various sources being proved by its repetitions, contradictions, and differences in conception, representation, and language. According to this view, three chief sources must be distinguished, namely, J, E, and P. (1) J, the Jahvist, is so called because he speaks of God as "Yhwh" In his work (chiefly in the primal history, ch. i.-xi., as has been asserted since Budde) several strata must be distinguished, J1, J2, J3, etc. (2) E, the Elohist, is so named because down to Ex. iii. he calls God "Elohim." A redactor (RJE) at an early date combined and fused J and E, so that these two sources can not always be definitely separated; and the critics therefore differ greatly in regard to the details of this question. (3) P, or the Priestly Codex, is so called on account of the priestly manner and tendencies of the author, who also calls God "Elohim." Here again several strata must be distinguished, P1, P2, P3, etc., though only P2 is found in Genesis. After another redactor, D, had combined Deuteronomy with JE, the work so composed was united with P by a final redactor, who then enlarged the whole (the sequence J, E, D, P is, however, not generally accepted). Hence the present Book of Genesis is the work of this last redactor, and was compiled more than one hundred years after Ezra. The works of J, E, and P furnished material for the entire Pentateuch (and later books), on whose origin, scope, time, and place of composition see Pentateuch. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... he-book-of
Volbrigade wrote:
How can quantum foam "destruct" its "self"?
This is like asking the question "do protons decay back into quarks?" It's never been observed.
Volbrigade wrote:
My intent here was not to talk about my life, per se. It was intended as a comment: that if you were unfamiliar with irrationality, then perhaps you had not been its presence, as I have. Your response confirms that conjecture, in one sense. I still maintain that you are unable to recognize irrationality, even in your own arguments; and that is a product of your belief that quantum foam is all that exists. Which is an inherently irrational belief.
Your response, however, brings to mind a scene from an outstanding (and, imo, underrated) western movie called "Open Range". Without going into the details, there is a scene in which the two protagonists find themselves in an imminent gunfight with another group of cowboys. As soon as the other group arrives in town -- just a matter of hours, if not minutes -- then the fight will ensue, to settle their differences.
Another good movie. It's like "Unforgiven." It's all about the gun fight at the end of the movie. Much like "High Noon." The gun fight in "Open Range" is long, protracted, and realistic. The gun fight in "Unforgiven" is just to remind us what a badass Clint is.
Volbrigade wrote:
"Boss"'s response is indicative of mine. You mean you have spent your life believing that nothing exists but "quantum foam", of which we are merely manifestations of: that there is no morality or meaning to this temporary, temporal existence, other than what we agree to (collectively -- morals) or assign, individually (meaning): and that when we die, that's it -- finito, a return to disassociated matter, forever --
and you never indulged in a reckless period? Never "tasted the candy" that was right in your "store"?
Well -- fwiw, I say "good on you".
And you were right not to do so.
I tried getting drunk a couple of times when I was a young fella. Nothing bad came of it, except the hangover. But I quickly realised that I do not like not being in possession of my full faculties. Which is why I never did drugs. I never judged those who did. That was their business. I am pretty big on allowing people to live their own lives and make their own choices.
Volbrigade wrote:
I, by the guidelines of my faith, can provide reasons why you were right to do so.
Can you? I'm afraid not "doing things which are self destructive" doesn't quite cut it -- is, indeed, contradictory to your "quantum foam" belief system.
Perhaps this will give you a better conceptual idea about what is meant by quantum foam. It's only 4 minutes long.
Volbrigade wrote:
They are wrong.
Those poor Muslims. Simply and utterly convinced that they are the ones that hold truth in their hands when all along it has been right there in your hands. You're safe though. Even if you told them that you have it, they won't believe you. Because they see it right there securely in their own hands.
Volbrigade wrote:
Nothing. Statistical probability has nothing to do with it.
There are thousands of beliefs. Statistical probability indicates that they cannot possibly all be right. Statistical probability in fact indicates that there are billions of people who are entirely wrong where their most basic beliefs are concerned, and they have no comprehension of that fact, and never will.
Volbrigade wrote:
Reason and rationality, as applied to the sum total of our reality, does. And what constitutes that "sum total" is an epistemological matter: I admit knowledge from "outside outside our time domain." The materialist disallows it -- which is the source of his error.
The "authority of the scriptures" tells you that a man once caused the earth to stop rotating for about 24 hours. The "authority of the scriptures" tells you that a man once
rode around in the belly of a large fish for several days. The "authority of the scriptures" tells you that a man and his family once captured and contained two of every species of land animal on earth, while simultaneously constructing a boat large enough to carry them all, and kept them secure and alive for months while the earth was covered to above the highest mountains with water. The "authority of the scriptures" tells you that hordes of the dead arose up from their graves and wandered the streets of Jerusalem. The "authority of the scriptures" tells you that a man once died, came back from the dead, and then subsequently flew off up into the sky and disappeared into the clouds. I am afraid that reason and rationality are not your friend, my friend.
Volbrigade wrote:
Wrong and right.
No other religious belief entails the reality of God's designed and ordered cosmos, as the one designed by YHWH is. Please refer back to my comments re Newton.
But you're right -- it is "the other guy", if he insists on denying and rejecting the truth.
Creation myth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Creation (c. 1896–1902) by James Tissot
A creation myth is a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it. While in popular usage the term myth often refers to false or fanciful stories, formally, it does not imply falsehood. Cultures generally regard their creation myths as true. In the society in which it is told, a creation myth is usually regarded as conveying profound truths, metaphorically, symbolically and sometimes in a historical or literal sense. They are commonly, although not always, considered cosmogonical myths – that is, they describe the ordering of the cosmos from a state of chaos or amorphousness.
Creation myths often share a number of features. They often are considered sacred accounts and can be found in nearly all known religious traditions. They are all stories with a plot and characters who are either deities, human-like figures, or animals, who often speak and transform easily. They are often set in a dim and nonspecific past that historian of religion Mircea Eliade termed in illo tempore ("at that time"). Creation myths address questions deeply meaningful to the society that shares them, revealing their central worldview and the framework for the self-identity of the culture and individual in a universal context.
Creation myths develop in oral traditions and therefore typically have multiple versions; found throughout human culture, they are the most common form of myth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
A Hindu Creation Story
Before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night. A giant cobra, Shesha, floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion.
From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord's command.
Vishnu spoke to his servant: 'It is time to begin.' Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: 'Create the world.'
A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens.
He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies.
The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these creatures, he gave the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power to see, hear and move.
The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sounds of Brahma's
creation.
However, a wicked demon appeared and stole the world. He threw it far out into the cosmic ocean.
Vishnu quickly killed the demon and changed into animal form to rescue the world. Brahma was delighted at the world’s safe return from the depths, for he was then able to finish his task of forming the land and all living things.
But one day, this Universe, like all others before it, will be wiped out when Lord Shiva, the destroyer, grows angry with the world’s evil. At this time, he will dance his ferocious dance of destruction and once again there will be a time when nothing exists but Brahman. http://www.durhamcountybadgers.org.uk/_ ... +Story.pdf
In other versions Brahma is the supreme Being, and Vishnu and Shiva are simply aspects of His Divine Being. Religions inevitably fracture into completing beliefs.
Hinduism (which I am simply using as an example of a non Christian creation belief) is 4,000 years old. Hindus fully believe they are on to something.
Volbrigade wrote:
Do you think that "snippiness" might be provoked by a certain tone of smug condescension? Cool Just a question...
I try to remain as even handed as possible. That some slight indication that I feel I am totally crushing a discussion might slip through is entirely inadvertent.
Volbrigade wrote:
As I indicated -- you're making a good case, and presentation, for your point. With even a bit of comic relief added -- some of it intentional.
I try to be careful. Comic relief can often be interpreted as smug condescension. But I do this largely to entertain myself. If I can't have a little fun I might as well quit the forum.
Volbrigade wrote:
And so I wrap up here.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.
A heroic figure raised to cult status and then deified after his death by his adoring followers. Imagine that!
Yes -- imagine!
If you want to compare Yeshua with Heracles, that's certainly your prerogative. I think it's rather silly, though. Where are those that follow Heracles now? The great writers, the great thinkers, the PhD scientists?
What impact does Heracles have upon the modern world, other than as a colorful mythic character, for children's -- and Marvel comic --books? (he used to battle Thor in the ones from the early-mid 60s. And then befriended him -- even, if memory serves, joined The Avengers. Wonder if they'll ever bring him back into the fold, in the movies?)
Heracles, "King of Argos". What earthly kingdom did the executed carpenter, turned itinerant rabbi, reign over? Even the Caesars were considered "gods". Render unto them the things that have their image(s).
And to God, that which has His…
Whether we can clearly conceptualize it or not, it cannot be denied that it is valid, since practical applications of these concepts produce devices which actually work.
Yes. Einstein built upon the brilliant theoretical work of Newton (and others) to develop concepts that correspond with reality. We only need look at the nuclear arsenal that is extant, in order to confirm that.
Interestingly, the secular myth that microbes evolve into men has not one piece of corresponding technology to confirm it.
Not. One.
It remains what it has always been -- a religious (or, if you prefer, "anti-religioius") belief.
A discredited one, at that.
Volbrigade wrote:
"Microbes became men".
So the evidence indicates.
Volbrigade wrote:
"There are infinite parallel universes".
This is speculation, since we do not yet have any unmistakable evidence of it. The speculation IS based on certain firm evidence however.
Volbrigade wrote:
"Mindless energy is eternal".
All experimentation and observation has so far left us with the understanding that this is a fact. Like it or not. Future evidence COULD always alter this observation of course.
Recognizing and accepting that fact is how science works.
Opinions -- regarding other opinions -- noted.
My opinion is that the study of matter-energy cannot, of itself, yield insights into that which transcends it. Or even of the mystery of "time", which is the "water" we "swim" in, like fish.
Let me rephrase that. Some DO gain insights into that which is "super" to nature. And there are some who propose that God's existence can be proven, scientifically.
Since none of the items in this exchange can be verified, let us content ourselves with the expression of them. And move on...
Volbrigade wrote:
A critical piece of the investigation that will guide our inference is: is there credible evidence to suggest that Being communicates with us? Has It left any record of that
communication? Has He incarnated in the form of a Man, as part of that communication? Did that man rise from he dead, in validation of that fact...?
The evidence seems to indicate "that Being" only ever communicates with the choir. I am 68, and "that Being" has never once made any effort to communicate with me. Even when, as a child, I believed that such a Being existed. And prayed to Him, fully expecting an answer. Belief, I have been told many many times by Christians, first requires believing. Oddly enough, it doesn't work for those who do not already believe. It didn't work for me even when I DID believe. And then I grew up.
If you don't have a copy of the Bible, in a reasonably good translation (not a paraphrase), then you can access a free one -- multiple translations -- online.
You thus have direct access to an extra-terrestrial, integrated message system from outside our time domain.
Volbrigade wrote:
Yes. People come to all kinds or whacky conjectures about things. Especially if they're operating on ignorance, limited information, materialistic biases, etc. Some highly esteemed and reputable m2m evolutionists have seriously proposed that life on earth was "seeded" by extraterrestrial civilizations, in a desperate ploy to circumvent the impossibility of it arising by natural processes -- expressing a childlike deliberate blindness to the insufficiency of such an idea. Where did the ET civilization come from?
The possibility the life on earth was seeded by extraterrestrial civilizations is generally very resoundingly disparaged by most scientists as Von Daniken style hokum. Pure nonsense conceived to sell books get ratings on TV. Don't mistake the "Ancient Aliens" and "Hunting Sasquatch" nonsense on TV as science based.
What I have noticed my entire life is that those with the least amount of actual understanding of the way nature and the natural universe works are overwhelmingly more likely to suppose that things happen according to some form of supernatural intervention. On the other hand, those with the greatest degree of actual understanding of the workings of nature and the natural universe are overwhelmingly less likely to suppose that things happen according to some form of supernatural intervention. I have reached the somewhat obvious conclusion that the greater the degree of actual knowledge a person possesses concerning the natural sciences, the less likely they are to subscribe to ancient superstitions. Again, this is based on direct personal observation.
Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix, is someone "with the least amount of actual understanding of the way nature and the natural universe works"?
The late Nobel prize winner Professor Francis Crick, OM FRS, along with British chemist Leslie Orgel proposed the theory of directed panspermia in 1973. A co-discoverer of the double helical structure of the DNA molecule, Crick found it impossible that the complexity of DNA could have evolved naturally.
Crick posed that small grains containing DNA, or the building blocks of life, could be loaded on a brace of rockets and fired randomly in all directions. Crick and Orgel estimated that a payload of one metric ton could contain 1017 micro-organisms organized in ten or a hundred separate samples. This would be the best, most cost effective strategy for seeding life on a compatible planet at some time in the future.
Thank God, literally, we have the authority of Scripture to guide us in our conjectures.
Scriptures written entirely by men. Men with plans, motives and ulterior motives of their own. Fallible corruptible men. If the Bible has the authority of God behind it, then why is it wrong? Take this very obvious example found in Ezekiel.
Your use of bold red font (elsewhere in your response) is persuasive. It must be wrong.
Emphatic text choices aside --
have you given any consideration whatsoever to alternatives?
The Bible must be read and understood with precision in many parts (others, blessedly, are simple enough for a child to grasp -- "Jesus loves me, this I know...).
It is a coded message system, imparted from the Creator of both quantum foam and DNA. And it shares those entities' properties, in very interesting ways. Perhaps we can get to those, if we ever get past your denying the existence of the Creator.
Please read verses 1 and 17 carefully.
Do you see that there is a 16-17 year difference in the two prophesies? One concerens the "desolation of Egypt". The other, later one, identifies Nebuchadrezzar's conquest of Egypt.
The two are not necessarily related.
In fact the "desolation of Egypt for 40 years" may be yet future.
Or it may have already occurred, in the region "from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia" (v. 10), but that "desolation" has been swallowed by the sands of time. Desolation will do that, you know.
It should be noted that the area mentioned -- "Migdol" (NIV) to Ethiopia -- is east of the Nile, and Memphis. Sandwiched between the river and the Red Sea.
Open your mind, my friend.
Allow me to introduce you to the kind of precision we're talking about, when we're dealing with Biblical text, in its original language(s):
By the way -- your aunt (bless her heart Cool ) is far closer to the truth, in her awareness of the diabolical nature of much which is presented to us under the auspices of "The Prince of the Power of the Air" ( Wink ), than is the blunt materialist who accepts it all as indifferent quantum foam.
My aunt eventually relented and allowed a TV into her house. But only on the condition that it would only accept and play religious programming
.
Bless her heart. Enormous damage has been done by "religious programming". Just because someone wears a cross, that doesn't make them a Christian. "When you're looking for the Devil, don't fail to look in the pulpit." If someone is selling a "prayer cloth", or somesuch -- run.
I used to belittle and make fun of people like your aunt. They were part of what drove me to my callow atheism. Who would want to be like that? Once I abandoned the idea of absolute truth, and the God that embodied it, and embraced relativist materialism, I could pat myself on the back with regard to how "free thinking" and sophisticated I was.
Since becoming a Christian, I take a more liberal view.
I now see that people like your aunt are what Paul refers to as "weak in the faith". My heart goes out to them. But I love them like little brothers and sisters.
You're right. A new and more detailed study indicates that humans and chimps are actually about 96% exactly the same.
Indeed. And be prepared to see that number lowered, by honest investigation.
You seem to have disregarded this, from a PhD scientist. I'm sure it was an honest oversight:
Major research published over the past decade comparing human and chimpanzee DNA was recently reviewed and critiqued.1 In every single publication, researchers only reported on the highly similar DNA sequence data and discarded the rest—apparently because it was too dissimilar. In fact, when the DNA similarities from these studies were recalculated using the omitted data, markedly lower levels—between 81 and 86 percent similarity—were found. Even the well-known chimpanzee genome paper published by evolutionists in 2005 provides a genomic similarity of only about 80 percent when the discarded nonsimilar data are included and only 70 percent when the estimated size of the chimpanzee genome is incorporated.
Volbrigade wrote:
The universe, and all that it is in it -- including our free will -- is evidence of the "Mind of God". Or, in your view, the "mindlessness of quantum foam". Or, as other materialists put it, the "we don't know, and will therefore make no assertion as to how or why a universe."
Which is the best explanation for our reality? That is a matter for our free wills to determine. "Choose ye this day!"
But the truth is not a matter of our opinions. It comes from "the Mind of God".
Except we really only have something approximating free will if there is NO God. The Christian Biblical God created humans with a plan in mind, and everything has already been predetermined and is proceeding inexorably in accordance with His foreknowledge and purposes towards a pre-determined conclusion which is specified in the Bible. You couldn't change anything if you tried.
The reality of our free will, operating within the context of God's sovereignty, is a wonder too big for anything but God to hold.
Volbrigade wrote:
How can quantum foam "destruct" its "self"?
This is like asking the question "do protons decay back into quarks?" It's never been observed.
It's nothing like that all.
You mentioned "self destructive behaviors". You're on record as saying EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS -- including ourselves, our thoughts and behaviors -- is a manifestation of quantum foam; an energy that can neither be created nor destroyed.
My question was "if that's the case -- how can there be 'self-destructive behaviors'"?
What you're really saying is "behaviors I don't happen to like, or approve of".
Which amounts to one "dust bunny" disapproving of another dust bunny. It is an expression of non-meaning.
As is, technically, every word you've typed on this thread. If what you assert is true. What difference does any of it make?
But of course, we both know that is not the case. We are having a very meaningful -- and, for my part, enjoyable -- exchange of information. Some of it accurate, some not -- and that applies to both sides. Neither of us knows everything.
That, to me, is a real problem with the non-theist position. Non-theists glibly demand "empirical evidence" and "substantiated claims" from the theist -- as if those terms had any empirical, substantive meaning! When "meaning" itself is non-empirical and un-substantive, subjective -- a ghost within a machine. A song inside a piano.
It is a cognitive dissonance that the non-theist cannot seem to lay aside; and few, in my experience, are able to even identify it in themselves.
Discussions with them must, therefore, be undertaken with full acknowledgment, on the part of the theist, of this latent condition. And can only persist under the stipulation that "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Volbrigade wrote:
"Boss"'s response is indicative of mine. You mean you have spent your life believing that nothing exists but "quantum foam", of which we are merely manifestations of: that there is no morality or meaning to this temporary, temporal existence, other than what we agree to (collectively -- morals) or assign, individually (meaning): and that when we die, that's it -- finito, a return to disassociated matter, forever --
and you never indulged in a reckless period? Never "tasted the candy" that was right in your "store"?
Well -- fwiw, I say "good on you".
And you were right not to do so.
I tried getting drunk a couple of times when I was a young fella. Nothing bad came of it, except the hangover. But I quickly realised that I do not like not being in possession of my full faculties. Which is why I never did drugs. I never judged those who did. That was their business. I am pretty big on allowing people to live their own lives and make their own choices.
We're all different. We're all unique.
I did things in my youth that I shudder to consider now. And I was never as reckless as some. I look at these "extreme sports" guys, skiing down the edges of mountains, or performing triple back flips on motor bikes, and just go "no way". Not even when I was "young and dumb and full of...".
When I realized, at an early age, the ramifications of "matter and energy are all that exist" -- it led, in my case, to a certain "well, let's see how this tastes. Why hold back?" Very common. The jailhouses and prisons are full of such unfortunates. Fortunately, for me, the consequences for my experimentations -- the "hangovers" if you will -- were sufficiently immediate and unpleasant, that I was operantly conditioned to temper them greatly.
What's funny -- in the ironic sense -- is that even if Christianity were not true, it is better to live your life according to its principles. If everyone acted like a Christian, we would need few jails. But when everyone acts like all they are is an ephemeral pattern of molecules -- the jailhouses fill, the insane asylums fill, and the drug companies and cartels become fat and rich.
Volbrigade wrote:
I, by the guidelines of my faith, can provide reasons why you were right to do so.
Can you? I'm afraid not "doing things which are self destructive" doesn't quite cut it -- is, indeed, contradictory to your "quantum foam" belief system.
Perhaps this will give you a better conceptual idea about what is meant by quantum foam. It's only 4 minutes long.
Thanks. I enjoyed that.
Imagine a sovereign God, with complete authority over the "foam" that He created. It becomes possible to see how our reality could manifest from His thoughts and "words".
"And God said..."
Volbrigade wrote:
They are wrong.
Those poor Muslims. Simply and utterly convinced that they are the ones that hold truth in their hands when all along it has been right there in your hands. You're safe though. Even if you told them that you have it, they won't believe you. Because they see it right there securely in their own hands.
Volbrigade wrote:
Nothing. Statistical probability has nothing to do with it.
There are thousands of beliefs. Statistical probability indicates that they cannot possibly all be right. Statistical probability in fact indicates that there are billions of people who are entirely wrong where their most basic beliefs are concerned, and they have no comprehension of that fact, and never will.
Pity, isn't it?
Don't forget to include yourself in that "billions of people..." -- or at least, to acknowledge the possibility of your inclusion.
Hinduism (which I am simply using as an example of a non Christian creation belief) is 4,000 years old. Hindus fully believe they are on to something.
And so they are. Remember? "All religions -- even the queerest ones -- can contain at least a hint of truth."
It is interesting, but not surprising, that the Hindus would retain a garbled version of the Trinity, which goes back to "Elohim" in Genesis 1:1.
Volbrigade wrote:
Do you think that "snippiness" might be provoked by a certain tone of smug condescension? Cool Just a question...
I try to remain as even handed as possible. That some slight indication that I feel I am totally crushing a discussion might slip through is entirely inadvertent.
I know EXACTLY what you're talking about.
Volbrigade wrote:
As I indicated -- you're making a good case, and presentation, for your point. With even a bit of comic relief added -- some of it intentional.
I try to be careful. Comic relief can often be interpreted as smug condescension. But I do this largely to entertain myself. If I can't have a little fun I might as well quit the forum.
If you want to compare Yeshua with Heracles, that's certainly your prerogative. I think it's rather silly, though. Where are those that follow Heracles now? The great writers, the great thinkers, the PhD scientists?
What impact does Heracles have upon the modern world, other than as a colorful mythic character, for children's -- and Marvel comic --books? (he used to battle Thor in the ones from the early-mid 60s. And then befriended him -- even, if memory serves, joined The Avengers. Wonder if they'll ever bring him back into the fold, in the movies?)
Heracles, "King of Argos". What earthly kingdom did the executed carpenter, turned itinerant rabbi, reign over? Even the Caesars were considered "gods". Render unto them the things that have their image(s).
And to God, that which has His…
Hercules was THE most popular hero figure from pre-Christian antiquity. He continued to be popular right on down to the renaissance period in Europe, and in fact is still widely known about today. There is no clear evidence as to when the story of Hercules arose, but depictions of him date back to at least 2500 BC. Whether or not people will still know and talk about Jesus several centuries from now, we will have to wait around and find out. I'm willing if you are.
Volbrigade wrote:
Yes. Einstein built upon the brilliant theoretical work of Newton (and others) to develop concepts that correspond with reality. We only need look at the nuclear arsenal that is extant, in order to confirm that.
Interestingly, the secular myth that microbes evolve into men has not one piece of corresponding technology to confirm it.
Not. One.
It remains what it has always been -- a religious (or, if you prefer, "anti-religioius") belief.
A discredited one, at that.
Right! Because science has been so thoroughly discredited.
Science builds on science. That's the way it works. Any science believers do not choose to believe in they dismiss as discredited. Which will come as a big shock to the thousands of researchers currently at work in the fields of biology, geology and archaeology. The Trump administration has declared their peculiar version of reality to be based on "alternate facts." It's kind of been like that among believers for years now.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
All experimentation and observation has so far left us with the understanding that this is a fact. Like it or not. Future evidence COULD always alter this observation of course.
Recognizing and accepting that fact is how science works.
Volbrigade wrote:
Opinions -- regarding other opinions -- noted.
My opinion is that the study of matter-energy cannot, of itself, yield insights into that which transcends it. Or even of the mystery of "time", which is the "water" we "swim" in, like fish.
Let me rephrase that. Some DO gain insights into that which is "super" to nature. And there are some who propose that God's existence can be proven, scientifically.
Since none of the items in this exchange can be verified, let us content ourselves with the expression of them. And move on...
There are "scientific opinions," based on decades of experimentation and observation, the principles of which, once determined, are then used to create working technology. And then there are "religious opinions," which are first imagined to be true, and then declared to be true. And which have directly resulted in millennia of empty claims and stories of flying reanimated corpses and the like.
Volbrigade wrote:
If you don't have a copy of the Bible, in a reasonably good translation (not a paraphrase), then you can access a free one -- multiple translations -- online.
I have a KJV Bible, and NIV Bible and a Living Bible sitting at arms length from my computer. I tend to frequently use the online Bible at : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/browse.html
Volbrigade wrote:
You thus have direct access to an extra-terrestrial, integrated message system from outside our time domain.
Whatever that means.
Volbrigade wrote:
Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix, is someone "with the least amount of actual understanding of the way nature and the natural universe works"?
The DNA molecule is an evolutionary advancement over the very much simpler RNA molecule.
Volbrigade wrote:
Please read verses 1 and 17 carefully.
Do you see that there is a 16-17 year difference in the two prophesies? One concerns the "desolation of Egypt". The other, later one, identifies Nebuchadrezzar's conquest of Egypt.
The two are not necessarily related.
In fact the "desolation of Egypt for 40 years" may be yet future.
Ezek.29
[1] In the tenth year, in the tenth month, in the twelfth day of the month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
[2] Son of man, set thy face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him, and against all Egypt:
The prophecy in Ezekiel is specifically directed at "Pharaoh king of Egypt." The last Pharaoh was Ptolemy XV, young son of Cleopatra Circa 44–30 BC. Egypt has not had a Pharaoh in more than 2,000 years.
Ezek 29:
[19] Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army.
[20] I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.
Nebuchadrezzar died 2,500 years ago. He's not coming back, I am afraid. And he spectacularly failed to take advantage of God's gift of Egypt to him while he was still alive. Because he never invaded Egypt. Any future "desolation of Egypt" will have to take place without Nebuchadrezzar I am afraid. Being dead this last 2,500 years and all.
This is a really excellent example of believers making up details as they feel necessary, however. I have been referring to this sort of thing as believers "making it up and declaring it to be true." Although the term "alternate facts" has recently become popular.
Volbrigade wrote:
I now see that people like your aunt are what Paul refers to as "weak in the faith". My heart goes out to them. But I love them like little brothers and sisters.
If there was ever anyone who was NOT "weak in the faith," it was my aunt. She was quite fierce about her faith. It's just that she was just totally ignorant about much of anything that was not written in the Bible. The fact that the moon is a cold dead rock and does not shine of it's own volition, for example.
Genesis 1:
[16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
The Bible says that God made the moon to be a lesser light, and so clearly scientists (the infamous "they") do not know what "they" are talking about.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
You're right. A new and more detailed study indicates that humans and chimps are actually about 96% exactly the same.
Volbrigade wrote:
Indeed. And be prepared to see that number lowered, by honest investigation.
You seem to have disregarded this, from a PhD scientist. I'm sure it was an honest oversight:
Quote:
Major research published over the past decade comparing human and chimpanzee DNA was recently reviewed and critiqued.1 In every single publication, researchers only reported on the highly similar DNA sequence data and discarded the rest—apparently because it was too dissimilar. In fact, when the DNA similarities from these studies were recalculated using the omitted data, markedly lower levels—between 81 and 86 percent similarity—were found. Even the well-known chimpanzee genome paper published by evolutionists in 2005 provides a genomic similarity of only about 80 percent when the discarded nonsimilar data are included and only 70 percent when the estimated size of the chimpanzee genome is incorporated.
GENOME RESEARCH
Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack
Ajit Varki1 and Tasha K. Altheide
Glycobiology Research and Training Center, Departments of Medicine and Cellular & Molecular Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA
The chimpanzee genome sequence is a long-awaited milestone, providing opportunities to explore primate evolution and genetic contributions to human physiology and disease. Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor ∼5-7 million years ago (Mya). The difference between the two genomes is actually not ∼1%, but ∼4% —comprising ∼35 million single nucleotide differences and ∼90 Mb of insertions and deletions.
This new study, which is very recent, indicates that humans and chimps are 96% identical genetically. It was intentionally very painstakingly thorough. So I would not expect the findings to change by much in the future. Appeals to alternate facts notwithstanding.
Volbrigade wrote:
The reality of our free will, operating within the context of God's sovereignty, is a wonder too big for anything but God to hold.
Well gee, Psalms 139:16 specifically indicates that God already has all of our acts written down in his book. You seem to be offering an "alternate" reality that differs from the one contained in the Bible. You wouldn't be "making this up and declaring it to be true," would you?
Volbrigade wrote:
You mentioned "self destructive behaviors". You're on record as saying EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS -- including ourselves, our thoughts and behaviors -- is a manifestation of quantum foam; an energy that can neither be created nor destroyed.
My question was "if that's the case -- how can there be 'self-destructive behaviors'"?
I don't recall ever using the term "self-destructive behavior." I did specifically indicate that everything which occurs is the result of quantum mechanics in action. "Quantum foam" is simply a descriptive term which is used to help conceptualize the ongoing roiling action of quantum mechanics. I did specifically indicate that quantum foam is not actually foamy. And I also specifically indicated that quantum mechanics is not a form of intelligence, so far as is known.
Volbrigade wrote:
Which amounts to one "dust bunny" disapproving of another dust bunny. It is an expression of non-meaning.
As is, technically, every word you've typed on this thread. If what you assert is true. What difference does any of it make?
Now you've lost me.
Volbrigade wrote:
But of course, we both know that is not the case. We are having a very meaningful -- and, for my part, enjoyable -- exchange of information. Some of it accurate, some not -- and that applies to both sides. Neither of us knows everything.
That, to me, is a real problem with the non-theist position. Non-theists glibly demand "empirical evidence" and "substantiated claims" from the theist -- as if those terms had any empirical, substantive meaning! When "meaning" itself is non-empirical and un-substantive, subjective -- a ghost within a machine. A song inside a piano.
It is a cognitive dissonance that the non-theist cannot seem to lay aside; and few, in my experience, are able to even identify it in themselves.
Discussions with them must, therefore, be undertaken with full acknowledgment, on the part of the theist, of this latent condition. And can only persist under the stipulation that "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
I expect something to have proven physical existence before I even consider believing in it. As I m pretty sure I have said before, non believers do not immediately jump on the hard and fast belief bandwagon as believers tend to do. Believer: "God inspired the Bible. God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." Non believer: "Something which can physically be shown to be true should receive a greater degree of credibility then things which have simply been declared to be true." The scientific method of seeking out empirical evidence has produce working technology. The religious method has produced centuries of empty claims.
How much more cut-and-dried could things possibly be?
Volbrigade wrote:
What's funny -- in the ironic sense -- is that even if Christianity were not true, it is better to live your life according to its principles. If everyone acted like a Christian, we would need few jails. But when everyone acts like all they are is an ephemeral pattern of molecules -- the jailhouses fill, the insane asylums fill, and the drug companies and cartels become fat and rich.
Let's look at this claim in more detail. Because Christians often claim, or at least believe, that Christianity is the template for morality, and that only Christians possess a true moral compass. But you see, Christainity is 2,000 years old. Christians have a history. And what Christians have actually done over the course of that history over rules all pious assumptions. I posted this particular peice of information this morning on another topic. But it seems to be appropriate to present it here as well. It's rather long, that's true. But it needs to be presented in detail to get the full impact.
****
Perhaps some of the historical "distaste" for Christianity might be laid at the door of the Catholic church which tended to be very intolerant of any dissention or disagreement. Not merely instigating crusades against other religions, but crusades against dissenting Christian groups. The Albigensians are one example:
Wikipedia
Albigensians
The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209–1229) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by Pope Innocent III to eliminate Catharism in Languedoc, in the south of France
And then there was the crusade against the Waldensians.
Little children were torn from the arms of their mothers, clasped by their tiny feet, and their heads dashed against the rocks; or were held between two soldiers and their quivering limbs torn up by main force. Their mangled bodies were then thrown on the highways or fields, to be devoured by beasts. The sick and the aged were burned alive in their dwellings. Some had their hands and arms and legs lopped off, and fire applied to the severed parts to staunch the bleeding and prolong their suffering. Some were flayed alive, some were roasted alive, some disemboweled; or tied to trees in their own orchards, and their hearts cut out. Some were horribly mutilated, and of others the brains were boiled and eaten by these cannibals. Some were fastened down into the furrows of their own fields, and ploughed into the soil as men plough manure into it. Others were buried alive. Fathers were marched to death with the heads of their sons suspended round their necks. Parents were compelled to look on while their children were first outraged [raped], then massacred, before being themselves permitted to die.
The result of a long term and ongoing attempt by the church to eliminate all dissent.
Wikipedia
Inquisition
The Inquisition was a group of institutions within the government system of the Catholic Church whose aim was to combat heresy. It started in 12th-century France to combat religious sectarianism, in particular the Cathars and the Waldensians. Other groups investigated later included the Spiritual Franciscans, the Hussites (followers of Jan Hus) and Beguines.
Spanish Inquisition
Portugal and Spain in the late Middle Ages consisted largely of multicultural territories of Muslim and Jewish influence, reconquered from Islamic control, and the new Christian authorities could not assume that all their subjects would suddenly become and remain orthodox Roman Catholics. So the Inquisition in Iberia, in the lands of the Reconquista counties and kingdoms like Leon, Castile and Aragon, had a special socio-political basis as well as more fundamental religious motives.
In some parts of Spain towards the end of the 14th century, there was a wave of violent anti-Judaism, encouraged by the preaching of Ferrand Martinez, Archdeacon of Ecija. In the pogroms of June 1391 in Seville, hundreds of Jews were killed, and the synagogue was completely destroyed. The number of people killed was also high in other cities, such as Córdoba, Valencia and Barcelona.
One of the consequences of these pogroms was the mass conversion of thousands of surviving Jews. Forced baptism was contrary to the law of the Catholic Church, and theoretically anybody who had been forcibly baptized could legally return to Judaism. However, this was very narrowly interpreted. Legal definitions of the time theoretically acknowledged that a forced baptism was not a valid sacrament, but confined this to cases where it was literally administered by physical force. A person who had consented to baptism under threat of death or serious injury was still regarded as a voluntary convert, and accordingly forbidden to revert to Judaism.[37] After the public violence, many of the converted "felt it safer to remain in their new religion."[38] Thus, after 1391, a new social group appeared and were referred to as conversos or New Christians.
King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile established the Spanish Inquisition in 1478. In contrast to the previous inquisitions, it operated completely under royal Christian authority, though staffed by clergy and orders, and independently of the Holy See. It operated in Spain and in all Spanish colonies and territories, which included the Canary Islands, the Spanish Netherlands, the Kingdom of Naples, and all Spanish possessions in North, Central, and South America. It primarily targeted forced converts from Islam (Moriscos, Conversos and secret Moors) and from Judaism (Conversos, Crypto-Jews and Marranos) — both groups still resided in Spain after the end of the Islamic control of Spain — who came under suspicion of either continuing to adhere to their old religion or of having fallen back into it.
In 1492 all Jews who had not converted were expelled from Spain; those who converted became subject to the Inquisition. (Jews were not heretics, but "Catholics" who practised the Jewish faith were regarded as heretics.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
And of course there were the witchcraft trials, during which 50,000 and perhaps as many as 100,000 women and girls were accused of being witches and executed in various often grizzly ways.
Now compare actions taken historically, with stated church goals.
JESUIT Extreme Oath of Induction
as recorded in the Journals of the 62D Congress, 3d Session of the U.S.
(House Calendar No. 397. Report No. 1523)
Congressional Record---House, 15 Feb. 1913, pp3215-3216
I_______________ , now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed St. John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, and all the saints, sacred host of Heaven, and to you, my Ghostly Father, the superior general of the Society of Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius Loyoly, in the pontification of Paul the III, and continued to the present, do by the womb of the Virgin, the matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear that His Holiness, the Pope, is Christ's vice regent and is the true and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by the virtue of the keys of binding and loosing given His Holiness by my Saviour, Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, States, Commonwealths, and Governments and they may be safely destroyed. Therefore to the utmost of my power I will defend this doctrine and His Holiness's right and custom against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran Church of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, and the now pretended authority and Church's of England and Scotland, and the branches of same now established in Ireland and on the continent of America and elsewhere and all adherents in regard that they may be usurped and heretical, opposing the sacred Mother Church of Rome. I do now denounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or State, named Protestant or Liberal, or obedience to any of their laws, magistrates or officers. I do further declare that the doctrine of the Churches of England and Scotland of the Calvinists, Huguenots, and others of the name of Protestants or Masons to be damnable, and they themselves to be damned who will not forsake the same. I do further declare that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of His Holiness's agents, in any place where I should be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Ireland or America, or in any other kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestant or Masonic doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, legal or otherwise. I do further promise and declare that, notwithstanding I am dispensed with to assume any religion heretical for the propagation of the Mother Church's interest; to keep secret and private all her agents counsels from time to time, as they intrust me, and not divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing or circumstances whatever, but to execute all that should be proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me by you, my Ghostly Father, or any of this sacred order. I do further promise and declare that I will have no opinion or will of my own or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ. That I will go to any part of the world whithersoever I may be sent, to the frozen regions north, jungles of India, to the centers of civilization of Europe, or to the wild haunts of the barbarous savages of America without murmuring or repining, and will be submissive in all things whatsoever is communicated to me. I do further promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do, to extirpate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition, and that will hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women, and crush their infant's heads against the walls in order to annihilate their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly I will secretly use the poisonous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity or authority of the persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agents of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus. In confirmation of which I hereby dedicate my life, soul, and all corporal powers, and with the dagger which I now receive I will subscribe my name written in my blood in testimony thereof; and should I prove false or weaken in my determination may my brethren and fellow soldiers of the militia of the Pope cut off my hands and feet and my throat from ear to ear, my belly opened and sulphur burned therein with all the punishment that can be inflicted upon me on earth and my soul shall be tortured by demons in eternal hell forever. That I will in voting always vote for a Knight of Columbus in preference to a Protestant, especially a Mason, and that I will leave my party so to do; that if two Catholics are on the ticket I will satisfy myself which is the better supporter of Mother Church and vote accordingly. That I will not deal with or employ a Protestant if in my power to deal with or employ a Catholic. That I will place Catholic girls in Protestant families that a weekly report may be made of the inner movements of the heretics. That I will provide myself with arms and ammunition that I may be in readiness when the word is passed, or I am commanded to defend the church either as an individual or with the militia of the Pope. All of which I,_______________, do swear by the blessed Trinity and blessed sacrament which I am now to receive to perform and on part to keep this my oath. In testimony hereof, I take this most holy and blessed sacrament of the Eucharist and witness the same further with my name written with the point of this dagger dipped in my own blood and seal in the face of this holy sacrament.
Next consider the acts of total genocide found in Numbers 31:15-18, Joshua 6:20-21, Joshua 11:19-2, Ezekiel 9:4-7 in the OT which acted as justification for wholesale slaughter in the name of religion.
So when we consider the entire historical picture we can see there were plenty of reasons for "ill will" against Christianity, or at least against those in a position to enforce their will on those who disagreed with them, to have been generated over the centuries.
What would cause me to change my mind about Christianity, or religion in general? Nothing I can think of.
Volbrigade wrote:
Thanks. I enjoyed that.
Imagine a sovereign God, with complete authority over the "foam" that He created. It becomes possible to see how our reality could manifest from His thoughts and "words".
Imagining God is all anyone CAN do. The imagination is the only place God is found.
Volbrigade wrote:
Pity, isn't it?
Don't forget to include yourself in that "billions of people..." -- or at least, to acknowledge the possibility of your inclusion.
Allow me to attempt to make this clear. None of us possesses the superpower that would be necessary to know ANYTHING to a perfect level of certainty. Such a level of certainty only exists hypothetically. Because humans are fallible. All of us! The best any of us can can do is to know something to a high level of reliability. Which for human beings, are the laws of physics. The most prominent of these laws is the law of conservation of energy. "Energy can neither be created or destroyed." You may not like the law of conservation of energy. You may chose to disparage it. But the law of conservation of energy was not produced for your approval. It was produced as a result of several centuries of observation and experimentation. So am I included in that group of fallible humans? Of course I am! And yet the laws of physics have proven themselves to be the most reliable facts ever ascertained by human beings. You may not approve of them. But you are in the group of fallible humans too.
Volbrigade wrote:
And so they are. Remember? "All religions -- even the queerest ones -- can contain at least a hint of truth."
It is interesting, but not surprising, that the Hindus would retain a garbled version of the Trinity, which goes back to "Elohim" in Genesis 1:1.
Hinduism is a thousand years older than Judaism, and two thousand years older than Christianity. Hindus had the concept of the trinity first. Christians like to consider Hinduism to be a classic example of a polytheistic religion. But every Hindu I have spoken to has indicated that all the deities are simply aspects of the Godhead. Ultimately there is only one.
Unless of course even that one is nothing more than a product of human imagination.
I would also like to point out something from the Hindu Creation Story.
"Before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between."
No time and no space. Which describes a singularity exactly, and is a good deal closer to modern concepts than "Let there be light." So are Hindus plugged into something cosmic? Or is it just happenstance?
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.
