Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Biblical Miracles

Options
24567…12

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    When the Sex Pistols released Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols, a Virgin record store in Nottingham was taken to court for obscenity for displaying the album cover.

    The record store was acquitted, after they successfully argued that the word "bollocks" was an Old English term for a priest, and that it meant "nonsense" in the context of the album title.

    Edit: Note to self: Read page 3 comments before replying to page 2 comments.

    .


  • Options
    #33
    legspin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    robindch wrote: »
    Not a bad idea, but that would make it hard to distinguish the Kaboom Cosmological Argument from other creationist bollocks.

    The word "bollocks", btw, is quite interesting, as it's one of the few words in English which exists, natively, in the dual number, notwithstanding the improper back-formation 'bollock' to mean a single testicle, and the suspicious plural 'bollockses' which refers to a countable group of arseholes.

    I genuinly used to think it was spelt bollix and it was a general term for the scrotum. Until I read Spike Milligan's first war memoir.


  • Options
    #34
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Obliq wrote: »
    Well, that particular bit that Michael Nugent recommended was of a fella looking at the skeleton of a certain fish, and when you turn it over - hey presto! the other side looks like jesus on the cross. And obviously, evolution couldn't have done that.....:pac::pac::pac:

    Brilliant! I love those tricks. So did he tell how he did it, was it up his sleeve?


  • Options
    #35
    General Relativity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 683 ✭✭✭General Relativity


    My favourite miracle was when Jesus changes water molecules into carbon rings, without causing a nuclear explosion.


  • Options
    #36
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    yeppydeppy wrote: »
    Didn't the finding of the Higgs Boson have something to do with showing that matther could come from nothing?

    All matter comes from energy. The Higgs particle comes from the Higgs field, speculated to be a field that permeates the universe. At the subatomic level everything exists as a field of potential with the liklihood of matter emerging based on probabilities. At the instant of the big bang there was no matter, only energy.

    For anyone interested in a laymans explanation for quantum mechanics, cosmology and all things relating to consciousness there is a wonderful website www.closertotruth.com where Robert Huhn interviews some of the greatest minds in physics and philosophy, people like Paul Davies, Lee Smolin, David Chalmers, Henry Stapp, and Michio Kaku. Fascinating stuff.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Actually, it is religious people who believe that.
    From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance. God creates freely "out of nothing"."
    But it is more likely that there was (or, more accurately, is) always something, possibly in the form of energy, and there is no need to posit a god to explain how that something evolved into what is today.

    Leading Hebrew scholars insist that the correct interpretation of Genesis 1.1 is that a creator entity formed the observable universe out of existing material. I have always found it interesting that neither orthodox nor conservative Jews seem to have a problem with the theory of evolution but fundamentalist Christians who read from a translated Old Testament don't believe in Evolution.

    Most astrophysicists believe beyond reasonable doubt that our observed universe had a beginning.

    There are all kinds of philosophical questions that justify believing in a creative entity outside our observed universe. Maybe the creative entity was a high school student and we are his project, if so it sounds like he lost his ipad :)


  • Options
    #38
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Leading Hebrew scholars insist that the correct interpretation of Genesis 1.1 is that a creator entity formed the observable universe out of existing material. I have always found it interesting that neither orthodox nor conservative Jews seem to have a problem with the theory of evolution but fundamentalist Christians who read from a translated Old Testament don't believe in Evolution.
    Genesis is a fictional story. It was made up by humans. It is not made any more credible by language scholars trying to attribute a marginally less silly behaviour to one of its fictional characters, by retrospectively suggesting a “correct interpretation” of something written thousands of years ago, after generations of oral communication.

    You may as well argue that future generations of leading English scholars will insist that the correct interpretation of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone is that the wizards access Platform Nine and Three Quarters at King’s Cross Station through the application of quantum mechanics rather than magic.

    You are correct that many Jews accept that evolution happens. Also, many Jews do not believe in God. Many people of various religions will find ways to reinterpret their religious beliefs to make them consistent with what science gradually tells us about reality, and with what our evolving sense of morality tells us about how to live together justly.

    Such people are becoming more reasonable to the extent that they are moving away from their particular brand of theology, rather than making the theology any more credible.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Most astrophysicists believe beyond reasonable doubt that our observed universe had a beginning.
    Can I clarify something here?

    Your original assertion was that atheists believe that our universe came from nothing.

    I pointed out that it is religious people who believe this, and you have replied that most astrophysicists believe that the universe had a beginning.

    This is of course correct, but having a beginning is not the same thing as coming from nothing.

    Do you still assert that atheists believe that our universe came from nothing?
    nagirrac wrote: »
    There are all kinds of philosophical questions that justify believing in a creative entity outside our observed universe. Maybe the creative entity was a high school student and we are his project, if so it sounds like he lost his ipad :)
    That’s the sort of soft statement that sounds as if it is making a stronger assertion than it actually is, particularly when it follows a sentence about what astrophysicists believe and thus seems to conflate belief based on applying reason to evidence with belief based on making things up.

    But, rather than prejudge what you are thinking of, can you give us some examples of these philosophical questions and what type of creative entities they justify believing in?


  • Options
    #39
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Do you still assert that atheists believe that our universe came from nothing?

    But, rather than prejudge what you are thinking of, can you give us some examples of these philosophical questions and what type of creative entities they justify believing in?

    Atheists have no explanation for the following philosophical questions. Utilizing Occam's razor, I would argue that a belief in a creative entity is a more reasonable position than coming up with ever increasing in complexity hypotheses. In all cases I am referring to our observed universe.

    If our universe had a beginning then something had to cause that beginning, it cannot have come from nothing. It could be another universe that gave rise to ours but then you are back to square 1. The simplest explanation is that a creative entity started it.

    Our universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did the laws come from and what purpose do they serve? The simplest explanation is that a creative entity established the laws.

    Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds of life emerging via natural unintelligent processes, the odds are astronomical. In fact many scientists believe that life could not have emerged at all by unintelligent processes. The simplest explanation is that life is part of the evolution of the universe through processes established by a creative entity.

    What is consciousness, why did it emerge and what possible purpose could it serve? The concept that it is an epiphenomenon of the brain does not hold up to critical analysis. I would recommend listening to what Henry Stapp has to say on the "closertotruth" website where he argues very convincingly that all of science with the exception of theoretical physics is still looking at reality from a classical mechanics standpoint and should be looking at it from a quantum meechanics standpoint. The simplest understanding of consciousness is that it is a fundamental aspect of our reality (the choicemaker in quantum choices) and came from a creative entity.

    The universe is based on information. In Molecular Biology for example as we study more and more deeply we find vast amounts of information coded in every cell. Information implies intelligence. The simplest explanation is that a creative entity is behind the information. There are very solid reasons for believing we live in a digital universe (everything can be reduced to an on/off choice) and the concept of quantum evolution is starting to gain ground.

    The latter is the most interesting to me as it relates to evolution. Almost every atheist I have ever spoken to or read refers to evolution as if it answers questions it does not even ask. This is particularly true of atheists who have no scientific background or regard evolution as largely complete (it is only beginning as the work of Paul Carroll and other leading evolutionary biologists show). Evolution does not answer the above questions nor does it even attempt to answer them. Although most modern day scientists are agnostics and many are atheists there are also many who are spiritual or even theists, Francis Collins for example the director of the Human Genome Institute at NIH.

    The problem with suggesting anything other than random mutation being behind all evolutionary biology is that it gets associated with the fundamentalist "creationist" worldview that the earth came about 4,000 years ago which is patently nonsense. I am convinced as we learm more about evolution we will have to take quantum mechanics into account which opens up quite another can of worms that most scientists currently do not want to consider.


  • Options
    #40
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Where does your "creative entity" that created the universe come from?


  • Options
    #41
    General Relativity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 683 ✭✭✭General Relativity


    nagirrac wrote: »
    .

    How did your creative entity create the Universe? Sing it into existence, fart it, wish it, hope it, build it with clay, how?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nagirrac wrote: »
    The simplest explanation is that a creative entity ....
    Except that it's not simple and it's not an explanation....


  • Options
    #43
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    You suggest that you are utilizing Occam's razor.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    If our universe had a beginning then something had to cause that beginning, it cannot have come from nothing. It could be another universe that gave rise to ours but then you are back to square 1. The simplest explanation is that a creative entity started it.
    The simplest explanation is that energy always exists, it can be translated into matter, and that this happens naturally.

    Adding an unnecessary and unexplained creative entity makes the explanation more complex and less simple.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Our universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did the laws come from and what purpose do they serve? The simplest explanation is that a creative entity established the laws.
    The simplest explanation is that they were not established, in that they are descriptive not prescriptive, and they serve no inherent purpose.

    Adding an unnecessary and unexplained creative entity makes the explanation more complex and less simple.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds of life emerging via natural unintelligent processes, the odds are astronomical. In fact many scientists believe that life could not have emerged at all by unintelligent processes. The simplest explanation is that life is part of the evolution of the universe through processes established by a creative entity.
    The simplest explanation is that life is part of the evolution of the universe through the natural interaction of energy and matter.

    Adding an unnecessary and unexplained creative entity makes the explanation more complex and less simple.

    Your other points are essentially developments from these points, and the principle remains the same: you are not utilizing Occam’s razor; you are adding an unnecessary and unexplained creative entity to what are actually the simplest explanations.


  • Options
    #44
    the_eman
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭the_eman


    Gordon wrote: »
    @9:07 "People ask why the stars are so far away. Very simple, god put the stars far away, that doesn't prove evolution whatsoever!"

    /clap

    Well why not quote his data gathered on so called missing link's then.


  • Options
    #45
    the_eman
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭the_eman


    Dave! wrote: »
    Typical theist argument goes in, standard atheist rebuttal comes out

    Didn't God "come from nothing"? So why can't the universe?

    God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed. Who said God came from Nothing?


  • Options
    #46
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    the_eman wrote: »
    Well why not quote his data gathered on so called missing link's then.
    Oh, do you think I sat through the whole hour of that rubbish?! Feel free to quote it here if you like.


  • Options
    #47
    the_eman
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭the_eman


    King Mob wrote: »
    There is no science at the 4 minute mark.
    And at the 5 minute mark it starts lying that evolution leads to communism and that evolution is essential to atheism.
    I don't think anyone would be arsed trying to make it to the end if they are going to be that wrong and that dishonest so early.

    What good evidence do they present that would be worth putting up with listening to sure tripe for any length of time?


    You didn't even make it to the bit where he mentions the law of conservation of angular momentum?


  • Options
    #48
    the_eman
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭the_eman


    Obliq wrote: »
    Well, that particular bit that Michael Nugent recommended was of a fella looking at the skeleton of a certain fish, and when you turn it over - hey presto! the other side looks like jesus on the cross. And obviously, evolution couldn't have done that.....:pac::pac::pac:

    Nope, well worth getting a look at this video, there are many many counter arguments given to popular secular beliefs that most people currently subscribe to nowadays. This video is getting well slated here as I expected but no one is mentioning any of the strong arguments he does present. I would well advise you make your own mind up on this one.


  • Options
    #49
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    the_eman wrote: »
    You didn't even make it to the bit where he mentions the law of conservation of angular momentum?

    Ooooooh is that the one that creationists delibrately forget the sun exists for?

    I love that one.


  • Options
    #50
    the_eman
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭the_eman


    Sycopat wrote: »
    There is no science at all in that video from what I've seen. There is a teenager reading off an argument which makes baseless assertions then moves directly on to the next baseless assertion. He presents no data to support his arguments in anything I've seen, and mostly seems to completely lack understanding of what he's talking about. He makes assumptions than extrapolates corollary assumptions to reach his conclusions.

    It is complete drivel.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpmIBJ_MKas


    Well he does talk about the Inverse-square law, why dont you research that and get back to us with results. Why not compare it based over two periods, <10,000 years vs > 100,000 years for example.


  • Options
    #51
    the_eman
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭the_eman


    koth wrote: »
    It raises quite a big problem for the creationist as it suggests that God knew Jesus would be crucified before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. So much for free will. :rolleyes:

    True you have free will, doesn't mean God doesn't know what you are going to do with it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    the_eman wrote: »
    True you have free will, doesn't mean God doesn't know what you are going to do with it.
    So God knew all those priests were going to rape those kids? And he allowed it to happen?

    What a prick.


  • Options
    #53
    the_eman
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭the_eman


    yeppydeppy wrote: »
    Didn't the finding of the Higgs Boson have something to do with showing that matther could come from nothing?

    That big expensive machine you have under the swiss alps may soon tell you what people of faith have been saying for yonks. Well I hope that is one of the outcomes anyway.


  • Options
    #54
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,726 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    the_eman wrote: »
    True you have free will, doesn't mean God doesn't know what you are going to do with it.

    How is it free will if Adam and Eve were predestined to eat the apple? They haven't even been created and God has already created a fish that looks like Jesus getting crucified.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #55
    the_eman
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭the_eman


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    At risk of opening a whole new debate, it depends on how you define nothing.

    Hey, you guys love talking about nothing. Regarding God we prefer to refer to the substance of God as being Love as opposed to a particle.


  • Options
    #56
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    the_eman wrote: »
    You didn't even make it to the bit where he mentions the law of conservation of angular momentum?
    No, as I said I gave up after I found a lie in the first 12 seconds of watching it.

    You are welcome to explain the point he made and explain how it can be used against evolution or whatever.
    But I'm not particularly interested in trawling through an hour of dishoensty and ignorance to address a point you don't actually seem interested in raising yourself.


  • Options
    #57
    the_eman
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭the_eman


    kylith wrote: »
    I can't believe that people are still trying to peddle this nonsense.

    Da Vinci disproved the flood back in the 15th century, but people are still banging on about it. It didn't happen. There is no way it could have happened. Where did all the water come from? Where did it go? Why weren't all the salt water animals killed by the dilution of the oceans? It's almost like someone exaggerated a local flood, isn't it?

    Also, Creation is bunk and the shroud of Turin is a fraud.

    He does present the hydroplate theory as potential cause for the flood, did you see that or investigate it further?


  • Options
    #58
    the_eman
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭the_eman


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    OP, stop watching youtube are start reading actual science books.

    Here's a clue, the Bible isn't one of them.

    True the Bible isn't a science book, its much much more. But this youtube video does present many good arguments that can be followed up in science books,

    hydroplate theory,
    Inverse-square law,
    law of conservation of angular momentum
    and a bunch of other stuff..


  • Options
    #59
    the_eman
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭the_eman


    Doctor DooM wrote: »
    Oh, the truth is actually far funnier:



    It turns out priests are bollockses!

    Going well off topic now and none of you seem to have refuted any of his arguments.


  • Options
    #60
    the_eman
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭the_eman


    nagirrac wrote: »
    All matter comes from energy. The Higgs particle comes from the Higgs field, speculated to be a field that permeates the universe. At the subatomic level everything exists as a field of potential with the liklihood of matter emerging based on probabilities. At the instant of the big bang there was no matter, only energy.

    For anyone interested in a laymans explanation for quantum mechanics, cosmology and all things relating to consciousness there is a wonderful website www.closertotruth.com where Robert Huhn interviews some of the greatest minds in physics and philosophy, people like Paul Davies, Lee Smolin, David Chalmers, Henry Stapp, and Michio Kaku. Fascinating stuff.

    I find this stuff interesting also, going to have a read through.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    General Relativity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 683 ✭✭✭General Relativity


    the_eman wrote: »
    hydroplate theory,

    Bogus.
    Inverse-square law

    What do vector feilds have to do with the bible?

    law of conservation of angular momentum

    I'm failing to see what this has to do with the Bible?


Advertisement