Biblical Miracles

Cienciano

Around 17 minutes he says:
When Edmund Hillary climbed everest, near the top he found evidence of fossils of sea creatures at 26k feet. How do you get sea shells up there without a worldwide flood?

Check mate athiests

the_eman

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.

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

I think the week of creation may be a metaphorical week where one day to God could have been many many thousand days in our time, but I am only speculating. To God all things are possible, my faith is based mainly on Christ and think it is a shame you guys have to feel the science makes total sense before seeing the truth that is in Christ.

gozunda

the_eman wrote: »

Take a look, it takes about 4 minutes to get to some science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCeSJw3Qzls

I am interested in knowing your opinions, which I respect. It is 58 minutes in total I hope some of you can make it to the end. Those who do watch it all, I am especially interested in your opinions.

To synopsize, this video tries to prove, creation, the great flood, the shroud of turin, and other interesting miracles, with some very good evidence, really worth a watch.

Regards.

Fee Fii Foo Fum! I do smell myself a christium....

Great piece of story telling suitable for children aged approx 0-5 yrs.

Caution to adults: May make your brain dribble out of your ears....

General Relativity

the_eman wrote: »

substance of God as being Love as opposed to a particle.

Do you think we think that the Higgs is God? Physicists invented that name to get funding from red-necks in the US.

the_eman

Michael Nugent wrote: »

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.

There is a Holy Spirit which has guided the writing of the Bible keeping it correct throughout the generations.

gozunda

Cienciano wrote: »

Around 17 minutes he says:
When Edmund Hillary climbed everest, near the top he found evidence of fossils of sea creatures at 26k feet. How do you get sea shells up there without a worldwide flood?

Check mate athiests

I will take it that you are being ironic ?

gozunda

the_eman wrote: »

There is a Holy Spirit which has guided the writing of the Bible keeping it correct throughout the generations.

So why so many 'official' versions?

To err is to be human, to write good fiction takes imagination.

Dades

the_eman wrote: »

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

robindch

That guy produces a few passably weird moments towards the start of the video, but spending perhaps ten minutes skipping through it and listening to his voice drone on and on, virtually everything stated in overearnest, cliche'd terms, never changing pace or tone, seeing his eyes endlessly darting from side to side, never fixing on anything let alone a human, listen to him reproduce paranoid conspiracy theory after paranoid conspiracy theory, I must say that I felt very sorry for him.

He's a simple, innocent, vaguely frightening man driven to the edge of madness by the imaginary demons that other people placed there for him to find.

nagirrac

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The simplest explanation is that energy always exists, it can be translated into matter, and that this happens naturally.

So in an effort to support your atheist position you do exactly what the mad brother did in the video and resort to making up science?

All models of the observed universe assume that all energy (which led to matter), time, and all laws came into being at T=0. It is impossible for us to extrapolate back to before T=0 in our scientific models. Saying that energy existed before T=0 in our observed universe from a scientific standpoint is worse than saying a creative entity exists outside our observed universe.

If there is a reality that exists where infinity stretches in both directions then it is not our observed universe, it is outside it, and caused it.

nagirrac

MagicMarker wrote: »

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

Outside our observed universe which we currently have no direct knowledge of

nagirrac

General Relativity wrote: »

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

Thought it

General Relativity

nagirrac wrote: »

Thought it

How do you know?

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

Except that it's not simple and it's not an explanation....

But it is very simple if you assume a digital universe. The frontiers of science are coming to the conclusion that consciousness is fundamental and that everything we know of as reality is quantum mechanics based and not classical mechanics based. Most scientists are stuck in clkassical mechanics and refuse to even consider quantum mechanics. "God" is simply a programmer from another external universe with a superintelligence that we currently cannot understand in terms of manipulating energy and matter.

As science in every discipline gets deeper and deeper into the detail it becomes increasingly obvious that the universe is based on information and intelligence beyond our current comprehension. The debate we will all be having shortly is whether our reality is a creation of an outside entity and "real" or is running on a computer i.e. a simulation.

One of the things that make this entirely plausible is as Ray Kurzweil explains if we continue to evolve ourselves exponentially as we have in recent history there is no reason why we cannot control the physical universe we live in and even create a new universe ourselves (The Singularity is Near).

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

But it is very simple if you assume a digital universe. The frontiers of science are coming to the conclusion that consciousness is fundamental and that everything we know of as reality is quantum mechanics based and not classical mechanics based. Most scientists are stuck in clkassical mechanics and refuse to even consider quantum mechanics. "God" is simply a programmer from another external universe with a superintelligence that we currently cannot understand in terms of manipulating energy and matter.

As science in every discipline gets deeper and deeper into the detail it becomes increasingly obvious that the universe is based on information and intelligence beyond our current comprehension. The debate we will all be having shortly is whether our reality is a creation of an outside entity and "real" or is running on a computer i.e. a simulation.

One of the things that make this entirely plausible is as Ray Kurzweil explains if we continue to evolve ourselves exponentially as we have in recent history there is no reason why we cannot control the physical universe we live in and even create a new universe ourselves (The Singularity is Near).

It's not a explanation as it does not actually answer any of the questions you are claiming science cannot answer.

By what mechanism did god "program" the universe?
Why? For what purpose and when?

If you can't answer these you should reject your explanation as much as you reject the science you scoff at.

And then we run into problems when we consider your vague watered down empty version of god.
How did he come into being? Did he always exist? If so, why can't that apply to the universe? If not aren't you then moving us back to square one as much as those stuffy old scientists?

And then we run into you idea of complexity, much like the creationist's "information" it seems to be a totally meaningless term your are using to keep the goalposts moving.

Is god more complex the universe?
If so, then you can't believe that he sprang into existence or always exist, as it's apparently impossible for something less complex to do
If not then you believe that something more complex can arise from something less complex.

So again, you simpler explanation is neither simple nor an explanation, even by your own standards.

The Mad Hatter

General Relativity wrote: »

Do you think we think that the Higgs is God? Physicists invented that name to get funding from red-necks in the US.

I thought it was an "acceptable" substitute for what one scientist jokingly called the "God damn particle"? According to this article, anyway, he only changed it to "God particle" at the insistence of his publishers.

If that's true, incidentally, it makes for an interesting parallel between Alan Moore's Watchmen and real life. From the end of chapter 4:

"On the newsflashes coming over our tvs on that fateful night, one sentence was repeated over and over again: 'The superman exists, and he's American.'
"I never said that, although I do recall saying something similar to a persistent reporter who would not leave without a quote. I presume the remark was edited or toned down so as not to offend public sensibilities; in any event, I never said 'The superman exists and he's American'. What I said was 'God exists and he's American.'"

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

By what mechanism did god "program" the universe?
Why? For what purpose and when?

If you can't answer these you should reject your explanation as much as you reject the science you scoff at.

How did he come into being? Did he always exist? If so, why can't that apply to the universe? If not aren't you then moving us back to square one as much as those stuffy old scientists?

I am a big fan of scientists like Paul Davies, Michio Kaku, Henry Stapp, John Searle, Lee Smolin, Roger Penrose, Dean Radin and even the much excoriated Rupert Sheldrake, people with open minds who can span outside their field of study. Unlike you I don't scoff at certain scientists, I am merely pointing out that they are stuck in the classical mechanics view of the world. The problem with many scientists is that they are so immersed in their own field they cannot think outside it. In fact the few brilliant scientists I have met can barely function at anything ourtside their field they are so consumed by it.

As far as what mechanism "God" used, my speculation is thought. Everything stems from thought, if I want to move my arm I think about it first. That is the first cause in my arm moving, followed by a quantum event in my brain that starts a cascade of neural activity. All quantum events involve an binary decision, so my speculkation is that God is a very powerful mind with an infinite supply of thoughts.

Why and for what purpose? For the same reason we continue to create the world we live in. Whay would we create anything other than what is needed for survival if we were merely robots that emerged by random chance?

In that respect we are like him and maybe eventually will become him.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

I am a big fan of scientists like Paul Davies, Michio Kaku, Henry Stapp, John Searle, Lee Smolin, Roger Penrose, Dean Radin and even the much excoriated Rupert Sheldrake, people with open minds who can span outside their field of study. Unlike you I don't scoff at certain scientists, I am merely pointing out that they are stuck in the classical mechanics view of the world. The problem with many scientists is that they are so immersed in their own field they cannot think outside it. In fact the few brilliant scientists I have met can barely function at anything ourtside their field they are so consumed by it.

As far as what mechanism "God" used, my speculation is thought. Everything stems from thought, if I want to move my arm I think about it first. That is the first cause in my arm moving, followed by a quantum event in my brain that starts a cascade of neural activity. All quantum events involve an binary decision, so my speculkation is that God is a very powerful mind with an infinite supply of thoughts.

Why and for what purpose? For the same reason we continue to create the world we live in. Whay would we create anything other than what is needed for survival if we were merely robots that emerged by random chance?

In that respect we are like him and maybe eventually will become him.

And none of that actually answers any of my questions. And the only part that did try is abject nonsense.
Saying "thought" is exactly the same thing as saying "magic".
Saying god created us for art or love is equally meaningless, unproveable and completely devoid of explanatory power.

I'll ask them again:
What specific mechanism did god use to create the universe?
Why? And for what specific purpose?
Where did god come from?
Why can't the universe arise or exist in the same way?

Is god more complex the universe?
If so, then you can't believe that he sprang into existence or always exist, as it's apparently impossible for something less complex to do
If not then you believe that something more complex can arise from something less complex.

Please answer them simply and directly and without the technobabble and name dropping. It's not making you sound as clever as you'd imagine.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

And none of that actually answers any of my questions. And the only part that did try is abject nonsense.
Saying "thought" is exactly the same thing as saying "magic".
Saying god created us for art or love is equally meaningless, unproveable and completely devoid of explanatory power.

I'll ask them again:
What specific mechanism did god use to create the universe?
Why? And for what specific purpose?
Where did god come from?
Why can't the universe arise or exist in the same way?

Is god more complex the universe?
If so, then you can't believe that he sprang into existence or always exist, as it's apparently impossible for something less complex to do
If not then you believe that something more complex can arise from something less complex.

Please answer them simply and directly and without the technobabble and name dropping. It's not making you sound as clever as you'd imagine.

You obviously do not understand consciousness. I recommend you read Henry Stapp or go on the "closer to truth" website and listen to what he and other leading minds have to say on the subject. There is no point in you and I discussing further as you have no conception of what I am talking about and seemingly have no wish to learn.

You are asking philosophical questions on the concept of "God" that the greatest minds have not answered. Perhaps you should educate yourself by listening to them rather than acting like a pathetic keyboard warrier.

Sofaspud

That video hurts.

The wrongness makes my brain want to self-destruct.

Michael Nugent

nagirrac wrote: »

So in an effort to support your atheist position you do exactly what the mad brother did in the video and resort to making up science?

Seriously, you're great at shifting goalposts to avoid the consequences of responses to your comments.

You suggested explanations involving a creative entity, explicitly on the basis that you were using Occam's razor.

I suggested alternative explanations that were simpler, explicitly to show that you were not using Occam's razor.

Do you acknowledge that the explanations that I suggested are simpler than the explanations that you suggested?

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

You obviously do not understand consciousness. I recommend you read Henry Stapp or go on the "closer to truth" website and listen to what he and other leading minds have to say on the subject. There is no point in you and I discussing further as you have no conception of what I am talking about and seemingly have no wish to learn.

You are asking philosophical questions on the concept of "God" that the greatest minds have not answered. Perhaps you should educate yourself by listening to them rather than acting like a pathetic keyboard warrier.

So what you are saying is that you cannot actually answer any of the questions I asked.

If they don't have answers, how then can god be an explanation?
If you can't say how he did it, when where or why he did it, or where he came from or how he's excluded from the reasons you reject the ideas from "closed minded" scientists what exactly is it able to explain?

As Michael pointed out, you are replacing what you think is a lack of explanation with something that doesn't explain anything and only raises more unanswered questions.

nagirrac

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Seriously, you're great at shifting goalposts to avoid the consequences of responses to your comments.

You suggested explanations involving a creative entity, explicitly on the basis that you were using Occam's razor.

I suggested alternative explanations that were simpler, explicitly to show that you were not using Occam's razor.

Do you acknowledge that the explanations that I suggested are simpler than the explanations that you suggested?

Energy existing in our universe before T=0 is not simpler otherwise the brightest astrophysicists would have modelled it. Do you have a proposal for how energy existed before T=0. No is the answer.

I have a proposal for a simple explanation that physics can live with (unless you have not heard of parallel universes). A universe outside ours with different laws. Not simple but at least has been modelled.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

So what you are saying is that you cannot actually answer any of the questions I asked.

You have to decide whether you want to discuss your questions from a philosophical or scientific standpoint (they are not the same). Do you want to discuss the likelihood of a creative entity existing or not from a philosophical or a scientific standpoint or both?

If you have real questions as opposed to being a cheerleader for Michael please state them in philosophical or scientific terms.

Improbable

nagirrac wrote: »

Energy existing in our universe before T=0 is not simpler otherwise the brightest astrophysicists would have modelled it. Do you have a proposal for how energy existed before T=0. No is the answer.

There is a hypothesis that states that the overall energy of the universe is 0. At T=0, an event occured which resulted in the universe as we know it. One idea is that it may have been a quantum fluctuation of the state before T=0 which resulted in a net energy of 0 as the positive energy of the inflaton field was balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field. So instead of saying there was 0 energy before T=0 and then there was some energy after T=0, you can say that there was 0 energy before T=0 and there is still 0 energy after T=0, but that the energy is in a different form.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

You have to decide whether you want to discuss your questions from a philosophical or scientific standpoint (they are not the same). Do you want to discuss the likelihood of a creative entity existing or not from a philosophical or a scientific standpoint or both?

If you have real questions as opposed to being a cheerleader for Michael please state them in philosophical or scientific terms.

Again, none of this makes a lick of sense.
You can either provide answers to the questions or you cannot. It doesn't matter what "viewpoint" you discuss it from.

But it's clear form your delaying and faffing that you cannot answer them.
You can't describe the mechanism by which god created anything in any meaningful way.
You can't explain why he would create anything.
You can't explain where god came from, at least not in a way that doesn't apply to much simpler, less magical explanations.

So your explanation does not explain anything. You might as well be saying "magic!", it's exactly the same intellectual level

Then we get to the other question you failed to answer:
Is god more complex the universe?
If so, then you can't believe that he sprang into existence or always existed, as it's apparently impossible for something less complex to do.
If not then you believe that something more complex can arise from something less complex.

And since you ignored the question it's clear that you realise that your explanation is not simple.

nagirrac

Improbable wrote: »

There is a hypothesis that states that the overall energy of the universe is 0. At T=0, an event occured which resulted in the universe as we know it. One idea is that it may have been a quantum fluctuation of the state before T=0 which resulted in a net energy of 0 as the positive energy of the inflaton field was balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field. So instead of saying there was 0 energy before T=0 and then there was some energy after T=0, you can say that there was 0 energy before T=0 and there is still 0 energy after T=0, but that the energy is in a different form.

Thanks, nice to see a rational comment. A universe that comes from nothing and can theoretically last forever unlike the current expansion models? I don't profess to understand the math remotely enough to comment further. It seems highly speculative but who knows.

Improbable

nagirrac wrote: »

Thanks, nice to see a rational comment. A universe that comes from nothing and can theoretically last forever unlike the current expansion models? I don't profess to understand the math remotely enough to comment further. It seems highly speculative but who knows.

Given this new information, do you agree that a combination of the information I have provided along with what Michael has provided is a more rational explanation than an intelligent supernatural entity that exists outside of our spacetime? If not, please elaborate as to why.

MagicMarker

nagirrac wrote: »

Outside our observed universe which we currently have no direct knowledge of

Why can't you just take an honest position and just say you don't know?

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

So your explanation does not explain anything. You might as well be saying "magic!", it's exactly the same intellectual level
And since you ignored the question it's clear that you realise that your explanation is not simple.

You are actually starting to embarrass yourself and remind me why I find dogmatic atheists as unreasonable as fundamentalist Christians.

You question someone's intellect but think it is reasonable to continue to ask the same questions that have baffled all leading philosophers and the (not many) scientists who have publically pondered these same questions. Do your own research, and lets hear what your own positions on these questions are.

I have stated my position as clearly as is possible to any person of reason. My position is based on reading and listening to the words of the leading minds in astrophysics, quantum physics, consciousness and theology. I listen carefully to what they have to say and try and reach a tentative worldview, a worldview that is mine. Frankly, whether you or anyone else agrees or disagrees with it does not concern me, freedom of thought is a liberty I hold dear and in my mind trumps your atheist dogma anyday.

On the questions of 1) did our observed universe have a beginning and how did it begin?, 2) where did our natural laws come from and why do they exist?, 3) could life have emerged from unintelligent processes?, and 4) where did the vast amount of information come from that is present in every living cell, my agnostic deist position is the most likely explanation is due to a design by a creative intelligence that is beyond our current comprehension and exists outside our observed universe. That is my position and I frankly have no interest in wasting a futher second of my time trying to convince you of it.

If you are interested in how I arrived at my position, stop whining and go to the "closertotruth" website and spend the many hundreds of hours I have spent listening to the finest minds in our observed universe discussing these and other great questions.