When you look up at the sky.........

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#106

Post by BillyBob66 » Sun Dec 04, 2016 8:50 pm

johnspenn wrote:
GregD wrote:
johnspenn wrote: I agree. SCIENCE is an enterprise undertaken by men in an attempt to understand the physical world. SCIENCE is incapable of coming to any position.

The practice of science is very limited in scope.

Also don't forget, what you refer to as SCIENCE is not an entity unto itself, as you seem to imply by your reference to and dare I say reverence of it. It is simply a tool used by SCIENTISTS, who are men, like you and me with like qualities, passions and fallabilities.

Is science useful as a way of gathering information and knowing things about our physical world? When properly applied, yes of course.
Up to this point we seem to be in agreement.

johnspenn wrote: Is SCIENCE (as you like to refer to it) the only way we can know anything with certainty? No, not by a long shot.
It is my understanding that you dispute that that Moses did not write the Torah, that Earth is over 4 billion years old, and that man is a product of evolution. But what exactly do you dispute? Do you dispute that these are the results of scientific analyses? If so, why? Do you contend that the science was performed incorrectly, or that the science is inconclusive? Or is it simply that, in your assessment, science has failed to come to the correct results which you happen to know by other means?
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.

I believe that Moses wrote the Torah, as you refer to it. You seem to believe that science has somehow proven Moses did not write the Torah. Is that your claim?

If so, then I would need to review the methods used by the scientists in question to reach this conclusion, keeping in mind that science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. What observations were made concerning the writing of the Torah? What experiments were conducted to determine who did or did not write the Torah? Are these experiments conclusive? Have they allowed for all of the variables involved? Have they been repeated with success by other scientists?

These are some of the questions I'd ask if someone were to claim what you seem to have claimed. My inclination is to think, at this point, that the enterprise of science has little to say of the authorship of the Torah.
What he said.


Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#107

Post by GregD » Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:16 am

johnspenn wrote:
GregD wrote:
johnspenn wrote:
Please refrain from deciding what I do and do not agree with. I happen to agree with Sarge's statement as written, even if he and I don't see eye to eye on everything. I've learned much following that principle with both science textbooks and with the Bible.
I was expressing my understanding of what you agree with and trusting that you would correct me if I was inaccurate. My understanding was based on this remark:
johnspenn wrote:This is true. However my conviction is that A: The writing of the Bible is supernaturally inspired by the creator of the unverse, thus B: where it addresses science, geology, astrology, and/or history, it is correct.
First, did you mean astronomy where you wrote astrology? Second, how do you reconcile the remarks in Genesis on the creation of the world with the current standard models in Astronomy, Geology, and Biology?
I did mean astronomy. My apologies. However it is also my conviction that the Bible is correct where it does address astrology.

As to the second part of your question, I hardly know where to begin. Honestly that is too much to delve in to in a forum/format such as this.

I'll make an attempt at a start however. As we know, Gen 1:1 states that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."

It seems to me that the current standard model of cosmology agrees with this statement. Since the early 1900's when scientists (Hubble, I believe) discovered the universe seems to be expanding based on the redshift/doppler effect, the "Big Bang" or standard model of cosmology has been developed and widely accepted. However, science only takes us so far in this endeavor, and as you have previously stated any kind of divine intervention that hasn't been observed and documented cannot be included in the results of scientific testing. So we understand that the universe must have had an ultimate beginning. Because science can take us that far and no further, we must rely on human reasoning at that point.

From one of my previous posts with a little editing: "In the case of the Big Bang, to put it simply, a Big Bang requires a Big Banger. IOW according to the principle of cause and effect, there has to be a cause to achieve a "Big Bang". According to science, the Big bang was the initial event from which our whole universe (space, time, matter and energy) originated. Here's a simple philosophical argument to illustrate.

1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe (the set of all known physical time, space, matter and energy) began to exist. (Big Bang)
3. Because time, space, energy and matter all began to exist at the beginning of the universe, the cause of the universe must be:
-uncaused (because literally nothing physical existed to effect a cause)
-timeless (or eternal, because prior to the initial event physical time didn't exist)
-immaterial (not composed of physical matter/energy)
-personal (because by definition the creation had to be a deliberate act and not a natural process)
-and obviously immensely powerful. (Just look up, and wonder!)
We generally refer to a being who possesses these traits, whether real or imagined as God."

Simply put, the Bible states the universe was created, and science points to that as being true, albeit indirectly because of the limitations thereof.
John, clearly I misunderstood your position. I still do, but at least now I am aware of it.

User avatar
johnspenn
Reactions:
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:38 am
Location: Marietta, GA
Hammock: DIY TCF
Tarp: KNT12
Suspension: Whoopie/MSH
Insulation: MAMW/UGQ 20*
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#108

Post by johnspenn » Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:43 am

GregD wrote:John, clearly I misunderstood your position. I still do, but at least now I am aware of it.
I apologize, I was probably unclear at some point. If you'll let me know the areas of misunderstanding, I'll do my best to try and clear them up.

These things are difficult at best to keep up with for me. I find I can never respond to all that is said, or even most, and when i do respond I'm not always as clear and concise as I'd like to be. Again, apologies for mucking things up.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#109

Post by GregD » Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:48 am

BillyBob66 wrote:
GregD wrote: With regard to your assertion in the OP, it is "dead in the water" until you can reconcile your position with DiMattei's alternate interpretation of that text and also with the adjacent text which states that the vault also contains the stars. Please elaborate on your criticism of DiMattei's interpretation, and take your time figuring out how the rest of the text fits into your hypothesis.
Well, in your opinion it is dead in the water until I reconcile his alternative interpretation, but I already gave you my reasons why I reject the statements of this non-believer about what the ancients thought about where the rain came from and the clear blue sky being the waters above. And that the layer that separates the waters above also contains the waters above, which are not separated as they fall into the waters below. He is just grasping at straws. I reject his ideas as BS and once again a scientist (I suppose he is?) speaking about things he can not possibly know and assuming it is proven fact because he says it. There is a whole bunch of that.

I also already told you, at length and immediately after I saw it, that I can not provide an explanation for the adjacent text/translations that say the sun, moon and stars are in this layer. This does not make sense to me in relation with the original text quoted, but that would be with me assuming that the layer was our atmosphere, which seems to make sense but is not automatically so. Since it does not say ALL of the stars are in the layer, then the waters that are above I suppose could still be separated, as the waters that have been discovered are 12 billion light years from us. But I have already conceded to you that I can not make these verses work with the original verses, and this point goes to you, unless I can find an explanation somewhere. I am not going to obtusely argue that the passage does not say what it appears to say. Consider it dead in the water if you wish, even though the waters are still separated from the waters. That is not a problem as there are many more to be discussed and that already have been discussed. Have you had time yet to join in over on the "what did Moses know and when did he know it" thread? There were no comments other than mine last time I checked.
"Dead in the water" simply means that one can see there is more work to do. Happy to give you whatever time you need to reconcile the adjacent text.

FWIW I still don't see how this picture of DiMattei's interpretation:

Image

is refuted by these comments:
BillyBob66 wrote:Interesting, but I perceive an error(or maybe 2 or more) right off the bat. First, I think the people conceived- confirmed by other parts of the Bible- that the rain did not come from the clear blue sky that appeared to touch the ocean's or large bodies of water's horizon. They thought the water came from the clouds that traveled through the blue sky. Next, the passage does not say that the created layer, whatever it might be called by the ancients (expanse/Dome, etc), but which God finally calls "sky" is water. It says this layer separates the waters below the layer from the waters above the layer. That's all I have had time to see so far, I'll try and read the entire thing later.
It was MY misunderstanding about where the author thought rain came from; your remark on this point and DiMattei's model both put the clouds inside and of course yes, observant people can see that rains comes out of clouds. The key conflict with the thesis of your OP is DiMattei's assertion that the author thought that the clear blue sky was water, the same as the clear blue Mediterranean, and that a dome was needed to hold it back.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#110

Post by sarge » Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:56 am

Jut one of the many possibilites left out by scientific analysis of literature:
al·le·go·ry
ˈaləˌɡôrē/
noun
a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.
"Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory of the spiritual journey"
synonyms: parable, analogy, metaphor, symbol, emblem
"Saramago's latest novel is an allegory of social disintegration"
a symbol.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#111

Post by sarge » Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:58 am

Looking for scientific accuracy in a book written about the nature of God is like looking for scientific accuracy in a book written about the futility of war.

Its not very scientific, either.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#112

Post by GregD » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:04 am

johnspenn wrote:I apologize, I was probably unclear at some point. If you'll let me know the areas of misunderstanding, I'll do my best to try and clear them up.

These things are difficult at best to keep up with for me. I find I can never respond to all that is said, or even most, and when i do respond I'm not always as clear and concise as I'd like to be. Again, apologies for mucking things up.
Absolutely nothing to apologize for.

I don't know how YOU reconcile these statements:
johnspenn wrote:This is true. However my conviction is that A: The writing of the Bible is supernaturally inspired by the creator of the unverse, thus B: where it addresses science, geology, astrology, and/or history, it is correct.
With these statements:
johnspenn wrote:It seems to me that the current standard model of cosmology agrees with this statement. Since the early 1900's when scientists (Hubble, I believe) discovered the universe seems to be expanding based on the redshift/doppler effect, the "Big Bang" or standard model of cosmology has been developed and widely accepted. However, science only takes us so far in this endeavor, and as you have previously stated any kind of divine intervention that hasn't been observed and documented cannot be included in the results of scientific testing. So we understand that the universe must have had an ultimate beginning. Because science can take us that far and no further, we must rely on human reasoning at that point.

...
Since, for example, the creation accounts in Genesis seem quite contradictory to the standard model of solar system / planet formation. I think I understand, at least in very general terms, how Sarge (for example) resolves this conflict. Many other people I know have a perspective on this point similar to Sarge's.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#113

Post by GregD » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:06 am

sarge wrote:Looking for scientific accuracy in a book written about the nature of God is like looking for scientific accuracy in a book written about the futility of war.

Its not very scientific, either.
+1

User avatar
johnspenn
Reactions:
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:38 am
Location: Marietta, GA
Hammock: DIY TCF
Tarp: KNT12
Suspension: Whoopie/MSH
Insulation: MAMW/UGQ 20*
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#114

Post by johnspenn » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:34 am

GregD wrote:I don't know how YOU reconcile these statements:
johnspenn wrote:This is true. However my conviction is that A: The writing of the Bible is supernaturally inspired by the creator of the unverse, thus B: where it addresses science, geology, astrology, and/or history, it is correct.
With these statements:
johnspenn wrote:It seems to me that the current standard model of cosmology agrees with this statement. Since the early 1900's when scientists (Hubble, I believe) discovered the universe seems to be expanding based on the redshift/doppler effect, the "Big Bang" or standard model of cosmology has been developed and widely accepted. However, science only takes us so far in this endeavor, and as you have previously stated any kind of divine intervention that hasn't been observed and documented cannot be included in the results of scientific testing. So we understand that the universe must have had an ultimate beginning. Because science can take us that far and no further, we must rely on human reasoning at that point.

...
Since, for example, the creation accounts in Genesis seem quite contradictory to the standard model of solar system / planet formation. I think I understand, at least in very general terms, how Sarge (for example) resolves this conflict. Many other people I know have a perspective on this point similar to Sarge's.
Here's what I meant- the standard model of cosmology posits a "big bang" or a definitive beginning of the universe. Because of the limitations of science, we can not know scientifically what caused the big bang or what precipitated the ultimate beginning of the universe.

However, we do know from common experience that everything that begins to exist has a cause. So, we know that something caused the big bang. In other words the entire universe did not simply pop out of nothing, for no reason.

This knowledge lines up with the first verse of the first book of the five books written by Moses, AKA Genesis 1:1.

I hope that helps. Note also I did not say that I believe the standard model of cosmology is correct, just that is widely accepted as an accurate portrayal of the beginning of the universe by much of the scientific community. The point is science does actually point to the need for a creator.

How would you explain the cause of the big bang?

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#115

Post by GregD » Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:53 pm

johnspenn wrote:How would you explain the cause of the big bang?
I would say we don't know the cause.
I would say also that we don't know how life started.

User avatar
johnspenn
Reactions:
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:38 am
Location: Marietta, GA
Hammock: DIY TCF
Tarp: KNT12
Suspension: Whoopie/MSH
Insulation: MAMW/UGQ 20*
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#116

Post by johnspenn » Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:03 pm

GregD wrote:
johnspenn wrote:How would you explain the cause of the big bang?
I would say we don't know the cause.
I would say also that we don't know how life started.
Fair enough.

Earlier in this thread you said "And, well, I'm an atheist convinced that almost certainly there is no god and absolutely certain that the best strategy is to refuse to believe any human claiming to know anything about a god."

My questions would be:
1. How have you "almost certainly" been convinced that there is no god?

2. How did you reach the point where you're "absolutely certain that the best strategy is to refuse to believe any human being claiming to know anything about a god?"

And finally, did you have any thoughts regarding my philosophical argument for the existence of a creator?

If you're not interested in continuing just say so. I'll understand and let it rest. Thanks!

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#117

Post by GregD » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:39 pm

johnspenn wrote:Earlier in this thread you said "And, well, I'm an atheist convinced that almost certainly there is no god and absolutely certain that the best strategy is to refuse to believe any human claiming to know anything about a god."

My questions would be:
1. How have you "almost certainly" been convinced that there is no god?

2. How did you reach the point where you're "absolutely certain that the best strategy is to refuse to believe any human being claiming to know anything about a god?"

And finally, did you have any thoughts regarding my philosophical argument for the existence of a creator?

If you're not interested in continuing just say so. I'll understand and let it rest. Thanks!
All possibilities can be divided into 2 cases:
Case 1. No human ever experiences divine revelation.
Case 2. Some humans sometimes experience divine revelation.

Case 1. In the absence of divine revelation the human race must figure out for itself whether there is a god. The god hypothesis is very old. Also, given a reality as complicated as we know ours to be, it is extraordinarily difficult do differentiate the situation where there is a god from the situation where there is none. We know from the history of scientific advancements that humans make a small advancement only after a great deal of work, an enormous number of hypotheses that turn out to be wrong, and considerable data that is capable of identifying wrong hypotheses. It is as if we keep making stupid guesses and spend a lot of time figuring out that they are wrong until essentially there are no more wrong guesses for us to make. Given that data on the ability of humans to figure out the right answer, the probability that long ago some human came up with such a profound insight that was also correct that there is some intelligence lurking behind the physical reality is vanishingly small.

Case 2. Suppose some humans experience divine revelation. We know for certain that an awful lot of people have claimed to experience divine revelation, and we know that a very large fraction of these alleged revelations inconsistent with each other. Humans have come up with an extraordinary number and variety of religions going back to pre-history and taken together they say a lot of crazy and conflicting stuff. It appears to be an impossible task to discriminate the valid claims of divine revelation from all the invalid claims. Who to believe? Further, the scientific method has provided an experiment of what happens if humans systematically exclude divine revelation as a source of "truth". The result of that experiment is that humans are extraordinarily successful in figuring out the true nature of our reality when they reject divine revelation.

In my view the evidence is overwhelming: regardless of whether there is, in fact, a god or two or four million floating around our reality somewhere, humans are far more successful when they assume there is none, and rely entirely upon their own best efforts to guide their actions.

EDIT: "Philosophical arguments" are often, in my experience, little more than wishful thinking.

User avatar
johnspenn
Reactions:
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:38 am
Location: Marietta, GA
Hammock: DIY TCF
Tarp: KNT12
Suspension: Whoopie/MSH
Insulation: MAMW/UGQ 20*
Contact:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#118

Post by johnspenn » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:59 pm

"EDIT: "Philosophical arguments" are often, in my experience, little more than wishful thinking."

So instead of engaging the argument directly, you will simply dismiss it as wishful thinking and ignore it?

Your prerogative. That certainly makes it easier for you. I could say "science is wishful thinking: and dismiss everything you say on that subject, similarly. I'd rather face your arguments directly than dismiss them out of hand, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

I have more to say about the other stuff you wrote as well but it's late, I'm tired and will off to bed. Have a good evening and sleep well.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#119

Post by GregD » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:07 pm

More on philosophy...

Humans have some capacity for reason, as do other animals actually, but there is no reason to presume that our cognitive capacity is sufficient for understanding the true nature of our reality. Our reality is truly mind-blowing. Two examples:

1. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant. That defies human logic. Suppose there are 2 straight train tracks, side by side. I am on a train on one track and you are on a train on the other track. Both trains are going in the same direction, but yours is going 100 times the speed of mine. Someone behind us shoots a laser along the track in our direction and we both measure how fast the laser is going. AND WE GET THE SAME SPEED! NO way does that make sense to the human brain. We've known about this for over a century, but it makes no sense.

2. Current theory indicates that in space where there is nothing, matter will spontaneously form from nothing, and then disappear into nothing (look up Hawking radiation). It hasn't been experimentally observed yet, so it is still a bit uncertain.

Philosophical arguments often sound profound and certain. They make sense. The problem is that our reality in some situations does not make sense to us. We often lack the experience and imagination to identify all of the possibilities. We really want things to make sense, to have a purpose, to happen for a reason. Philosophy appeals to these desires. However, it isn't calibrated with objective observations (experiments), and consequently we cannot see when it goes wrong. So it does go wrong, and we don't notice, not at first.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: When you look up at the sky.........

#120

Post by GregD » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:18 pm

johnspenn wrote: Here's what I meant- the standard model of cosmology posits a "big bang" or a definitive beginning of the universe. Because of the limitations of science, we can not know scientifically what caused the big bang or what precipitated the ultimate beginning of the universe.

However, we do know from common experience that everything that begins to exist has a cause. So, we know that something caused the big bang. In other words the entire universe did not simply pop out of nothing, for no reason.
AFAIK, the standard model doesn't posit that the big bang was necessarily the beginning of the universe, just that we have no idea how to see before that.

No, we do not know that everything that begins to exist has a cause. See, for example, Hawking radiation; matter spontaneously forms. There may be a cause for this, but at this point we have no idea what that could possibly be. We don't know the "cause" of the speed of light being constant irrespective of the motion of the observer.

There is reality, and then there are the models that we use to help us to understand reality the best we can. The models, however, are not reality. As far as we know reality "just is".

Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests