Was that picture taken at a hotel? That's the only place I've seen multiple Bibles present. Certainly not at a Christian's house, and certainly not ones that worn.
"Was that picture taken at a hotel? That's the only place I've seen multiple Bibles present. Certainly not at a Christian's house, and certainly not ones that worn."
You should try a library sometime. They have these things called "shelves" that contain lots and lots of books, sometimes more than one copy.
...Not that I think this photo is from a library, but I just think your comment is rather pointless.
Its foundation and essence is anti-scientific.
Posted by: Alex
I'd go so far as to say it's entirely unscientific, but that's unfair; it's actually pre-scientific. As Penn Jillette has said, the bible contains equal amounts of history, fact and pizza.
Are those actual quotes from Egnor, taken in context? He actually believes souls push his scapel around? He's actually suggesting the soul is found in the hippocampal CA1 region?
That's dangerously close to making a testable assertion....not his usual style.....
That whole interview seems a little too out there, but maybe I'm naive.....that's not a spoof?
The New Testament: Because non-cattle-sacrificing primitives saw a great, burning need for a sequel. With a non-cattle-sacrifice.
The Koran: Because Mohammed saw a great, burning need for bible fanfic — with himself as the Mary Sue.
Gnostic Bible/Satanic Bible: Because there's always someone who wants fanfic that inverts the villain/hero dynamic.
The Roman Catholic church: Because there's always someone anal-retentive who feels a great, burning need for a clearly-defined, unalterable canon. No, you can't write your own fanfic.
Mark Ch 14 has something close to "slash" -- what's with the naked man in garden?:
43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.
44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard." 45Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Rabbi!" and kissed him. 46The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47 Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
48 "Am I leading a rebellion," said Jesus, "that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled." 50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.
51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.
http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is just plain not so. There really was a supernatural being in that ball of fire and Moses made a really goo deal with it too. He got to be the biggest shot that ever lived, founder of all three great faiths for leading the Israelites to hell.
Sale of soul to Devil does not bring in the big money as advertised. It's necessary to lead the multitudes to hell. The Bible is the manual for doing that and those who get the most followers, Pat Robertson for example get the big money for their efforts.
Let's hear it for Lucifer. He's paying the ministry to lead 'flocks' of people to hell and the people following their shepherds are paying His fee for him. That's the slickest deal of all times bar none. Aren't you jealous?
For Adrian (#9) The Koran. Because all the works of science can't equal the incoherent, semiliterate ravings of a highly unsuccessful merchant subject to seizures during which he had delusions that God was talking to him.
It's not exactly 29 words, but the Reduced Shakespeare Company has an abridged version of the Bible. I haven't seen it, but I have seen their Complete Works of Shakespeare. The 10 second backwards version of Hamlet is to die for. I imagine their version of the Bible might be worth watching too.
#9 adrian: I foresee you ignoring Bronze Dog's link. Man, I'm brilliant.
Did Bronze Dog ever do a 'doggerel' segment on the "but why can't you attack muslims instead?" bit that gets regularly thrown at atheists? "Please, can't you direct your criticism toward brown people who are conveniently distant?"
"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
Check out the Mandaneans. They exist (existed?) in Mespotamia, and appear to be the Gnostic John of Baptist sect which left Jerusalem in disgust with JC's failure to properly play the role of messiah/John's little protege. They're also pretty pissed at the Jews in general.
... the Reduced Shakespeare Company ... Complete Works of Shakespeare [has a] 10 second backwards version of Hamlet ... to die for.
Yes! It's brilliant. Another good take on Hamlet is the song "Oor Hamlet", written by Adam McNaughton. As sung by Martin Carthy:
There was a king nodding in his garden all alone
When his brother in his ear poured a little bit of henbane
Stole his brother's crown and his money and his widow
But the dead king walked and got his son and said "Now listen kiddo,
I've been killed and it's your duty to take revenge on Claudius,
Kill him quick and clean and tell the nation what a fraud he is."
The kid says, "Right, I'll do it but I'll have to play it crafty,
So that no one will suspect me I'll kid on that I'm a dafty"
So for all except Horatio, and he counts him as a friend,
Hamlet, that's the kid, he kids on he's round the bend
And because he's not yet willing for obligatory killing
He tries to make his uncle think he's tuppence off a shilling.
Takes a rise out of Polonius, treats poor Ophelia vile,
Tells Rosencranz and Guildenstern that Denmark's blooded bile
Till a troupe of travelling actors like seven eighty four
Arrive to do a special one night gig in Elsinore.
Hamlet, Hamlet, acting balmy
Hamlet, Hamlet, loves his mommy
Hamlet, Hamlet hesitating
He wonders if the ghost's a fake and that is why he's waiting
So Hamlet wrote a scene for the players to enact
So Horatio and himhat is why he's waiting
So Hamlet wrote a scene for the players to enact
So Horatio and him could watch to see if Claudius cracked
The play was called "The Mousetrap," not the one that's running now,
And sure enough, the king walked out before the scene was through
So Hamlet's got the proof his uncle gave his dad the dose,
The only problem being now that Claudius knows he knows,
So while Hamlet tells his mother her new husband's not a fit man
Uncle Claude takes out a contract with the English king as hit man.
Then when Hamlet killed Polonius, the concealed corpus delecti
Was the the king's excuse to send for an English hempen necktie
With Rosencranz and Guildenstern to make quite sure he got there
But Hamlet jumped the boat and put the finger straight on that pair.
When Laertes heard his dad's killed in the bedroom with the arras.
He came running back to Elsinore tout-suite hot foot from Paris
When Ophelia heard her dad's killed by the man she was to marry
After saying it with flowers she committed hari-kari.
Hamlet, Hamlet no messin'
Hamlet, Hamlet learned his lesson
Hamlet, Hamlet Yorick's crust
Convinced him all men good and bad at last must come to dust.
Then Laertes lost his cool and was demanding retribution,
The king said keep your head and I'll supply you a solution
So the king arranged a swordfight for the interested parties
With a blunted sword for Hamlet and a sharp sword for Laertes
And to to make double sure (the old belt-and-braces line)
He fixed up a poisoned sword-tip and a poisoned cup of wine
The poisoned sword got Hamlet but Laertes went and fluffed it
Because he got stabbed himself and he confessed before he snuffed it.
Then Hamlet's mummy drank the wine and as her face turned blue,
Hamlet said, "I think this king's a baddie through and through."
"Incestuous murderous damned Dane," he said to be precise
Then made up for hesitating once by killing Claudius twice.
He stabbed him with his knife and forced the wine between his lips
Then he said, "The rest is silence," and he cashed in all his chips.
They fired a volley over him that shook the topmost rafter
And then Fortinbras, knee-deep in Danes, lived happy ever after.
Hamlet, Hamlet, end of story
Hamlet, Hamlet, very gory
Hamlet, Hamlet, I'm on my way
And if you thought that was confusing you should read the bloody play.
Not quite 29 words (but I haven't counted, so I could be wrong). ;-)
Unfortunately, I don't know of any recordings of "Oor Hamlet" by Martin Carthy, albeit apparently Adam McNaughton did record it on Words, Words, Words (CTRAX013 Greentrax Records)--I've never heard Adam's version, but have heard Martin's version several times.
Incidently, the automagic censor didn't like the above lyrics due to the word Incestuous. Stupid stupid stupid, it burns here just as much on the ID/wingnug sites!
PZ
I did have the misfortune of stumbling across some Jesus/Judas slash once. It was really very nicely written, in a disturbing sort of way. Sorry, I didn't bookmark the link. Oh well. Suffice it to say, it's out there!
Was that picture taken at a hotel? That's the only place I've seen multiple Bibles present. Certainly not at a Christian's house, and certainly not ones that worn.
Ha! You've obviously never seen my father's bookshelf. I guarantee you he has more Bibles than that, and that he studies them seriously. On top of that, he has PhD in physics. I have no idea how he resolves the cognitive dissonance.
I'd like to see some real Bible summarizing in under 50 words. I bet that exists somewhere in these tubes.
Do what God tells you to do.
Do what God tells you to do today, not what He told you yesterday.
Do as He says, not as He does.
Obey or the consequences will be dire.
The Church of SubGenius is essentially undiluted religious fanfic -- all of it humor, and some of it remorselessly slash at the same time. Paul Mavrides' essay/unfinished novel "World without Slack" is a nice example.
I don't think it's about people that can't defend themselves from criticism, but it's more or less, "why can't you criticize a religion I disagree with?"
18 Words;
Matthew 5:28, 1 John 3:15, Proverbs 12:22: Revelation 21:8
2 Corinthians 5:21; Mark 1:15, 1 Peter 1:3
Amen
58 words;
Archaeologically proven, Historically Sound, Prophetically Perfect, the Moral Map of the Human Soul. God counts lust as adultery, hatred as murder, and lying lips an abomination. All adulterers, murderers and liars will have their place in the lake of fire. Christ took your fine on the Cross at Calvary. Repent and Trust in Christ and be saved. Amen.
Why is it that on one hand, we have theists like M. Egnor that are cherry picking on the wrong fruits, ie trying to misinterpret what is already well explained by science, and on the other hand people like Dawkins and PZ Myers that cannot understand that the following arguments could make sense :
1.the universe was created in a very special state of minimum entropy and its evolution obeys a set of very specific rules that man through science will gradually discover, and that this could have been the work of an intelligent creator. It would be very helpful to start trying to understand what was the "intent" of this creator, if any.
2. science does not understand all of these rules yet and that there are some key questions that it is still incapable of answering :
-what happens after death ?
-what happened at/before the big bang
-how did life appear from an inert assembly of atoms
3. that there may exist physical phenomena that are yet to be discovered that go beyond the standard model of particle physics
4. that the copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is not yet complete. That the theory of evolution is not yet complete. That we do not yet fully understand gravity, the cosmological constant problem and the rotational speeds of galaxies being clear scientific evidence that some new physics will have to be discovered, and that these could have a huge impact on the answers to the points in 1., as well as on how the brain works.
4. that a hypothesis such as the existence of a "soul", located in the brain is not necessarily a "crackpot" hypothesis. That this could be a physical concept to be derived from the new physics to be discovered. That it completes the theory of evolution as known today and renders it more efficient..That what happens with the "soul" after death could be goverened by a set of physical principles, in other words, that what happens after you die is conditionned by what happens during your life.
Isn't it because theists on one hand, have become, at large, incapable of understanding the writings of science, and on the other hand atheist scientists are becoming as dogmatic as the theists.
I think the time has come that religion starts revising a bit its old habits and accepting the fact that the bible / coran ...etc had been written at a time to be understood by the people of that time. That mankind has made some progress in its understanding of nature through science. And that science understands that as long as it cannot explain everything, there will be room for spiritual beliefs that will have to evolve as science makes progress in its understanding of the laws of nature.
That there should be a proper educated dialog between science and religion and not the series of insults that are so pervasive in the blogosphere.
That the time has come (2000years!) to rewrite the bible with the current knowledge of our time, and that real scientists (not pseudo science) feeds into it. If god exists, I don't see why he would be against this.
Well, the Pierpoint Morgan Picture Bible (nee the Maciejowski Bible) has some pretty racy illustrations of the story of David and Bathesheba. OOO! Bible pron!
I'd like to see some real Bible summarizing in under 50 words. I bet that exists somewhere in these tubes.
There are 613 Mitzvahs, choose something convenient and rationalize your bad behavior away while expecting others to follow the good behavior found therein...
1.the universe was created in a very special state of minimum entropy and its evolution obeys a set of very specific rules that man through science will gradually discover, and that this could have been the work of an intelligent creator. It would be very helpful to start trying to understand what was the "intent" of this creator, if any.
We know quite a bit about your very specific rules that govern evolution. The good bit is that they absolutely do not require the intervention of a being like God.
2. science does not understand all of these rules yet and that there are some key questions that it is still incapable of answering :
-what happens after death ?
-what happened at/before the big bang
-how did life appear from an inert assembly of atoms
God of the gaps argument, argument from ignorance. False dilemma fallacy.
Because we do not know X or we can never know X there is a God.
What happens after dead? We do not know and we will most likely never know. This however does not point towards God.
What happened at the big bang? Go read up on the theory it neatly states what happened.
What happened before the big bang? We got some nice hypothesis on that. Even a few that start to make sense.
How did life appear? Go read up on the latest abiogenesis research. They are further with explaining how then you'd admit.
3. that there may exist physical phenomena that are yet to be discovered that go beyond the standard model of particle physics
We'd be grateful for a new explanation. Consider it the holy grail (no pun intended) of physics. You'd get your name immortalized if you manage to crack the current model.
Oh and this is a God of the gaps argument if you want to use that one in favor of God existing (and a false dilemma fallacy).
4. that the copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is not yet complete. That the theory of evolution is not yet complete. That we do not yet fully understand gravity, the cosmological constant problem and the rotational speeds of galaxies being clear scientific evidence that some new physics will have to be discovered, and that these could have a huge impact on the answers to the points in 1., as well as on how the brain works.
Argument from ignorance. God of the gaps argument. False dilemma fallacy
We do not know fully how X works therefore God exists.
4. that a hypothesis such as the existence of a "soul", located in the brain is not necessarily a "crackpot" hypothesis. That this could be a physical concept to be derived from the new physics to be discovered. That it completes the theory of evolution as known today and renders it more efficient..That what happens with the "soul" after death could be goverened by a set of physical principles, in other words, that what happens after you die is conditionned by what happens during your life.
Lack of understanding how science works. Wishful thinking.
It is not even a crackpot hypothesis as long as there is not a single prediction that can be made from the argument that the soul exists or the extended version that the soul exists in a physically verifiable state.
Even if souls exist the way you define them do not add anything to evolution since there is nothing that a soul (as defined by you) does that improves fitness of an individual or species.
It is not so much that scientists are becoming dogmatic as the fanatics on the other side are just repeating over and over and over and over (ad nauseam) the same arguments that have been dismantled already (some even before Darwin came along) while scientists are only trying to keep the zombies from getting out of their graves again.
Science knows it can't explain everything. You might want to read up on Gödel's incompleteness theorems for an example. What science wants is that spiritual belief staying it's side of the fence and not to try and do science or force itself on others as science.
That there should be a proper educated dialog between science and religion and not the series of insults that are so pervasive in the blogosphere.
Not a chance. At every turn the religious fanatics have been extended this option by the scientists only to ignore it, abuse it, lie about it, toss insults and other things just so that they can get their belief to be recognized as science.
One problem with rewriting the Bible with our current scientific knowledge. Like Laplace told Napoleon when asked where God was in the astronomy work Laplace just gave to Napoleon: I did not need such hypothesis.
No so. For example, much of Exodus has no evidence. Jericho had fallen before the Jews even existed. There is no evidence of the Jews wandering the Sinai, especially as the whole area was, essentially, an Egyptian fortified camp to keep the Canaanites OUT of Egypt.
And the evidence for "the Flood" is non-existent. Many of other historical accounts are, at best, biased from the writers POV, if not out-right lies.
Historically Sound,
Again, not so. The bible has been repeatedly revised and deviates massively from its roots. Case in point, Mary was not supposed to be a Virgin, but just a young Jewish girl. Translation error there. And now look at it...
The entire surrounding issue of Pilate's crucifixion of Jesus. Never mind the blood libel, but that this supposedly happened during the High Holy Days and, frankly, if you know enough about Jewish custom and practice, you'll realize that the Sanhedrin wouldn't be meeting during this time.
Or the Flood. Using biblical genealogies, this flood would have happened around 2400BC. YET there is no recording of this anywhere AND the histories of countries/peoples in existence between 3000BC and 2000BC continued on uninterrupted. However, if you look around the region, you'll find many flood legends, existing long before the Jews became a distinct people in 1600BC, from which Noah's tale can be cobbled together.
Or the conflicting genealogies of Jesus. Ugh. How Christians rationalize that massive error away... Especially as Luke is quite vociferous that all genealogies, but his, are wrong. That's one book of the bible fighting with another.
Prophetically Perfect,
Give me a break. The Messiah was supposed to free Israel from the clutches of Rome. How'd that work out for Jesus? Oh, it didn't... The whole friggin' premise of the Messiah was to free Israel from the Romans and it didn't happen. Instead, they destroyed Jerusalem and enslaved the Jews.
the Moral Map of the Human Soul.
Empathy, I suspect, is the Moral Map of the human soul. However, seeing all the killing and commandments to kill, I doubt it's the bible. Especially in light of the tens of millions of people to be put death/enslaved in the name of Christ/God.
God counts lust as adultery, hatred as murder, and lying lips an abomination. All adulterers, murderers and liars will have their place in the lake of fire. Christ took your fine on the Cross at Calvary. Repent and Trust in Christ and be saved. Amen.
That's just another vague religious threat & promise game. They all have those. Nothing special about it.
What happened at the big bang? Go read up on the theory it neatly states what happened.
What happened before the big bang? We got some nice hypothesis on that. Even a few that start to make sense.
How did life appear? Go read up on the latest abiogenesis research. They are further with explaining how then you'd admit.
To question 1 & 2 : which of the theories are you referring to ? You are probably much better educated on quantum cosmology than I am (I only have been doing research in that field for the last 10 years). So I will just ask you a question, just to check : which one is right : string theory and inflationary theory (check A.Linde) or Loop Quantum Gravity and a cosmological bounce model (check M.Bojowald. Does this have an impact on the topology of the universe ?
If you state that we have some "nice" hypothesis on these issues and that they "neatly" describe what happened then, there should be some consensus in the theoretical physics community. I haven't been witness to that, but maybe you know more than me.
To question 3 : I must admit I haven't read way enough papers in abiogenesis (it's really hard to keep up to date when you are not a specialist in that field). My latest reading has been "Oparin's "Origin of Life": sixty years later." by S.Miller et al. My conclusion had been (but if you can point me to more relevant and affirmative papers, I would be grateful) that although many different theories of abiogenesis had been developped, we were still not capable of experimentally creating, under the right circumstances, all amino acids required by life on earth.
So I will just ask you a question, just to check : which one is right : string theory and inflationary theory (check A.Linde) or Loop Quantum Gravity and a cosmological bounce model (check M.Bojowald.
False dichotomy. LQG can produce inflation, and there are stringy bouncing models. What exactly did your research involve, may I ask?
Well, there isn't really a 'right one' at present. The observed angular power spectra aren't good enough yet to discriminate between inflationary potentials to any great degree, so we're left with a wide range of models until the data improves. Some tensor modes would be nice...
and that this could have been the work of an intelligent creator. It would be very helpful to start trying to understand what was the "intent" of this creator, if any.
Notice how effortlessly you jump from saying a creator *could* exist to trying to discern the intent of this creator. Shouldn't you be a little more confident of the existence of the creator before you try to use his "intentions" as the basis for forming our civilization?
So, MartinM and Whocares, when I make the statement (see post 48)that science is still incapable of answering what happened at/before the bigbang, am I incorrect ? MartinM gave the right answer in his latest post, we do not have enough precise data to validate one model or another. We don't even know if it might be a completely different model, not yet described.
Does this mean that we won't find out one day. Nope. Does that mean that we have to invoke a "God of the gaps" that created the universe in 7 days and made women from the rib of a man ? Nope. But does that mean that we can rule out that the universe was created with an intent, by a certain form of intelligence and that something happens with my soul after I die. Nope. So my belief in the latter should not stop me from trying to know more, on the contrary. Only science will help me in that quest. And my beliefs motivate me. Now if you think there is a paradox in there, fair enough, because I don't.
The Bible is barfed on Egyptian history. For example, Jericho by that name did not exist as the story is told in the Bible but a city that had just about everything that happened to Jericho happen to it did exist. It's name is Akhetaten.
The Tower of Babel by that name did not exist but a "tower" to God was being built by people who did not speak the same language and they didn't quite finish it. It's name is Akhetaten.
Cain didn't kill Able but someone did "benefit" from the killing of someone else. That someone had a strange mark put on her forehead by God, went to the wilderness, built a big house and died when the big house collapsed. The house she built was named Akhetaten.
Aw shucks. There was just one place. It's name was Akhetaten. It's on the "wrong" side of the "sea of reeds" the Nile river. And all the places mentioned in the Torah are actually Akhetaten. How so?
The story of the building of Akhetaten and it's demise was written in hieroglyphics. Hieroglyphics have what we would call pictures as a PART of the script. Many different people attempted to read that story. They looked at the pictures, usually "action" items and got that part of the story somewhat straight. Their writings were laid end to end, edited so they sort of fit into a flowing sequence and that's where it all comes from.
The Bible is a hoax because it's that little patch of Egyptian history stuttered and advertised to be Jewish history.
http://www.hoax-buster.org page 2 "proof" is an interesting story no matter but it's the best version of the history of Akhetaten to date.
McG : you are right, my wording was not very good. What I meant was that If you assume there was a creator, and you make assumptions on what his intent was, the kind of rules that you have to put in place are going to vary.
If you believe his intent was let's say : "I don't want to intervene all the time but I want to maximise the probability of appearance of intelligent life and its perenity", what would be the specific state in which you would have to create the universe, and what would be the rules. We already know some of the rules and their fields of application, what do we need to add so that it works for sure ?
But does that mean that we can rule out that the universe was created with an intent, by a certain form of intelligence and that something happens with my soul after I die. Nope. So my belief in the latter should not stop me from trying to know more, on the contrary. Only science will help me in that quest. And my beliefs motivate me. Now if you think there is a paradox in there, fair enough, because I don't.
I don't disagree, for the most part. The only point I'd make is that your beliefs might motivate you to look in the wrong direction. Take your assumptions regarding the intent of a creator; if there is no creator, speculating about those probably isn't going to help, and may well send you off course.
The reason you get these 'attack someone else' comments are either that:
A) They don't believe in Atheists. They think you're just acting about against Christianity to be perverse or something and that it's something most people get over. This is also where the line 'I used to be an atheist' came from, because in these people's small world view there are only Christians and non-practicing Christians.
or B) They are feeding into the Christian persecution complex, and they can't fathom that you actually hold the belief that you do. (This is similar to A, I guess. I think I'm stating it poorly.)
Either way, the point for them is that you just hate christians and aren't a 'true' atheist.
MartinM : I agree.
But what would you do if you knew all the laws of nature ? Wouldn't there be a small temptation to try to recreate a new universe and verify that it works ?
please provide one shred of evidence for the existence of:
your bronze-age version of god; and,
this 'soul' you discuss.
Just one shred of positive evidence. One study. Just one thing that I can examine and study myself. The onus is on you, as you are the one asserting the hypothesis.
And I know you'll never produce it, you'll just keep yammering about with your boiler plate fallacies.
Anyone else notice how he claims to be a "quantum researcher" (where? he doesn't say) but makes more basic logic errors than a baptist preacher on Sunday morning.
Einstein was hardly motivated by Christian's ignorant version of 'faith'. He was motivated by wonder and awe. Einstein outright said that his 'god' was Spinoza's 'god'. As an atheist, I often say that my 'god' is Spinoza's 'god' as well. Ironic, that a fundy like Christian would detest the alchemy, astrology & outright blasphemy of Newton's spiritual beliefs. Notice how they love to cherry pick Newton & then blithely glaze over his actual idiosyncratic and blasphemous belief system. It is a basic and dishonest fundy ploy, allude that some historical figure would agree with him, and ignore the larger picture of their belief system.
Oh and could you tell me where your a 'quantum researcher', so I can verify it. Just let me know where you received you Ph.D. so I can look it up. Or better yet, which lab you work at! That's such a sure way to win points against us, I would see why you wouldn't want to prove that to me, er... unless you are just lying!!!!!!!!
If your ready made conclusion from what I have said before is that I am not more logical than a baptist priest and that the way I described my faith in God was "bronze aged", I am pretty sure that whatever I expose to you of my research will be of very little use.
Christian, MM's first answer said it all. Sure there are things we don't know. We understand that. But how does pure, wild-ass speculation help our understanding?
The universe *might* have been created by magically delicious fairies. We *might* all be brains in jars, wired up to a simulation that bears no relation to reality. The universe may be a vast, sentient being that loves us and wants us to eat candy.
Lots of things might be true, but unless you have a reason to believe they are true, then you're not really contributing anything. When you are proposing the existence of a thing that is functionally identical to non-existence of that thing, well, you're just engaging in textual masturbation.
oh poor christian, he can't even offer one shred of evidence for his most basic worldview, cuz i hurt his wittle feelings....
come christian, stop evading, you base your entire world view on these things, i'm sure as a master of logic, you have lots of positive evidence for doing so, just pony up one little shred of this positive evidence for me.
isn't it your duty as a christian to teach us, and here we are, begging you for this positive evidence, and all you can do is evade me!
also, please tell me where you got your ph.d. in physics and what lab you've done your 10 years of quantum research at, go on stud, really prove me wrong!
A less for the rest of you. When fundy trolls like christian infest this board, don't play into their game. he wanted nothing more than to make his gross logical fallacies and quote mine. he would have done this for hours, if not day.
however, just reduce the conversation to one issue, have them prove the onus of providing with positive evidence why they belief. then watch them worm away and leave nothing behind, but a blog thread of others mocking christian's delusions.
and each time he rears his delusional head, continue to plead with him to tell us one shred of evidence for god & the soul. he is now claiming to be 'doing research'. doesn't research yield data? why is he suddenly so ashamed of data? i mean, for a guy with "10 years" of "quantum research" he really seems shy about where he got his degree, what lab he works at, and the data gleaned from his research. my conjecture is that he is a crank who is lying, but he could always pony up the info and prove me wrong. something tells me not to hold my breath though.
EnzoAntonius: Some of us value our anonymity; it's possible that Christian is one of those. Christian's level of education has absolutely no bearing on whether the arguments are valid or not.
It does when he blithely claims to be a 'quantum researcher' for ten years as a substitute for substantive argument. And then alludes to research as a means of proving his point, but never ponies up said research.
If you want to use, you have to divulge it.
Besides, he still has yet to provide one shred of evidence pertaining to his most basic world view, i.e. the existence of god and the soul.
If faith is a motivating force behind ones desire to pursue knowledge by way of scientific inquiry, it does not necessarily follow that ones conclusions will be distorted by that faith or discarded if the conclusions conflict with one or more precepts of that faith.
C'mon, my friends... we see this ALL THE TIME. How many commenters here on Pharyngula, in response to charges that they know little of theology, have rightly and truthfully responded that no, quite to the contrary, it was the rigorous investigation of various aspects of reality, including their faith, that led them to atheism?
That's just one instance of what I'm talking about. Many great scientists of the past were men of faith whose faith inspired them to explore their god's creation, yet each embraced reason and allowed his observations, and the conclusions derived from them, to speak for themselves. Is this not so?
However, using these examples as proof of the verity of theism - as so many theists are wont to do - does not hold up very well. It does demonstrate, however, that personal beliefs do not necessarily get in the way. I understand that opinions on the truth of that statement will vary considerably, and will depend on the answer to the question, "In the way of what, exactly?". :-)
Anyway... Our commenter "Christian" may be on a similar path, or he may not. If he allows his conclusions to be distorted by the needs of his theistic faith, then it's open season on those conclusions.
Come on, people. You're talking about a collection of writings which was started thousands of years ago, which recorded legends that were passed down orally for a long time before written language, and which had to be hand-copied rather than printed for hundreds and hundreds of years after they were first written down. And in addition to all the other sources of error, scholars sometimes annotated their copies, which were then recopied with the annotations inserted along with the original text. And you're surprised it's not scientifically accurate? Well, duh.
Please let's remember the whole idea that the bible is scientifically accurate was developed in New Jersey in the nineteenth century as a REACTION to Darwin's theory of evolution. (That's right. The Origin of Species came first. Then came the fundamentalists.)
If you want to blast people for believing some of the most ancient texts known conform to the standards of 21st century science, blast away. I'll be right beside you. But it's really unfair to blame the ancient scribes for what was said about their material hundreds and hundreds of years after they died. They certainly never meant it to be scientifically accurate-- they had no concept of what modern science was.
What did I try to explain (obviously did a bad job at it) :
1. that theists à la Egnor are fools
2. that the attitude of certain parts of the scientific community to call delusional those who believed that the universe was created by some form of intelligence and believed that there could exist the concept of soul was dogmatic and not founded.
I totally agree that assuming that god created the universe and that the soul exists does not constitute in any sense of the word a scientific theory.
It is a belief, a faith, and it is not incompatible with the current understanding of science. Only a fool continues to believe something that reason proves to be false.
I don't believe that god made the universe in 7 days, that women came out of man's rib, that the species came out of Noah's ark and are at close distance from that one.
I only believe that the universe was created by some form of intelligence (call it god) and that it obeyed a set of rules that we are yet to discover (we already know some of them). I also believe in the concept of soul.
if you belief these things without evidence, you are on the wrong website. this is a science website, we demand evidence here.
please go to a religious website where the standard for belief is mere vague allusions to terms like faith.
or else, don't bring your unsubstantiated beliefs into the conversation. you can discuss science and be a scientist, just so long as you don't try and impose your unsubstantiated beliefs in soul and god onto cosmology and quantum physics.
"Many great scientists of the past were men of faith whose faith inspired them to explore their god's creation, yet each embraced reason and allowed his observations, and the conclusions derived from them, to speak for themselves. Is this not so?"
I'm not disputing the fact that it CAN be done. As Kseniya as pointed out, it most certianly can. Christian posed the question if it was wrong. I think it is. I think eliminating as much biased from the onset is the most precise way to begin a quest of scientific inquiry.
Why...if we know no existence of such a supernatural deity, would we begin our inquiry with such a biased mindset?
Ok EnzoAntonius, I'll say a little bit more about me, and you'll say a little bit more about you ok ?
I graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in France in 1982. I got my "Doctorat d'état en Physique" from the university of Grenoble in 1986. From then on I went to work for a large corporation until 1996. Having made enough money, I left the industry and started my own research in the fields that interest me, which I have been doing until now.
Wonderful! So where in your study of physics did you find this one shred of positive evidence for the existence of god & the soul?
I only have bachelor's in physics, so i'm willing suckle up to your teet of wisdom and see this wonderful branch of physics that i missed in undergrad.
Loc : you say :
"Why...if we know no existence of such a supernatural deity, would we begin our inquiry with such a biased mindset?"
What makes you believe that I "began my inquiry with such a biased mindest. ?". When I read scientific papers, that's certainly not my mindset. It's more trying to understand the concepts exposed, the equations, its sufficiently difficult in many cases that I am not trying to add "faith" in the picutre.
I merely reacted to this post from PZ Myers, which is about the Bible (see my first post 48) and my conclusion was that it certainly needed a lot of revision, in view of the current understanding that we have about nature.
Enzoantonius, I did not find any evidence whatsover in my study of Physics for the concepts of God and Soul. Re-read my post #85 where I state very clearly that it doesn't constitute the basis of a scientific theory.
I repeat, it is merely a belief, and the more I learn about science, the less I see reasons to dispute this belief.
Only a fool continues to believe something which reason proves to be false. I'm not (yet) a fool !
Enzo, not sure if the emo is justified here. You were demanding proof for a concept of god that doesn't require one. You aren't looking too hot in the argument stakes right now.
...and a lot of agnostics claim that such a god is possible. A lot of scientific people claim to have faith in such a critter. Your aggression is misplaced.
Christian: having said that, I'll say to you what I say to the agnostics - sure, such a thing may exist, but why do you think it does?
You are born without belief. A rock has no belief. A rock is an atheist. Something must occur for belief to begin. So we need to look at the reasons for belief, and see if those reasons are good enough to justify that belief.
...but belief in god seems to boil down to wishful thinking and dogma. There seems to be no other explanation - and nor does there need to be, these two points being sufficient, IMO, to generate all kinds of crazy outcomes.
"Faith" just seems to be a way of masking this wishful thinking. You want to believe there is a god. Why else would you believe in something that has absolutely no evidence?
To use the earlier example: we might be brains-in-jars, wired up to a simulation. We may have only existed for a few seconds, and have a completely false reality presented to us. It's entirely possible, in this context, that absolutely anything might happen next, but the owners of the simulation may, equally, choose to keep it running under the arbitrary "laws" they have assinged it. You can't disprove this hypothesis. It is utterly consistent with all measurements.
But would you take such a belief seriously? If not, why not? What does the god hypothesis have that the brain-in-a-jar (biaj) theory doesn't?
"Christian: having said that, I'll say to you what I say to the agnostics - sure, such a thing may exist, but why do you think it does?"
Fully agree with you, it is a key point. There are reasons for my belief, and I can expose them in more details. My scientific knowledge enables me to distinguish the reasons that do not make sense (that I have already eliminated) from the ones that do. Having said that, it must be clear from the above that this rationalisation does not constitute a scientific theory. It is a collection of ideas that I have, not disputed by science, which made me come up with this belief.
"What makes you believe that I "began my inquiry with such a biased mindest. ?"
I'll refer you to responses #63 - #66.
For example...here's #63:
"If you believe his intent was let's say : "I don't want to intervene all the time but I want to maximise the probability of appearance of intelligent life and its perenity", what would be the specific state in which you would have to create the universe, and what would be the rules."
Set aside all the human characteristics you attribute to your personal creator...you are talking about things that are UNPROVABLE. Sorry...not science. Since you posted half of your resume on here...I'm well aware that you should know this.
...but there's the problem. Sure a god like that cannot be disproven by science. But similarly it cannot make any difference. You mentioned considering the hypothetic intentions of the hypothetical god, but as I asked: to what end? When nothing in science, nature, and life can point to god's intention (if it could, we could prove god's existence), how can you make any judgement on god's intention that would be more reliable than a random guess?
A god outside of science is also a god outside of reality. He/she/it/they can't have any effect on the universe, because then it would be back within the scrutiny of science. The question about belief in such a thing becomes: what in hell for?
If one proposal that defies evidence can be believed, what grounds do you have to disblieve any of them? Why believe in god, but not biaj?
There is an essentially infinite number of things you can propose that can have no evidence for or against. God is just one more which happens to have the weight of tradition behind it. There is no more reason to believe in god than any of the others.
...and belief in any of them has either no effect, or a negative one. That is, either you take no action regarding your belief, or you are mislead by it.
Why...if we know no existence of such a supernatural deity, would we begin our inquiry with such a biased mindset?
Hey, Loc, I'm with you for the most part, but it's fair to say that your question does not appear to acknowledge the important distinction between "I believe in God, and I have set out to discover whether or not He exists," and "I believe in God, and I have set out to prove that He exists."
I'm not sure if Christian's posts thus far have revealed which way he is leaning...
@christian(#55):
Who is right? Well if you'd been studying the field for 10 years you know that asking the question like you did is dishonest (and leads me to believe you are trying to bluff me into conceding by making the unverifiable claim that you've been studying in said field). Neither idea has gotten past the stage of hypothesis so how can I unequivocally state which is correct.
The next bit about hypotheses equaling consensus is equally dishonest (for me it also confirms you have not put any time in studying the field you claimed you did). This because hypothesis in science basically short hand for: "Tentative idea that might fit the observed data but for which there have not yet been enough predictions and tests to let is qualify as a theory". Also how can there be consensus if scientists are discussing the pro's and con's of different hypotheses.
Your third comment is again an argument from disbelief (or God of the gaps comment). It is also a non argument because you are saying that because we can't make all the amino acids now we can never make them. Lets perform reductio ad absurdum on that. Before the Uri-Miller experiment we couldn't create any amino acids (under the assumed circumstances of an old earth) so the Uri-Miller experiment could never succeed. Oh It succeeded?
@christian(#60):
Never stated you were incorrect that we do not yet know. What I said was that there is no reason to require or even assume that intent/intelligence is needed. Then I said there are hypotheses coming out about what might be happening before the big bang. The Universe does not require the intervention of an intelligence to require it being formed. I dare to make the claim that any hypothesis that includes the requirement of intervention of an intelligence can be restated in a simpler form that doesn't require said intelligence to achieve the same results.
I appreciate the comments as well. I'm not being testy...I was just a little brushed by response #63.
Kseniya,
My question was not to set a precedent which all else stems. I do see and fully understand the distinction with which you mention. I also believe that knowledge of the distinction is what allows good science to be performed and conclusions interpretted (appropriately) by scientist who are believers. I was just asking; why muddy the water with something that can be purified?
Whocares, talking about what happened at/before the Bigbang, this is what I wrote in post #55 and #60 :
"If you state that we have some "nice" hypothesis on these issues and that they "neatly" describe what happened then, there should be some consensus in the theoretical physics community. I haven't been witness to that, but maybe you know more than me."
"So, MartinM and Whocares, when I make the statement (see post 48)that science is still incapable of answering what happened at/before the bigbang, am I incorrect ? MartinM gave the right answer in his latest post, we do not have enough precise data to validate one model or another. We don't even know if it might be a completely different model, not yet described. "
You now say (post #98) :
"Neither idea has gotten past the stage of hypothesis so how can I unequivocally state which is correct.The next bit about hypotheses equaling consensus is equally dishonest (for me it also confirms you have not put any time in studying the field you claimed you did). This because hypothesis in science basically short hand for: "Tentative idea that might fit the observed data but for which there have not yet been enough predictions and tests to let is qualify as a theory". Also how can there be consensus if scientists are discussing the pro's and con's of different hypotheses.
So I probably misunderstood your use of the words -"nice" hypothesis - and - "neatly" describe what happened then.
Also, what is the bit you are refering to about "hypothesis equaling consensus" ? Is it what I said ?
Loc: I hear you, and only wondered if the distinction was being properly recognized (and not only by you) in this discussion with Christian. I never once doubted that your awareness and full comprehension of the distinction.
Anyways. "...why muddy the water with something that can be purified?" That's a good question.
Is there a difference between this: "I wonder what's over that hill!" and this: "I wonder what's over that hill. I bet there's a city there!"
I'm trying to whittle the "muddy" question down to a simple analogy, but am I being too simplistic? :-/
Dang, staying up 'til 4:00 every night this week isn't help my (already limited) brainpower... lol.
Errata on #98:
Thought I excised the entire bit of reductio ad absurdum. Seems I forgot one line of the text.
Remove Lets perform reductio ad absurdum on that. from the post when reading it.
@Christian(#100):
Advice, next time don't try to win an argument by claiming authority without the ability to back it up. A lot of people frequenting this blog have the right to stick a title on their name. We're not impressed by someone else claiming a title (or job) for themselves, what we expect is that you back up your claims (assumption on how I expect that most people with a title think). And you have failed miserably in that regard. The same goes with book titles. Sound impressive to the uninitiated but so easy to look up on the internet these days that the only thing that counts is your understanding of the subject matter in said books. In your case this understanding is woefully lacking.
So I probably misunderstood your use of the words -"nice" hypothesis - and - "neatly" describe what happened then.
You might want to quote the original bit instead of your reply to that. The way you do it now insinuates that what you said is my opinion. Which it isn't.
The terms are descriptive of how I look at those theories not qualitative. That is why I used slang instead of a more formal wording.
Also, what is the bit you are refering to about "hypothesis equaling consensus" ? Is it what I said ?
You know you are great comic relief in your attempts to get out of the corner you painted yourself into with all your bluffing. You actually quoted yourself saying that a hypothesis equals consensus in the same post you ask this of me. Here is what you said:
If you state that we have some "nice" hypothesis on these issues and that they "neatly" describe what happened then, there should be some consensus in the theoretical physics community.
I'll give you two counter examples of why hypothesis != consensus using two hypotheses that were good enough that they made it to theory status. Continental drift. I'll leave it up to you to look up the history but it is a fascinating example of a hypothesis that did not get anything resembling consensus the first time it was proposed. Or what about heliocentricity? Got the Copernicus so anxious about the possible reaction of his fellow scientists that he didn't dare to publish (even though the Pope of the time was interested in his work), doesn't sound like his hypothesis was getting a lot of consensus.
There are still a few questions I have.
What do you research? What institute do you research at? Where did you get your education as researcher?
For me you not answering these questions is equal to you admitting you were lying about being a quantum researcher. You brought the job description to the table as relevant now prove that it is relevant.
a) I never claimed to be a "quantum researcher" but to research quantum cosmology
b) I never claimed to belong to any research institute. I explained that in post # 88 because I was asked by Enzoantonius to do so.
c) Your example about the continental drift is very good to illustrate my point. In order for this hypothesis to become a generally accepted theory it required consensus from the international scientific community. Same thing can be said for any theory which is being proposed. In order to do so, critical reasoning, verification using experimentation and further modelisation takes place. This is how science progresses.
So comming back to what happened at the big bang, I stated that we couldn't, for now, answer that question . You replied (black on white) that I should go and read the theory and that it neatly stated what happened.
I may have misunderstood what you meant, but it doesn't seem to me that there was much doubt in your sentence.
There are several theories that have been developped to answer that question, but none of them has reached the level of consensus required in order for it to become THE accepted theory. It could be that in the future, one of them reaches that status (as the continental drift reached that status later on) Some believe that it is possible that none of these theories will stand the test of time, and that we are missing something fundamental.
The reasons why there is no consensus are complex and varied. We could discuss this if you are interested, maybe in doing so I could convince you that I did research this subject extensively for the past 10 years. Each of these theories has strong points and weak ones. Moreover, we need more experimental data (eg polarisation of the CMBR, improve on the angular definition, experimentation at much higher energies, maybe with the LHC, etc... You must understand, if you are critical enough, that none of these theories and the hypothesis on which they are based, has reached the level of acceptance of your example, the continental drift.
So your statement regarding the bigbang that I should go and read the theory because it neatly stated what happened, was totally inapropriate.
It only showed that you definitely had not studied this subject extensively, and that you believed I had no idea of what I was talking about.
May I ask, what is your area of expertise, and did you study cosmology and quantum gravity ?
But what would you do if you knew all the laws of nature ? Wouldn't there be a small temptation to try to recreate a new universe and verify that it works ?
Assuming such were possible, I might. But I have no reason to suppose that any deity would think anything like I do.
@Christian(#104)
a) You are pathetic, truly pathetic. If you were really a researcher you could have added the answers to my questions instead of using the excuse of me getting what you lied that you researched wrong to not answer any of them. If you really completed a doctorate there is at least one research article with your name on it out there. You could have referred to that (but as we both know that allows me and others to look up if you are really that person so you can't use that to lie about your background).
I accept your concession that you are lying about being a researcher and having a PhD.
b) Either you were lying in #88 or the diploma mills have landed in Europe. If I tried to get a PhD with the boneheaded ideas and attitude you have shown here on how science works the professor evaluating my work would have taken me aside in the first year and told me to look for work which I'm capable of and that that type of work does not include science. Never mind that with your attitude (as shown here) you can't do the original research required to get a PhD (Can't do it now so we can't do it ever is quite a show stopper for original research). I was hoping you'd tell the truth this time.
c) Trying to claim that there is consensus while at the same time saying that there is none because there are different hypotheses vying for theory status.
Also the history of the continental drift theory is very bad for your position not good. The theory was correct the first time it was proposed and did not get any consensus.
So your statement regarding the bigbang that I should go and read the theory because it neatly stated what happened, was totally inapropriate.
It only showed that you definitely had not studied this subject extensively, and that you believed I had no idea of what I was talking about.
Actually it is completely appropriate. You asked what happened at the the big bang. The theory called big bang describes this. Again you show you know less then nothing about science let alone about the the theories and hypotheses of which you have been spouting names.
But in one thing you are right (only due to the statistics involved with the amount of mudslinging you have done). The theory could be wrong and then it doesn't describe what happened correctly.
May I ask, what is your area of expertise, and did you study cosmology and quantum gravity ?
Yes you may ask. You will get no answer because it is not relevant to the discussion.
Your credentials however are because you used them as 'evidence' to prove you are right. The problem being that not provided a shred of this evidence and have been doing a lot of work (more then it would have cost you to admit you were lying or showing real evidence) at evading having to admit you were lying about having a title and doing research.
I'm in a magnanimous mood so I'll give you one more chance to admit you were lying. Or to show actual verifiable proof about your 'title' and 'research'.
I think the analogy is on the right track...but a little misleading. I'll be brief. You saying that there may be a city over the hill is a very probable "hypothesis"...for cities exist throughout all parts of the world. However, it could be that you get to the top and see a river, an ocean, a small village or a teepee full Mel Gibson fans. My guess is that the Mel Gibson fan hypothesis would be a weaker, but still valid "hypothesis." This is because there are a lot more cities, rivers, villages known to exist over hills than teepee's full of Mel Gibson fans. However, I have come across such a site.
Although, to relate this fantasy back to Christian, he was positing something completely different. It would be like saying that there MAY be a flock of unicorns chowing on grass with Santa's reindeer. Why posit a hypothesis that has absolutely no experimental evidence or empirical claims. This is orders of magnitude weaker than even the Mel Gibson hypothesis. There could be anything over the hill...Right?
To push this a little farther, if the researcher climbed atop such a cliff and saw wild horses or whitetail deer grazing, he may be clouded by his previous eagerness and quickly attribute the animals to celestial beings.
I'm sorry...this has gone on longer than planned. I was just a little pushed back when Christian started talking about the creator and his intentions. I do enjoy the conversation though.
Also, Who Cares. I do side with you on a lot of your arguments. However, I think your feathers need to be brushed back into place. A lot of people like the anonymous forum for various reasons. All valid. People lying is one of the "costs" of anonymity. Take things with a grain of salt. You are a reasonable person, so I know you can make a rational judgement about an individual's credentials without having to know his/her social security number and resume. He could very easily come up with a name of a friend, collegue, random individual and claim to be him. So wanting proof of his claims simply pushes the validity of such claims into a different direction on a forum like this.
Lies that cause people to believe are moral. Therefore lying about one's education to make a religious point is moral. Creator God has so deemed. Nah, not God.
Moses struck a deal with it and was handsomely rewarded. He had been a spoiled palace brat but fell from grace when he did murder. At the time Moses made the deal with the being in the fire he was as low as one can get, a fugitive from justice in a foreign land eking out a living tending someone else's sheep. That deal turned Moses into the biggest shot in the history of the world, catapulted him to the leader, (king in any language) of the Chosen people of the being in the fire.
It is Devil and not Creator God that makes deals with murderers. Sale of soul to Devil brings the treasure of earth to the seller but only those who lead the multitudes to hell. Moses is one of the oldest recorded sellers of soul to Devil.
It's Devil, not God that the three great faiths, Jews, Christians and Muslims faith. No problem, Devil delivers the goodies but only to faith leaders. It's necessary to lie, say you faith God when it's really Devil to become a faith leader like Pat Robertson and rake in the big money.
Bill Hunt is wrong. The Bible is the word of Devil and not a hoax as he claims.
Way back in post #23, Siler said, "The Origin of Species summarized. The fit survive, the weak get the shaft."
This represents yet another grossly understood facet of evolutionary principles. The term "fit" in "survival of the fittest" does not necessarily mean "strong"; it means "best adapted to survive". This means that a weak, puny, clever runt might be better adapted for survival than a strong, stupid brute. Mammals were obviously "weaker" than dinosaurs, yet they outlasted them.
you continue to dig yourself into a hole. You keep confusing what happened at the big bang with what happenend after the bigbang (which just shows your superficial understanding of Quantum Cosmology).
In my posts, I used precise words "at/before" and not "after".
You are staying that I am a lier and that I know nothing about qantum cosmology.
I do think it is relevant that you answer what your credentials are in the matter. I already did, you do not believe me, fair enough. But in order for you to make the claim that you are qualified to judge what is the veracity of my claims, it would be useful to know if you have anything else but a very very superficial knowledge of the matter.
BTW Whocares, can you please pinpoint a statement that I made about quantum cosmology that is incorrect. One that must be so grossly incorect for you to be able to make statements such as, "you are a Liar", "you are pathetic, truly pathetic..." ,etc..
@Christian:
What was the name of your thesis with which you got your doctorate?
@Christian(#110):
Then prove it. All you need to do is grab the theory and show it instead of making unfounded claims. Currently your claims are worth less then the Greek drachma at the end of WW2.
And stop trying to shift the burden of proof on me. It is you who has to show that he knows what he's talking about since you claimed you know and since that time you have behaved yourself more slippery and dishonest then a greased snake oil salesman. The only thing you are doing now is showing that you have no clue about what you are talking about and are trying to weasel out of having to prove you do know by claiming that you will only show that you know if I know.
Why you are a lying imbecile? You conflate the inflation explanation within the big bang theory with the entire theory. Your precious quantum cosmology hypothesis only comes into view after the actual big bang has occurred but before the inflationary period starts.
@Christian(#111):
I called you a rotten weasel for lying about your education. And the way you have been trying to avoid actually providing evidence for this education you imagined you followed. You brought your fake education and non-existent research into this thread and when called on providing evidence for it all you have done follow the tactics of the usual christian dishonest apologist fundamentalist to evade having to admit you lied about those.
You have done name dropping and at most here and there regurgitate facts from a quantum cosmology for dummies page (like the first hit on google for "quantum cosmology"). That doesn't make you a researcher.
Do you know what happened this week back in 1850, 157 years ago?
California became a state. The state had no electricity. The state had no money. Almost everyone spoke Spanish. There were gunfights in the streets. So basically it was just like California is today, except the women had real breasts and the men didn't hold hands.
Funny. Like it.
Was that picture taken at a hotel? That's the only place I've seen multiple Bibles present. Certainly not at a Christian's house, and certainly not ones that worn.
Beautiful baby!
http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com
To be fair, the animals did the walking.
"Was that picture taken at a hotel? That's the only place I've seen multiple Bibles present. Certainly not at a Christian's house, and certainly not ones that worn."
You should try a library sometime. They have these things called "shelves" that contain lots and lots of books, sometimes more than one copy.
...Not that I think this photo is from a library, but I just think your comment is rather pointless.
Pssst, scote.. it's a joke. (Just to be frivolously sarcastic: "Try opening one of them books at the library called a 'dictionary.'")
This reminds me of Dave Barry's summary of MOBY DICK: "You shouldn't mess with whales because they symbolize nature and can kill you."
I think it should be "the whole creationist argument summarized in 29 words." Because the Bible doesn't really say anything about science.
I'd like to see some real Bible summarizing in under 50 words. I bet that exists somewhere in these tubes.
Do the same with the Koran, PZ. I've a feeling you won't.
Hey, if you guys don't have the stomach to kill apostates, then your religion's gonna get mocked. Deal with it.
"...the Bible doesn't really say anything about science."
It does mention some negative things about being skeptical, and positive things for "just believing".
In order for any superstitious myth to compete and survive, it must shelter itself from rigorous skeptical inquiry.
Its foundation and essence is anti-scientific.
I'd go so far as to say it's entirely unscientific, but that's unfair; it's actually pre-scientific. As Penn Jillette has said, the bible contains equal amounts of history, fact and pizza.
@ comment #3:
Are those actual quotes from Egnor, taken in context? He actually believes souls push his scapel around? He's actually suggesting the soul is found in the hippocampal CA1 region?
That's dangerously close to making a testable assertion....not his usual style.....
That whole interview seems a little too out there, but maybe I'm naive.....that's not a spoof?
pbc
I once did a little something with Islam. Should try picking it back up sometime.
Snort.
The New Testament: Because non-cattle-sacrificing primitives saw a great, burning need for a sequel. With a non-cattle-sacrifice.
The Koran: Because Mohammed saw a great, burning need for bible fanfic — with himself as the Mary Sue.
Gnostic Bible/Satanic Bible: Because there's always someone who wants fanfic that inverts the villain/hero dynamic.
The Roman Catholic church: Because there's always someone anal-retentive who feels a great, burning need for a clearly-defined, unalterable canon. No, you can't write your own fanfic.
And so on.
So where's the slash version of the Bible? I've always thought the encounter between John the Baptist and Jesus needed some expansion.
There could have been a suppressed gospel or two that had Jesus as John's Patrokolos/ganymede.
In modern times? It probably exists; knock yourself out:
http://www.fanfiction.net/book/Bible/
But I'm not wading in there.
Mark Ch 14 has something close to "slash" -- what's with the naked man in garden?:
43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.
44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard." 45Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Rabbi!" and kissed him. 46The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47 Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
48 "Am I leading a rebellion," said Jesus, "that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled." 50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.
51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.
Thank God the Bible is so.
http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is just plain not so. There really was a supernatural being in that ball of fire and Moses made a really goo deal with it too. He got to be the biggest shot that ever lived, founder of all three great faiths for leading the Israelites to hell.
Sale of soul to Devil does not bring in the big money as advertised. It's necessary to lead the multitudes to hell. The Bible is the manual for doing that and those who get the most followers, Pat Robertson for example get the big money for their efforts.
Let's hear it for Lucifer. He's paying the ministry to lead 'flocks' of people to hell and the people following their shepherds are paying His fee for him. That's the slickest deal of all times bar none. Aren't you jealous?
For Adrian (#9) The Koran. Because all the works of science can't equal the incoherent, semiliterate ravings of a highly unsuccessful merchant subject to seizures during which he had delusions that God was talking to him.
It's not exactly 29 words, but the Reduced Shakespeare Company has an abridged version of the Bible. I haven't seen it, but I have seen their Complete Works of Shakespeare. The 10 second backwards version of Hamlet is to die for. I imagine their version of the Bible might be worth watching too.
"Cattle sacrificing primitives".
Code word: JEWS
The Origin of Species summarized.
The fit survive, the weak get the shaft.
"Siler" summarized.
Moron.
#9 adrian: I foresee you ignoring Bronze Dog's link. Man, I'm brilliant.
Did Bronze Dog ever do a 'doggerel' segment on the "but why can't you attack muslims instead?" bit that gets regularly thrown at atheists? "Please, can't you direct your criticism toward brown people who are conveniently distant?"
The Origin of Species summarised:
"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
Now THAT is good science writing.
Siler summarized...
"I have no idea what evolution is."
Thank you Stephen.
PZ,
Check out the Mandaneans. They exist (existed?) in Mespotamia, and appear to be the Gnostic John of Baptist sect which left Jerusalem in disgust with JC's failure to properly play the role of messiah/John's little protege. They're also pretty pissed at the Jews in general.
Yes! It's brilliant. Another good take on Hamlet is the song "Oor Hamlet", written by Adam McNaughton. As sung by Martin Carthy:
There was a king nodding in his garden all alone
When his brother in his ear poured a little bit of henbane
Stole his brother's crown and his money and his widow
But the dead king walked and got his son and said "Now listen kiddo,
I've been killed and it's your duty to take revenge on Claudius,
Kill him quick and clean and tell the nation what a fraud he is."
The kid says, "Right, I'll do it but I'll have to play it crafty,
So that no one will suspect me I'll kid on that I'm a dafty"
So for all except Horatio, and he counts him as a friend,
Hamlet, that's the kid, he kids on he's round the bend
And because he's not yet willing for obligatory killing
He tries to make his uncle think he's tuppence off a shilling.
Takes a rise out of Polonius, treats poor Ophelia vile,
Tells Rosencranz and Guildenstern that Denmark's blooded bile
Till a troupe of travelling actors like seven eighty four
Arrive to do a special one night gig in Elsinore.
Hamlet, Hamlet, acting balmy
Hamlet, Hamlet, loves his mommy
Hamlet, Hamlet hesitating
He wonders if the ghost's a fake and that is why he's waiting
So Hamlet wrote a scene for the players to enact
So Horatio and himhat is why he's waiting
So Hamlet wrote a scene for the players to enact
So Horatio and him could watch to see if Claudius cracked
The play was called "The Mousetrap," not the one that's running now,
And sure enough, the king walked out before the scene was through
So Hamlet's got the proof his uncle gave his dad the dose,
The only problem being now that Claudius knows he knows,
So while Hamlet tells his mother her new husband's not a fit man
Uncle Claude takes out a contract with the English king as hit man.
Then when Hamlet killed Polonius, the concealed corpus delecti
Was the the king's excuse to send for an English hempen necktie
With Rosencranz and Guildenstern to make quite sure he got there
But Hamlet jumped the boat and put the finger straight on that pair.
When Laertes heard his dad's killed in the bedroom with the arras.
He came running back to Elsinore tout-suite hot foot from Paris
When Ophelia heard her dad's killed by the man she was to marry
After saying it with flowers she committed hari-kari.
Hamlet, Hamlet no messin'
Hamlet, Hamlet learned his lesson
Hamlet, Hamlet Yorick's crust
Convinced him all men good and bad at last must come to dust.
Then Laertes lost his cool and was demanding retribution,
The king said keep your head and I'll supply you a solution
So the king arranged a swordfight for the interested parties
With a blunted sword for Hamlet and a sharp sword for Laertes
And to to make double sure (the old belt-and-braces line)
He fixed up a poisoned sword-tip and a poisoned cup of wine
The poisoned sword got Hamlet but Laertes went and fluffed it
Because he got stabbed himself and he confessed before he snuffed it.
Then Hamlet's mummy drank the wine and as her face turned blue,
Hamlet said, "I think this king's a baddie through and through."
"Incestuous murderous damned Dane," he said to be precise
Then made up for hesitating once by killing Claudius twice.
He stabbed him with his knife and forced the wine between his lips
Then he said, "The rest is silence," and he cashed in all his chips.
They fired a volley over him that shook the topmost rafter
And then Fortinbras, knee-deep in Danes, lived happy ever after.
Hamlet, Hamlet, end of story
Hamlet, Hamlet, very gory
Hamlet, Hamlet, I'm on my way
And if you thought that was confusing you should read the bloody play.
Not quite 29 words (but I haven't counted, so I could be wrong). ;-)
Unfortunately, I don't know of any recordings of "Oor Hamlet" by Martin Carthy, albeit apparently Adam McNaughton did record it on Words, Words, Words (CTRAX013 Greentrax Records)--I've never heard Adam's version, but have heard Martin's version several times.
Incidently, the automagic censor didn't like the above lyrics due to the word Incestuous. Stupid stupid stupid, it burns here just as much on the ID/wingnug sites!
PZ
I did have the misfortune of stumbling across some Jesus/Judas slash once. It was really very nicely written, in a disturbing sort of way. Sorry, I didn't bookmark the link. Oh well. Suffice it to say, it's out there!
The Jonathan/David story is slash fiction, Bible-style.
Was that picture taken at a hotel? That's the only place I've seen multiple Bibles present. Certainly not at a Christian's house, and certainly not ones that worn.
Ha! You've obviously never seen my father's bookshelf. I guarantee you he has more Bibles than that, and that he studies them seriously. On top of that, he has PhD in physics. I have no idea how he resolves the cognitive dissonance.
I'd like to see some real Bible summarizing in under 50 words. I bet that exists somewhere in these tubes.
Do what God tells you to do.
Do what God tells you to do today, not what He told you yesterday.
Do as He says, not as He does.
Obey or the consequences will be dire.
The Church of SubGenius is essentially undiluted religious fanfic -- all of it humor, and some of it remorselessly slash at the same time. Paul Mavrides' essay/unfinished novel "World without Slack" is a nice example.
Sorry, this link should work.
I have several different translations of the Bible. They serve to remind me what an idiot I was when I believed in all of them simultaneously.
Did you generate this with the Parody Motivator Generator at Despair.com? It sure looks like their style.
Mohammed was a self insert and not a Mary Sue/Marty Stu.
IZ IN YR BOOKSHELVZ DILUTIN YR KNOWLEDGE.
LOLgodz!
Just for the humor.
Thinking about http://www.hoax-buster.org makes the pope's head hurt.
@#25
I don't think it's about people that can't defend themselves from criticism, but it's more or less, "why can't you criticize a religion I disagree with?"
I'd like to see some real Bible summarizing in under 50 words. I bet that exists somewhere in these tubes.
New Testament:
Be nice to people. Love each other. Treat each other well.
And if you don't believe that I'm God, and you aren't nice to people in exactly the way I tell you to be, you'll be tortured and burned in hell.
No, THIS is how you summarize the New Testament.
God loves you and he'll burn you in hell forever and ever if you don't believe that, because he loves you!
You asked for bibleslash?
http://community.livejournal.com/bible_slash/
18 Words;
Matthew 5:28, 1 John 3:15, Proverbs 12:22: Revelation 21:8
2 Corinthians 5:21; Mark 1:15, 1 Peter 1:3
Amen
58 words;
Archaeologically proven, Historically Sound, Prophetically Perfect, the Moral Map of the Human Soul. God counts lust as adultery, hatred as murder, and lying lips an abomination. All adulterers, murderers and liars will have their place in the lake of fire. Christ took your fine on the Cross at Calvary. Repent and Trust in Christ and be saved. Amen.
What does archaeology have to say about, say, the walls of Jericho?
Who was the governer of Syria at the time of Christ's birth, then?
Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadrezzar would take Tyre. He didn't.
Why is it that on one hand, we have theists like M. Egnor that are cherry picking on the wrong fruits, ie trying to misinterpret what is already well explained by science, and on the other hand people like Dawkins and PZ Myers that cannot understand that the following arguments could make sense :
1.the universe was created in a very special state of minimum entropy and its evolution obeys a set of very specific rules that man through science will gradually discover, and that this could have been the work of an intelligent creator. It would be very helpful to start trying to understand what was the "intent" of this creator, if any.
2. science does not understand all of these rules yet and that there are some key questions that it is still incapable of answering :
-what happens after death ?
-what happened at/before the big bang
-how did life appear from an inert assembly of atoms
3. that there may exist physical phenomena that are yet to be discovered that go beyond the standard model of particle physics
4. that the copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is not yet complete. That the theory of evolution is not yet complete. That we do not yet fully understand gravity, the cosmological constant problem and the rotational speeds of galaxies being clear scientific evidence that some new physics will have to be discovered, and that these could have a huge impact on the answers to the points in 1., as well as on how the brain works.
4. that a hypothesis such as the existence of a "soul", located in the brain is not necessarily a "crackpot" hypothesis. That this could be a physical concept to be derived from the new physics to be discovered. That it completes the theory of evolution as known today and renders it more efficient..That what happens with the "soul" after death could be goverened by a set of physical principles, in other words, that what happens after you die is conditionned by what happens during your life.
Isn't it because theists on one hand, have become, at large, incapable of understanding the writings of science, and on the other hand atheist scientists are becoming as dogmatic as the theists.
I think the time has come that religion starts revising a bit its old habits and accepting the fact that the bible / coran ...etc had been written at a time to be understood by the people of that time. That mankind has made some progress in its understanding of nature through science. And that science understands that as long as it cannot explain everything, there will be room for spiritual beliefs that will have to evolve as science makes progress in its understanding of the laws of nature.
That there should be a proper educated dialog between science and religion and not the series of insults that are so pervasive in the blogosphere.
That the time has come (2000years!) to rewrite the bible with the current knowledge of our time, and that real scientists (not pseudo science) feeds into it. If god exists, I don't see why he would be against this.
Well, the Pierpoint Morgan Picture Bible (nee the Maciejowski Bible) has some pretty racy illustrations of the story of David and Bathesheba. OOO! Bible pron!
I'd like to see some real Bible summarizing in under 50 words. I bet that exists somewhere in these tubes.
There are 613 Mitzvahs, choose something convenient and rationalize your bad behavior away while expecting others to follow the good behavior found therein...
Yes, there are open questions in science. No, that doesn't mean we get to make up pretend answers in the mean time.
Well, I can do it in one word, but two are really necessary.
UTTER CRAP
I'll bite christian (#48).
We know quite a bit about your very specific rules that govern evolution. The good bit is that they absolutely do not require the intervention of a being like God.
God of the gaps argument, argument from ignorance. False dilemma fallacy.
Because we do not know X or we can never know X there is a God.
What happens after dead? We do not know and we will most likely never know. This however does not point towards God.
What happened at the big bang? Go read up on the theory it neatly states what happened.
What happened before the big bang? We got some nice hypothesis on that. Even a few that start to make sense.
How did life appear? Go read up on the latest abiogenesis research. They are further with explaining how then you'd admit.
We'd be grateful for a new explanation. Consider it the holy grail (no pun intended) of physics. You'd get your name immortalized if you manage to crack the current model.
Oh and this is a God of the gaps argument if you want to use that one in favor of God existing (and a false dilemma fallacy).
Argument from ignorance. God of the gaps argument. False dilemma fallacy
We do not know fully how X works therefore God exists.
Lack of understanding how science works. Wishful thinking.
It is not even a crackpot hypothesis as long as there is not a single prediction that can be made from the argument that the soul exists or the extended version that the soul exists in a physically verifiable state.
Even if souls exist the way you define them do not add anything to evolution since there is nothing that a soul (as defined by you) does that improves fitness of an individual or species.
It is not so much that scientists are becoming dogmatic as the fanatics on the other side are just repeating over and over and over and over (ad nauseam) the same arguments that have been dismantled already (some even before Darwin came along) while scientists are only trying to keep the zombies from getting out of their graves again.
Science knows it can't explain everything. You might want to read up on Gödel's incompleteness theorems for an example. What science wants is that spiritual belief staying it's side of the fence and not to try and do science or force itself on others as science.
Not a chance. At every turn the religious fanatics have been extended this option by the scientists only to ignore it, abuse it, lie about it, toss insults and other things just so that they can get their belief to be recognized as science.
One problem with rewriting the Bible with our current scientific knowledge. Like Laplace told Napoleon when asked where God was in the astronomy work Laplace just gave to Napoleon: I did not need such hypothesis.
58 words;
Archaeologically proven,
No so. For example, much of Exodus has no evidence. Jericho had fallen before the Jews even existed. There is no evidence of the Jews wandering the Sinai, especially as the whole area was, essentially, an Egyptian fortified camp to keep the Canaanites OUT of Egypt.
And the evidence for "the Flood" is non-existent. Many of other historical accounts are, at best, biased from the writers POV, if not out-right lies.
Historically Sound,
Again, not so. The bible has been repeatedly revised and deviates massively from its roots. Case in point, Mary was not supposed to be a Virgin, but just a young Jewish girl. Translation error there. And now look at it...
The entire surrounding issue of Pilate's crucifixion of Jesus. Never mind the blood libel, but that this supposedly happened during the High Holy Days and, frankly, if you know enough about Jewish custom and practice, you'll realize that the Sanhedrin wouldn't be meeting during this time.
Or the Flood. Using biblical genealogies, this flood would have happened around 2400BC. YET there is no recording of this anywhere AND the histories of countries/peoples in existence between 3000BC and 2000BC continued on uninterrupted. However, if you look around the region, you'll find many flood legends, existing long before the Jews became a distinct people in 1600BC, from which Noah's tale can be cobbled together.
Or the conflicting genealogies of Jesus. Ugh. How Christians rationalize that massive error away... Especially as Luke is quite vociferous that all genealogies, but his, are wrong. That's one book of the bible fighting with another.
Prophetically Perfect,
Give me a break. The Messiah was supposed to free Israel from the clutches of Rome. How'd that work out for Jesus? Oh, it didn't... The whole friggin' premise of the Messiah was to free Israel from the Romans and it didn't happen. Instead, they destroyed Jerusalem and enslaved the Jews.
the Moral Map of the Human Soul.
Empathy, I suspect, is the Moral Map of the human soul. However, seeing all the killing and commandments to kill, I doubt it's the bible. Especially in light of the tens of millions of people to be put death/enslaved in the name of Christ/God.
God counts lust as adultery, hatred as murder, and lying lips an abomination. All adulterers, murderers and liars will have their place in the lake of fire. Christ took your fine on the Cross at Calvary. Repent and Trust in Christ and be saved. Amen.
That's just another vague religious threat & promise game. They all have those. Nothing special about it.
Whocares, you write :
What happened at the big bang? Go read up on the theory it neatly states what happened.
What happened before the big bang? We got some nice hypothesis on that. Even a few that start to make sense.
How did life appear? Go read up on the latest abiogenesis research. They are further with explaining how then you'd admit.
To question 1 & 2 : which of the theories are you referring to ? You are probably much better educated on quantum cosmology than I am (I only have been doing research in that field for the last 10 years). So I will just ask you a question, just to check : which one is right : string theory and inflationary theory (check A.Linde) or Loop Quantum Gravity and a cosmological bounce model (check M.Bojowald. Does this have an impact on the topology of the universe ?
If you state that we have some "nice" hypothesis on these issues and that they "neatly" describe what happened then, there should be some consensus in the theoretical physics community. I haven't been witness to that, but maybe you know more than me.
To question 3 : I must admit I haven't read way enough papers in abiogenesis (it's really hard to keep up to date when you are not a specialist in that field). My latest reading has been "Oparin's "Origin of Life": sixty years later." by S.Miller et al. My conclusion had been (but if you can point me to more relevant and affirmative papers, I would be grateful) that although many different theories of abiogenesis had been developped, we were still not capable of experimentally creating, under the right circumstances, all amino acids required by life on earth.
False dichotomy. LQG can produce inflation, and there are stringy bouncing models. What exactly did your research involve, may I ask?
MartinM : LQG can produce inflation.
Fair enough, but can it produce the right one and explain the anisotropies of the CMBR adequately ?
Well, there isn't really a 'right one' at present. The observed angular power spectra aren't good enough yet to discriminate between inflationary potentials to any great degree, so we're left with a wide range of models until the data improves. Some tensor modes would be nice...
and that this could have been the work of an intelligent creator. It would be very helpful to start trying to understand what was the "intent" of this creator, if any.
Notice how effortlessly you jump from saying a creator *could* exist to trying to discern the intent of this creator. Shouldn't you be a little more confident of the existence of the creator before you try to use his "intentions" as the basis for forming our civilization?
So, MartinM and Whocares, when I make the statement (see post 48)that science is still incapable of answering what happened at/before the bigbang, am I incorrect ? MartinM gave the right answer in his latest post, we do not have enough precise data to validate one model or another. We don't even know if it might be a completely different model, not yet described.
Does this mean that we won't find out one day. Nope. Does that mean that we have to invoke a "God of the gaps" that created the universe in 7 days and made women from the rib of a man ? Nope. But does that mean that we can rule out that the universe was created with an intent, by a certain form of intelligence and that something happens with my soul after I die. Nope. So my belief in the latter should not stop me from trying to know more, on the contrary. Only science will help me in that quest. And my beliefs motivate me. Now if you think there is a paradox in there, fair enough, because I don't.
#54, Canyon Shear
The Bible is barfed on Egyptian history. For example, Jericho by that name did not exist as the story is told in the Bible but a city that had just about everything that happened to Jericho happen to it did exist. It's name is Akhetaten.
The Tower of Babel by that name did not exist but a "tower" to God was being built by people who did not speak the same language and they didn't quite finish it. It's name is Akhetaten.
Cain didn't kill Able but someone did "benefit" from the killing of someone else. That someone had a strange mark put on her forehead by God, went to the wilderness, built a big house and died when the big house collapsed. The house she built was named Akhetaten.
Aw shucks. There was just one place. It's name was Akhetaten. It's on the "wrong" side of the "sea of reeds" the Nile river. And all the places mentioned in the Torah are actually Akhetaten. How so?
The story of the building of Akhetaten and it's demise was written in hieroglyphics. Hieroglyphics have what we would call pictures as a PART of the script. Many different people attempted to read that story. They looked at the pictures, usually "action" items and got that part of the story somewhat straight. Their writings were laid end to end, edited so they sort of fit into a flowing sequence and that's where it all comes from.
The Bible is a hoax because it's that little patch of Egyptian history stuttered and advertised to be Jewish history.
http://www.hoax-buster.org page 2 "proof" is an interesting story no matter but it's the best version of the history of Akhetaten to date.
You certainly wouldn't be the first to use faith as a motivation for attempting to learn more about the universe.
McG : you are right, my wording was not very good. What I meant was that If you assume there was a creator, and you make assumptions on what his intent was, the kind of rules that you have to put in place are going to vary.
If you believe his intent was let's say : "I don't want to intervene all the time but I want to maximise the probability of appearance of intelligent life and its perenity", what would be the specific state in which you would have to create the universe, and what would be the rules. We already know some of the rules and their fields of application, what do we need to add so that it works for sure ?
Kseniya : correct, Einstein and Newton did the same...
Kseniya : correct, Einstein and Newton did the same...
Is this wrong ?
Yea its wrong.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
-Ben Franklin
No one can be perfectly objective, but why cloud your observations with a false pretense.
I don't disagree, for the most part. The only point I'd make is that your beliefs might motivate you to look in the wrong direction. Take your assumptions regarding the intent of a creator; if there is no creator, speculating about those probably isn't going to help, and may well send you off course.
#9 #20 #25 #42:
The reason you get these 'attack someone else' comments are either that:
A) They don't believe in Atheists. They think you're just acting about against Christianity to be perverse or something and that it's something most people get over. This is also where the line 'I used to be an atheist' came from, because in these people's small world view there are only Christians and non-practicing Christians.
or B) They are feeding into the Christian persecution complex, and they can't fathom that you actually hold the belief that you do. (This is similar to A, I guess. I think I'm stating it poorly.)
Either way, the point for them is that you just hate christians and aren't a 'true' atheist.
MartinM : I agree.
But what would you do if you knew all the laws of nature ? Wouldn't there be a small temptation to try to recreate a new universe and verify that it works ?
The best summary of the Torah/Bible I have heard is from a friend who said:
"Torah. God: "Obey Me or die."
"New Testament. God: "Love Me or die."
That about covers it, I think...
christian,
please provide one shred of evidence for the existence of:
your bronze-age version of god; and,
this 'soul' you discuss.
Just one shred of positive evidence. One study. Just one thing that I can examine and study myself. The onus is on you, as you are the one asserting the hypothesis.
And I know you'll never produce it, you'll just keep yammering about with your boiler plate fallacies.
Anyone else notice how he claims to be a "quantum researcher" (where? he doesn't say) but makes more basic logic errors than a baptist preacher on Sunday morning.
Enzoantonius :
please explain :
1. why is my version of God "Bronze-aged" ?
2. where am I making more basic logic errors than a baptist preacher on Sunday morning
Einstein was hardly motivated by Christian's ignorant version of 'faith'. He was motivated by wonder and awe. Einstein outright said that his 'god' was Spinoza's 'god'. As an atheist, I often say that my 'god' is Spinoza's 'god' as well. Ironic, that a fundy like Christian would detest the alchemy, astrology & outright blasphemy of Newton's spiritual beliefs. Notice how they love to cherry pick Newton & then blithely glaze over his actual idiosyncratic and blasphemous belief system. It is a basic and dishonest fundy ploy, allude that some historical figure would agree with him, and ignore the larger picture of their belief system.
I'll respond to you as soon as you pony up one shred of evidence. Your merely attempting to avoid my DIRECT challenge to you.
Pony up one shred of evidence for god and the soul. Just one shred of positive evidence.
I know, I know, you don't have any, so you have to squirm and evade by trying to change the subject.
Yawn!!!! Still waiting on that positive evidence for the existence of god and the soul.........
.....still waiting....................................
...........and waiting....................................
and waiting.......................................
Oh and could you tell me where your a 'quantum researcher', so I can verify it. Just let me know where you received you Ph.D. so I can look it up. Or better yet, which lab you work at! That's such a sure way to win points against us, I would see why you wouldn't want to prove that to me, er... unless you are just lying!!!!!!!!
If your ready made conclusion from what I have said before is that I am not more logical than a baptist priest and that the way I described my faith in God was "bronze aged", I am pretty sure that whatever I expose to you of my research will be of very little use.
Christian, MM's first answer said it all. Sure there are things we don't know. We understand that. But how does pure, wild-ass speculation help our understanding?
The universe *might* have been created by magically delicious fairies. We *might* all be brains in jars, wired up to a simulation that bears no relation to reality. The universe may be a vast, sentient being that loves us and wants us to eat candy.
Lots of things might be true, but unless you have a reason to believe they are true, then you're not really contributing anything. When you are proposing the existence of a thing that is functionally identical to non-existence of that thing, well, you're just engaging in textual masturbation.
oh poor christian, he can't even offer one shred of evidence for his most basic worldview, cuz i hurt his wittle feelings....
come christian, stop evading, you base your entire world view on these things, i'm sure as a master of logic, you have lots of positive evidence for doing so, just pony up one little shred of this positive evidence for me.
isn't it your duty as a christian to teach us, and here we are, begging you for this positive evidence, and all you can do is evade me!
also, please tell me where you got your ph.d. in physics and what lab you've done your 10 years of quantum research at, go on stud, really prove me wrong!
A less for the rest of you. When fundy trolls like christian infest this board, don't play into their game. he wanted nothing more than to make his gross logical fallacies and quote mine. he would have done this for hours, if not day.
however, just reduce the conversation to one issue, have them prove the onus of providing with positive evidence why they belief. then watch them worm away and leave nothing behind, but a blog thread of others mocking christian's delusions.
and each time he rears his delusional head, continue to plead with him to tell us one shred of evidence for god & the soul. he is now claiming to be 'doing research'. doesn't research yield data? why is he suddenly so ashamed of data? i mean, for a guy with "10 years" of "quantum research" he really seems shy about where he got his degree, what lab he works at, and the data gleaned from his research. my conjecture is that he is a crank who is lying, but he could always pony up the info and prove me wrong. something tells me not to hold my breath though.
EnzoAntonius: Some of us value our anonymity; it's possible that Christian is one of those. Christian's level of education has absolutely no bearing on whether the arguments are valid or not.
Grenda,
It does when he blithely claims to be a 'quantum researcher' for ten years as a substitute for substantive argument. And then alludes to research as a means of proving his point, but never ponies up said research.
If you want to use, you have to divulge it.
Besides, he still has yet to provide one shred of evidence pertaining to his most basic world view, i.e. the existence of god and the soul.
If faith is a motivating force behind ones desire to pursue knowledge by way of scientific inquiry, it does not necessarily follow that ones conclusions will be distorted by that faith or discarded if the conclusions conflict with one or more precepts of that faith.
C'mon, my friends... we see this ALL THE TIME. How many commenters here on Pharyngula, in response to charges that they know little of theology, have rightly and truthfully responded that no, quite to the contrary, it was the rigorous investigation of various aspects of reality, including their faith, that led them to atheism?
That's just one instance of what I'm talking about. Many great scientists of the past were men of faith whose faith inspired them to explore their god's creation, yet each embraced reason and allowed his observations, and the conclusions derived from them, to speak for themselves. Is this not so?
However, using these examples as proof of the verity of theism - as so many theists are wont to do - does not hold up very well. It does demonstrate, however, that personal beliefs do not necessarily get in the way. I understand that opinions on the truth of that statement will vary considerably, and will depend on the answer to the question, "In the way of what, exactly?". :-)
Anyway... Our commenter "Christian" may be on a similar path, or he may not. If he allows his conclusions to be distorted by the needs of his theistic faith, then it's open season on those conclusions.
Come on, people. You're talking about a collection of writings which was started thousands of years ago, which recorded legends that were passed down orally for a long time before written language, and which had to be hand-copied rather than printed for hundreds and hundreds of years after they were first written down. And in addition to all the other sources of error, scholars sometimes annotated their copies, which were then recopied with the annotations inserted along with the original text. And you're surprised it's not scientifically accurate? Well, duh.
Please let's remember the whole idea that the bible is scientifically accurate was developed in New Jersey in the nineteenth century as a REACTION to Darwin's theory of evolution. (That's right. The Origin of Species came first. Then came the fundamentalists.)
If you want to blast people for believing some of the most ancient texts known conform to the standards of 21st century science, blast away. I'll be right beside you. But it's really unfair to blame the ancient scribes for what was said about their material hundreds and hundreds of years after they died. They certainly never meant it to be scientifically accurate-- they had no concept of what modern science was.
SmellyTerror : please re-read my post # 48.
What did I try to explain (obviously did a bad job at it) :
1. that theists à la Egnor are fools
2. that the attitude of certain parts of the scientific community to call delusional those who believed that the universe was created by some form of intelligence and believed that there could exist the concept of soul was dogmatic and not founded.
I totally agree that assuming that god created the universe and that the soul exists does not constitute in any sense of the word a scientific theory.
It is a belief, a faith, and it is not incompatible with the current understanding of science. Only a fool continues to believe something that reason proves to be false.
I don't believe that god made the universe in 7 days, that women came out of man's rib, that the species came out of Noah's ark and are at close distance from that one.
I only believe that the universe was created by some form of intelligence (call it god) and that it obeyed a set of rules that we are yet to discover (we already know some of them). I also believe in the concept of soul.
christian,
if you belief these things without evidence, you are on the wrong website. this is a science website, we demand evidence here.
please go to a religious website where the standard for belief is mere vague allusions to terms like faith.
or else, don't bring your unsubstantiated beliefs into the conversation. you can discuss science and be a scientist, just so long as you don't try and impose your unsubstantiated beliefs in soul and god onto cosmology and quantum physics.
Kseniya writes:
"Many great scientists of the past were men of faith whose faith inspired them to explore their god's creation, yet each embraced reason and allowed his observations, and the conclusions derived from them, to speak for themselves. Is this not so?"
I'm not disputing the fact that it CAN be done. As Kseniya as pointed out, it most certianly can. Christian posed the question if it was wrong. I think it is. I think eliminating as much biased from the onset is the most precise way to begin a quest of scientific inquiry.
Why...if we know no existence of such a supernatural deity, would we begin our inquiry with such a biased mindset?
Ok EnzoAntonius, I'll say a little bit more about me, and you'll say a little bit more about you ok ?
I graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in France in 1982. I got my "Doctorat d'état en Physique" from the university of Grenoble in 1986. From then on I went to work for a large corporation until 1996. Having made enough money, I left the industry and started my own research in the fields that interest me, which I have been doing until now.
Is it a bad cursus ?
Wonderful! So where in your study of physics did you find this one shred of positive evidence for the existence of god & the soul?
I only have bachelor's in physics, so i'm willing suckle up to your teet of wisdom and see this wonderful branch of physics that i missed in undergrad.
....... waiting.........
Loc : you say :
"Why...if we know no existence of such a supernatural deity, would we begin our inquiry with such a biased mindset?"
What makes you believe that I "began my inquiry with such a biased mindest. ?". When I read scientific papers, that's certainly not my mindset. It's more trying to understand the concepts exposed, the equations, its sufficiently difficult in many cases that I am not trying to add "faith" in the picutre.
I merely reacted to this post from PZ Myers, which is about the Bible (see my first post 48) and my conclusion was that it certainly needed a lot of revision, in view of the current understanding that we have about nature.
Enzoantonius, I did not find any evidence whatsover in my study of Physics for the concepts of God and Soul. Re-read my post #85 where I state very clearly that it doesn't constitute the basis of a scientific theory.
I repeat, it is merely a belief, and the more I learn about science, the less I see reasons to dispute this belief.
Only a fool continues to believe something which reason proves to be false. I'm not (yet) a fool !
Enzo, not sure if the emo is justified here. You were demanding proof for a concept of god that doesn't require one. You aren't looking too hot in the argument stakes right now.
...and a lot of agnostics claim that such a god is possible. A lot of scientific people claim to have faith in such a critter. Your aggression is misplaced.
Christian: having said that, I'll say to you what I say to the agnostics - sure, such a thing may exist, but why do you think it does?
You are born without belief. A rock has no belief. A rock is an atheist. Something must occur for belief to begin. So we need to look at the reasons for belief, and see if those reasons are good enough to justify that belief.
...but belief in god seems to boil down to wishful thinking and dogma. There seems to be no other explanation - and nor does there need to be, these two points being sufficient, IMO, to generate all kinds of crazy outcomes.
"Faith" just seems to be a way of masking this wishful thinking. You want to believe there is a god. Why else would you believe in something that has absolutely no evidence?
To use the earlier example: we might be brains-in-jars, wired up to a simulation. We may have only existed for a few seconds, and have a completely false reality presented to us. It's entirely possible, in this context, that absolutely anything might happen next, but the owners of the simulation may, equally, choose to keep it running under the arbitrary "laws" they have assinged it. You can't disprove this hypothesis. It is utterly consistent with all measurements.
But would you take such a belief seriously? If not, why not? What does the god hypothesis have that the brain-in-a-jar (biaj) theory doesn't?
Smellyterror you say :
"Christian: having said that, I'll say to you what I say to the agnostics - sure, such a thing may exist, but why do you think it does?"
Fully agree with you, it is a key point. There are reasons for my belief, and I can expose them in more details. My scientific knowledge enables me to distinguish the reasons that do not make sense (that I have already eliminated) from the ones that do. Having said that, it must be clear from the above that this rationalisation does not constitute a scientific theory. It is a collection of ideas that I have, not disputed by science, which made me come up with this belief.
Christian,
You ask:
"What makes you believe that I "began my inquiry with such a biased mindest. ?"
I'll refer you to responses #63 - #66.
For example...here's #63:
"If you believe his intent was let's say : "I don't want to intervene all the time but I want to maximise the probability of appearance of intelligent life and its perenity", what would be the specific state in which you would have to create the universe, and what would be the rules."
Set aside all the human characteristics you attribute to your personal creator...you are talking about things that are UNPROVABLE. Sorry...not science. Since you posted half of your resume on here...I'm well aware that you should know this.
first of all, would like to say that I really appreciate the discussion.
Agree that post 63 went a bit too fast in an attempt at rationalising my beliefs. Would have to take one step at a time, if you are interested.
...but there's the problem. Sure a god like that cannot be disproven by science. But similarly it cannot make any difference. You mentioned considering the hypothetic intentions of the hypothetical god, but as I asked: to what end? When nothing in science, nature, and life can point to god's intention (if it could, we could prove god's existence), how can you make any judgement on god's intention that would be more reliable than a random guess?
A god outside of science is also a god outside of reality. He/she/it/they can't have any effect on the universe, because then it would be back within the scrutiny of science. The question about belief in such a thing becomes: what in hell for?
If one proposal that defies evidence can be believed, what grounds do you have to disblieve any of them? Why believe in god, but not biaj?
There is an essentially infinite number of things you can propose that can have no evidence for or against. God is just one more which happens to have the weight of tradition behind it. There is no more reason to believe in god than any of the others.
...and belief in any of them has either no effect, or a negative one. That is, either you take no action regarding your belief, or you are mislead by it.
Loc wrote:
Hey, Loc, I'm with you for the most part, but it's fair to say that your question does not appear to acknowledge the important distinction between "I believe in God, and I have set out to discover whether or not He exists," and "I believe in God, and I have set out to prove that He exists."
I'm not sure if Christian's posts thus far have revealed which way he is leaning...
@christian(#55):
Who is right? Well if you'd been studying the field for 10 years you know that asking the question like you did is dishonest (and leads me to believe you are trying to bluff me into conceding by making the unverifiable claim that you've been studying in said field). Neither idea has gotten past the stage of hypothesis so how can I unequivocally state which is correct.
The next bit about hypotheses equaling consensus is equally dishonest (for me it also confirms you have not put any time in studying the field you claimed you did). This because hypothesis in science basically short hand for: "Tentative idea that might fit the observed data but for which there have not yet been enough predictions and tests to let is qualify as a theory". Also how can there be consensus if scientists are discussing the pro's and con's of different hypotheses.
Your third comment is again an argument from disbelief (or God of the gaps comment). It is also a non argument because you are saying that because we can't make all the amino acids now we can never make them. Lets perform reductio ad absurdum on that. Before the Uri-Miller experiment we couldn't create any amino acids (under the assumed circumstances of an old earth) so the Uri-Miller experiment could never succeed. Oh It succeeded?
@christian(#60):
Never stated you were incorrect that we do not yet know. What I said was that there is no reason to require or even assume that intent/intelligence is needed. Then I said there are hypotheses coming out about what might be happening before the big bang. The Universe does not require the intervention of an intelligence to require it being formed. I dare to make the claim that any hypothesis that includes the requirement of intervention of an intelligence can be restated in a simpler form that doesn't require said intelligence to achieve the same results.
Christian,
I appreciate the comments as well. I'm not being testy...I was just a little brushed by response #63.
Kseniya,
My question was not to set a precedent which all else stems. I do see and fully understand the distinction with which you mention. I also believe that knowledge of the distinction is what allows good science to be performed and conclusions interpretted (appropriately) by scientist who are believers. I was just asking; why muddy the water with something that can be purified?
Whocares, talking about what happened at/before the Bigbang, this is what I wrote in post #55 and #60 :
"If you state that we have some "nice" hypothesis on these issues and that they "neatly" describe what happened then, there should be some consensus in the theoretical physics community. I haven't been witness to that, but maybe you know more than me."
"So, MartinM and Whocares, when I make the statement (see post 48)that science is still incapable of answering what happened at/before the bigbang, am I incorrect ? MartinM gave the right answer in his latest post, we do not have enough precise data to validate one model or another. We don't even know if it might be a completely different model, not yet described. "
You now say (post #98) :
"Neither idea has gotten past the stage of hypothesis so how can I unequivocally state which is correct.The next bit about hypotheses equaling consensus is equally dishonest (for me it also confirms you have not put any time in studying the field you claimed you did). This because hypothesis in science basically short hand for: "Tentative idea that might fit the observed data but for which there have not yet been enough predictions and tests to let is qualify as a theory". Also how can there be consensus if scientists are discussing the pro's and con's of different hypotheses.
So I probably misunderstood your use of the words -"nice" hypothesis - and - "neatly" describe what happened then.
Also, what is the bit you are refering to about "hypothesis equaling consensus" ? Is it what I said ?
The whole book summarized in one word: "Don't."
Loc: I hear you, and only wondered if the distinction was being properly recognized (and not only by you) in this discussion with Christian. I never once doubted that your awareness and full comprehension of the distinction.
Anyways. "...why muddy the water with something that can be purified?" That's a good question.
Is there a difference between this: "I wonder what's over that hill!" and this: "I wonder what's over that hill. I bet there's a city there!"
I'm trying to whittle the "muddy" question down to a simple analogy, but am I being too simplistic? :-/
Dang, staying up 'til 4:00 every night this week isn't help my (already limited) brainpower... lol.
Errata on #98:
Thought I excised the entire bit of reductio ad absurdum. Seems I forgot one line of the text.
Remove Lets perform reductio ad absurdum on that. from the post when reading it.
@Christian(#100):
Advice, next time don't try to win an argument by claiming authority without the ability to back it up. A lot of people frequenting this blog have the right to stick a title on their name. We're not impressed by someone else claiming a title (or job) for themselves, what we expect is that you back up your claims (assumption on how I expect that most people with a title think). And you have failed miserably in that regard. The same goes with book titles. Sound impressive to the uninitiated but so easy to look up on the internet these days that the only thing that counts is your understanding of the subject matter in said books. In your case this understanding is woefully lacking.
You might want to quote the original bit instead of your reply to that. The way you do it now insinuates that what you said is my opinion. Which it isn't.
The terms are descriptive of how I look at those theories not qualitative. That is why I used slang instead of a more formal wording.
You know you are great comic relief in your attempts to get out of the corner you painted yourself into with all your bluffing. You actually quoted yourself saying that a hypothesis equals consensus in the same post you ask this of me. Here is what you said:
I'll give you two counter examples of why hypothesis != consensus using two hypotheses that were good enough that they made it to theory status. Continental drift. I'll leave it up to you to look up the history but it is a fascinating example of a hypothesis that did not get anything resembling consensus the first time it was proposed. Or what about heliocentricity? Got the Copernicus so anxious about the possible reaction of his fellow scientists that he didn't dare to publish (even though the Pope of the time was interested in his work), doesn't sound like his hypothesis was getting a lot of consensus.
There are still a few questions I have.
What do you research? What institute do you research at? Where did you get your education as researcher?
For me you not answering these questions is equal to you admitting you were lying about being a quantum researcher. You brought the job description to the table as relevant now prove that it is relevant.
a) I never claimed to be a "quantum researcher" but to research quantum cosmology
b) I never claimed to belong to any research institute. I explained that in post # 88 because I was asked by Enzoantonius to do so.
c) Your example about the continental drift is very good to illustrate my point. In order for this hypothesis to become a generally accepted theory it required consensus from the international scientific community. Same thing can be said for any theory which is being proposed. In order to do so, critical reasoning, verification using experimentation and further modelisation takes place. This is how science progresses.
So comming back to what happened at the big bang, I stated that we couldn't, for now, answer that question . You replied (black on white) that I should go and read the theory and that it neatly stated what happened.
I may have misunderstood what you meant, but it doesn't seem to me that there was much doubt in your sentence.
There are several theories that have been developped to answer that question, but none of them has reached the level of consensus required in order for it to become THE accepted theory. It could be that in the future, one of them reaches that status (as the continental drift reached that status later on) Some believe that it is possible that none of these theories will stand the test of time, and that we are missing something fundamental.
The reasons why there is no consensus are complex and varied. We could discuss this if you are interested, maybe in doing so I could convince you that I did research this subject extensively for the past 10 years. Each of these theories has strong points and weak ones. Moreover, we need more experimental data (eg polarisation of the CMBR, improve on the angular definition, experimentation at much higher energies, maybe with the LHC, etc... You must understand, if you are critical enough, that none of these theories and the hypothesis on which they are based, has reached the level of acceptance of your example, the continental drift.
So your statement regarding the bigbang that I should go and read the theory because it neatly stated what happened, was totally inapropriate.
It only showed that you definitely had not studied this subject extensively, and that you believed I had no idea of what I was talking about.
May I ask, what is your area of expertise, and did you study cosmology and quantum gravity ?
Assuming such were possible, I might. But I have no reason to suppose that any deity would think anything like I do.
@Christian(#104)
a) You are pathetic, truly pathetic. If you were really a researcher you could have added the answers to my questions instead of using the excuse of me getting what you lied that you researched wrong to not answer any of them. If you really completed a doctorate there is at least one research article with your name on it out there. You could have referred to that (but as we both know that allows me and others to look up if you are really that person so you can't use that to lie about your background).
I accept your concession that you are lying about being a researcher and having a PhD.
b) Either you were lying in #88 or the diploma mills have landed in Europe. If I tried to get a PhD with the boneheaded ideas and attitude you have shown here on how science works the professor evaluating my work would have taken me aside in the first year and told me to look for work which I'm capable of and that that type of work does not include science. Never mind that with your attitude (as shown here) you can't do the original research required to get a PhD (Can't do it now so we can't do it ever is quite a show stopper for original research). I was hoping you'd tell the truth this time.
c) Trying to claim that there is consensus while at the same time saying that there is none because there are different hypotheses vying for theory status.
Also the history of the continental drift theory is very bad for your position not good. The theory was correct the first time it was proposed and did not get any consensus.
Actually it is completely appropriate. You asked what happened at the the big bang. The theory called big bang describes this. Again you show you know less then nothing about science let alone about the the theories and hypotheses of which you have been spouting names.
But in one thing you are right (only due to the statistics involved with the amount of mudslinging you have done). The theory could be wrong and then it doesn't describe what happened correctly.
Yes you may ask. You will get no answer because it is not relevant to the discussion.
Your credentials however are because you used them as 'evidence' to prove you are right. The problem being that not provided a shred of this evidence and have been doing a lot of work (more then it would have cost you to admit you were lying or showing real evidence) at evading having to admit you were lying about having a title and doing research.
I'm in a magnanimous mood so I'll give you one more chance to admit you were lying. Or to show actual verifiable proof about your 'title' and 'research'.
Kseniya,
I think the analogy is on the right track...but a little misleading. I'll be brief. You saying that there may be a city over the hill is a very probable "hypothesis"...for cities exist throughout all parts of the world. However, it could be that you get to the top and see a river, an ocean, a small village or a teepee full Mel Gibson fans. My guess is that the Mel Gibson fan hypothesis would be a weaker, but still valid "hypothesis." This is because there are a lot more cities, rivers, villages known to exist over hills than teepee's full of Mel Gibson fans. However, I have come across such a site.
Although, to relate this fantasy back to Christian, he was positing something completely different. It would be like saying that there MAY be a flock of unicorns chowing on grass with Santa's reindeer. Why posit a hypothesis that has absolutely no experimental evidence or empirical claims. This is orders of magnitude weaker than even the Mel Gibson hypothesis. There could be anything over the hill...Right?
To push this a little farther, if the researcher climbed atop such a cliff and saw wild horses or whitetail deer grazing, he may be clouded by his previous eagerness and quickly attribute the animals to celestial beings.
I'm sorry...this has gone on longer than planned. I was just a little pushed back when Christian started talking about the creator and his intentions. I do enjoy the conversation though.
Also, Who Cares. I do side with you on a lot of your arguments. However, I think your feathers need to be brushed back into place. A lot of people like the anonymous forum for various reasons. All valid. People lying is one of the "costs" of anonymity. Take things with a grain of salt. You are a reasonable person, so I know you can make a rational judgement about an individual's credentials without having to know his/her social security number and resume. He could very easily come up with a name of a friend, collegue, random individual and claim to be him. So wanting proof of his claims simply pushes the validity of such claims into a different direction on a forum like this.
Lies that cause people to believe are moral. Therefore lying about one's education to make a religious point is moral. Creator God has so deemed. Nah, not God.
http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is simply not so. There really was a supernatural being in that ball of fire.
Moses struck a deal with it and was handsomely rewarded. He had been a spoiled palace brat but fell from grace when he did murder. At the time Moses made the deal with the being in the fire he was as low as one can get, a fugitive from justice in a foreign land eking out a living tending someone else's sheep. That deal turned Moses into the biggest shot in the history of the world, catapulted him to the leader, (king in any language) of the Chosen people of the being in the fire.
It is Devil and not Creator God that makes deals with murderers. Sale of soul to Devil brings the treasure of earth to the seller but only those who lead the multitudes to hell. Moses is one of the oldest recorded sellers of soul to Devil.
It's Devil, not God that the three great faiths, Jews, Christians and Muslims faith. No problem, Devil delivers the goodies but only to faith leaders. It's necessary to lie, say you faith God when it's really Devil to become a faith leader like Pat Robertson and rake in the big money.
Bill Hunt is wrong. The Bible is the word of Devil and not a hoax as he claims.
Way back in post #23, Siler said, "The Origin of Species summarized. The fit survive, the weak get the shaft."
This represents yet another grossly understood facet of evolutionary principles. The term "fit" in "survival of the fittest" does not necessarily mean "strong"; it means "best adapted to survive". This means that a weak, puny, clever runt might be better adapted for survival than a strong, stupid brute. Mammals were obviously "weaker" than dinosaurs, yet they outlasted them.
Whocares,
you continue to dig yourself into a hole. You keep confusing what happened at the big bang with what happenend after the bigbang (which just shows your superficial understanding of Quantum Cosmology).
In my posts, I used precise words "at/before" and not "after".
You are staying that I am a lier and that I know nothing about qantum cosmology.
I do think it is relevant that you answer what your credentials are in the matter. I already did, you do not believe me, fair enough. But in order for you to make the claim that you are qualified to judge what is the veracity of my claims, it would be useful to know if you have anything else but a very very superficial knowledge of the matter.
BTW Whocares, can you please pinpoint a statement that I made about quantum cosmology that is incorrect. One that must be so grossly incorect for you to be able to make statements such as, "you are a Liar", "you are pathetic, truly pathetic..." ,etc..
@Christian:
What was the name of your thesis with which you got your doctorate?
@Christian(#110):
Then prove it. All you need to do is grab the theory and show it instead of making unfounded claims. Currently your claims are worth less then the Greek drachma at the end of WW2.
And stop trying to shift the burden of proof on me. It is you who has to show that he knows what he's talking about since you claimed you know and since that time you have behaved yourself more slippery and dishonest then a greased snake oil salesman. The only thing you are doing now is showing that you have no clue about what you are talking about and are trying to weasel out of having to prove you do know by claiming that you will only show that you know if I know.
Why you are a lying imbecile? You conflate the inflation explanation within the big bang theory with the entire theory. Your precious quantum cosmology hypothesis only comes into view after the actual big bang has occurred but before the inflationary period starts.
@Christian(#111):
I called you a rotten weasel for lying about your education. And the way you have been trying to avoid actually providing evidence for this education you imagined you followed. You brought your fake education and non-existent research into this thread and when called on providing evidence for it all you have done follow the tactics of the usual christian dishonest apologist fundamentalist to evade having to admit you lied about those.
You have done name dropping and at most here and there regurgitate facts from a quantum cosmology for dummies page (like the first hit on google for "quantum cosmology"). That doesn't make you a researcher.
Do you know what happened this week back in 1850, 157 years ago?
California became a state. The state had no electricity. The state had no money. Almost everyone spoke Spanish. There were gunfights in the streets. So basically it was just like California is today, except the women had real breasts and the men didn't hold hands.