User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 110

  1. #61
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524
    Quote Originally Posted by bedeviled1 View Post
    To me its hard to dismiss the Bible completely.
    Christmas for instance has shaped Western Civilization. The image of the mother and child is in sharp contrast to the images of Islam or Hinduism or Confucianism or ancient Greek religion.

    And the mother is the Mother of God. We named our great cathedrals after her, like Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris ( the Cathedral of Our Lady).

    And even the great Statue of Liberty in Protestant USA, mocks Our Lady, the mother of God, who we meet every christmas in the manger in Bethlehem.

    So why do the Protestants of the USA mock the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God? They mock her because her very words burn and condemn them, so who can blame them?

    Mary says -

    "My soul magnifies the Lord
    And my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour
    For he that is might has done great things for me
    He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts
    And the rich he has sent empty away."


    And while the Mother of God is telling us that God has sent the rich empty away, the Protestants of the USA are telling us that money is proof of God's favour.

  2. #62
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524
    Quote Originally Posted by bedeviled1 View Post
    we can only describe it as fact. so its fact, right? no. There are other words that would be accurate, fact aint one of them. If quantum physics was fact we would cease to spend billions of dollars to prove it and feed the world.
    We will always be exploring the quantum, the smallest anything can be, however if anything is factual it is now quantum mechanics.

  3. #63
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bedeviled1 View Post
    To me its hard to dismiss the Bible completely. A lot of people believe that many of the historical facts have been confirmed by other historians so it doesnt change anything whether i believe it or not.
    it's probably not as clear-cut as you think -- for example, a lot of the early archaeological "proof" (in the first half of the 20th century was actually handled in reverse... people were assuming the Bible was true and using it to interpret the artifacts being uncovered. There's a lot of argument over what "proof" there is in the last 70 years, to confirm any of the Biblical record. People agree there was a Jesus, but we don't have a lot of outside corroboration over details of Jesus' life, for example, except that he was put to death by the Romans. There have been some HUGE questions raised about the reign of David and the Biblical account from that time and earlier.

    Me, Im just saying I cant put my trust completely in the hands of scientists. i will try to look at the evidence objectively but as for now I think theres too many links, each one depending on the other to say what happened a billion years ago. common sense says you can only theorize and guess that it happened. maybe it did, maybe not.
    I don't think anyone is asking you to "put your trust completely in the hands of scientists." You can trust the process, though. Even when there have been wrong assumptions on the part of human beings about how things work in the world, these things are constantly being challenged, corrected, and revised. So you never know if something is 100% accurate, but you can at least trust that if something is wrong and more information is uncovered, the idea is going to be revised eventually. Religion is a different process -- you start with the answers ("here is what is true") and then you have faith in it regardless of evidence, although perhaps you can assume you misunderstood a tenet of the faith if you seem to be REALLY wrong for a long period of time.

    Quote Originally Posted by bedeviled1 View Post
    we can only describe it as fact. so its fact, right? no. There are other words that would be accurate, fact aint one of them. If quantum physics was fact we would cease to spend billions of dollars to prove it and feed the world.
    Maybe this brief overview will be helpful. For example, GPS is a technology that depends on quantum mechanics to work. A lot of modern tech functions because of the implementation of quantum principles. So sorry, it's being used everywhere and people ARE making lots of money on it. You can trust it works at least as far as technology is working today.

    http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2...body-should-k/
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #64
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bedeviled1 View Post
    we can only describe it as fact. so its fact, right? no. There are other words that would be accurate, fact aint one of them. If quantum physics was fact we would cease to spend billions of dollars to prove it and feed the world.
    They aren't trying to prove anything much now. It pretty much is fact, presuming that we can know what a fact is.

    Research is being done on a few things:

    1. Why does this do what it does?
    2. What else does this do that we don't know about yet?
    3. Can there be any unified theories? Why doesn't the math always line up?

    I've got a USB thumb drive right here that uses quantum tunneling. Hard to get more 'fact' than that.

  5. #65
    Senior Member bedeviled1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    We will always be exploring the quantum, the smallest anything can be, however if anything is factual it is now quantum mechanics.
    I misspoke. what I meant was that quantum theory has not proven The Big Bang. What has been proven is fact but other things are still theoretical. It seems there is still a "leap" of faith in it all.
    When I read Darwins Origin of The Species I see that he made reference to not knowing how it began but today evolution is being used as an opposite to Creation. Maybe evolution is valid because its an ongoing process but to say something proves how it all began and when? I cant say that does it for me.
    "May you live all the days of your life"

  6. #66
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bedeviled1 View Post
    What I wondered was what does NASA have to do with it. Better yet , can NASA take the role as predicting our future and can we trust them to do so?
    This question doesn't make much sense. You're better off just asking a general question about the relationship between science and religion.

    The validity or non-validity of the Mayan calendar has little to do with NASA. The Mayan calendar is simply the measurement of time used by the Mayans, and IIRC has been calculated by astronomers to be rather accurate. NASA could comment on the accuracy of the Mayan calendar, but that doesn't really say much either. All that really happened on December 21 is a new cycle in the calendar begun. The whole doomsday notion is largely a gross misinterpretation of a hypothetical interpretation given by a scholar in the 1960s which has since been thoroughly challenged and refuted by many Mayan scholars since.

    Now in the last few years, many doomsayers were trying to conjure up different ideas of how the end of the world would come: from Planet X, to massive solar flares, magnetic pole shifts, etc. NASA can and has thoroughly debunked those theories as not being remotely possible or not that much of a big deal. NASA does have competence to comment on such issues. This is not the same as predicting the future per se, and certainly not in the sense in regards to religious prophecies and eschatology.

  7. #67
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bedeviled1 View Post
    I misspoke. what I meant was that quantum theory has not proven The Big Bang. What has been proven is fact but other things are still theoretical. It seems there is still a "leap" of faith in it all.
    When I read Darwins Origin of The Species I see that he made reference to not knowing how it began but today evolution is being used as an opposite to Creation. Maybe evolution is valid because its an ongoing process but to say something proves how it all began and when? I cant say that does it for me.
    What is fascinating is the cosmological constant. Time and space expand in opposition to the pull of gravity. And time and space are now expanding at an accelerating rate.

    And as the accelerating expansion of time and space is not limited by relativity, they can and do expand faster than the speed of light.

    So if God created our universe with his foot on the accelerator, I think we should ask why.

  8. #68
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    This question doesn't make much sense. You're better off just asking a general question about the relationship between science and religion.

    The validity or non-validity of the Mayan calendar has little to do with NASA. The Mayan calendar is simply the measurement of time used by the Mayans, and IIRC has been calculated by astronomers to be rather accurate. NASA could comment on the accuracy of the Mayan calendar, but that doesn't really say much either. All that really happened on December 21 is a new cycle in the calendar begun. The whole doomsday notion is largely a gross misinterpretation of a hypothetical interpretation given by a scholar in the 1960s which has since been thoroughly challenged and refuted by many Mayan scholars since.

    Now in the last few years, many doomsayers were trying to conjure up different ideas of how the end of the world would come: from Planet X, to massive solar flares, magnetic pole shifts, etc. NASA can and has thoroughly debunked those theories as not being remotely possible or not that much of a big deal. NASA does have competence to comment on such issues. This is not the same as predicting the future per se, and certainly not in the sense in regards to religious prophecies and eschatology.
    I cracked up when somebody was yelling about an alignment between the sun and a black hole in the center of the galaxy, claiming that this was proof of the end and it would destroy us.

    Somebody had to say "Yeah. That alignment is actually going to happen. It happens every year and has happened millions of times before you ever even heard of it."

  9. #69
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    I cracked up when somebody was yelling about an alignment between the sun and a black hole in the center of the galaxy, claiming that this was proof of the end and it would destroy us.

    Somebody had to say "Yeah. That alignment is actually going to happen. It happens every year and has happened millions of times before you ever even heard of it."
    I think you're referring to this

  10. #70
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    However, I was reminded that science used to have a much broader meaning than dealing with materialism. In fact I'm quite a fan of the old "queen of the sciences."
    Indeed, science was largely defined as the pursuit of truth. Theology was considered the queen of the sciences because it dealt with the Absolute, which everything else depends upon. Science as we would recognize it today was dealt with under Natural Philosophy. The basic correlation being that different sciences had to deal with different aspects and levels of reality. Theology deals with the highest levels, "science" as we know it deals with the lowest levels.


Similar Threads

  1. The Bible has credibility even among athiests? Hell idk
    By professor goodstain in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-20-2009, 12:17 AM
  2. 'The Bible is no longer considered part of the conversation'
    By Sniffles in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 172
    Last Post: 04-17-2009, 08:36 AM
  3. How literally should the Bible be interpreted?
    By Kiddo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 130
    Last Post: 02-02-2008, 07:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO