 |
| |
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:24
|
|
Heh I could have made a bet that this will be the fastest growing thread of the day 
However to get back to the point.
God.. unprovable, mthycal, infinite etc,...etc...
Science... logic, cause and effect... finite.. etc, etc...
These two should not be enemies, but as some scientists and people haven't found answers they were looking for in God they are trying to find the answer anywhere they can and that is trough science at the moment. (therefore scince might be the opium of the masses in the same way religion was before, or is still for many, heh)
That doesn't mean that God either exists or does not exist. And that does not mean that because fringe scientifical theories may be proven incorrect that there is a higher being, as we all agree (i hope).
and to go back to your introductary quote
quote:
I thought that was odd to readly except something that could not be seen.
Like GOD cannot see but know GOD exist by the influince on life.
|
The question is what are you really looking for?
if you are looking for how come scientific ideas can be similar in the amount of observable information to the amount of observable information about the idea of God.
Believe the "balck hole" - well there is scientific evidence for it at present.
Believe that God has influence on your life - well there is evidence for you to think so. How could someone else persuede you that this is not true, you live your own life, they don't.
One is a preceived natural phenomenon and the other one is your life. Different rules apply. We could all percieve what is known about "black holes" in the same way (hopefully  ) , but there is no way of looking into a persons life and saying "God was there", or just boldly proclaiming "there is no God". "There is no God" mainly means there is no God for me. I don't see it. If everyone stops seeing him/it, well there will not be this debate anymore.
And there should be no confrontation, science can be debated and it can ask for the underlying logic to come back to the same conclusion over and over (fromthe present pool of understood information), personal faith cannot be taken in the same regard, as it lack the "it will happen to you too factor", even though that does not mean that personal faith is not true.
However one can take a look into history and denounce religious teachings/ creationism/ etc on the basis of what science has proven wrong already from the available pool of information. However this does not have anything with the existance of God. That is still on personal level.
And so be it. (etc... one can always argue about one thing or the other, one could say that Creationism is true just that the amount of available information is not complete and that from the present position we were mislead, but why would one believe this person, until the information that he claims exists is proven to be true? )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:24
|
|
1. Black holes can be seen, in that electromagnetic radiation can indicate where it is. I believe you're mis-interpreting what the guy you saw on the TV said (or he was full of crap). If the black hole is large, a whole lot of gas is orbiting it. Due to the large gravitational field, usually this gas is extremely hot, so emits plenty of blackbody radiation mostly in the high energy x-ray range, though some of it is in the visible range. Furthermore, due to pair production of photons out of a vacuum at the event horizon (Hawking Radiation), the black hole radiates its gravitational energy.
2. Yes, I'm relying on faith. I'm relying on faith that my vision, hearing, etc. is actually giving me information corresponding to the real world. I'm relying on faith that there isn't a huge conspiracy in the scientific community that is passing bullshit information to undergrad students and the general public. I'm relying on faith that all the equipment relevant to determining this information hadn't suddenly become damaged prior to the observations (and it has been confirmed quite a bit, so that'd be damn impressive were this a false premise). I'm relying on faith in that our scientific theories are valid, but they are regularly tested through observation by the scientific community, so this would also be impressive were this assumption wrong in fundamental ways. It's just that these assumptions are much more reasonable than there being a magical omnipotent being controlling the universe.
Scientists are able to confirm or refute any observations and theories dealing with the physical world (and regularly do so), while the same is not true for mystics in dealing with the metaphysical world.
Last edited by Ramo on 13-12-2002 at 01:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
matter cannot occupy the same space twice? or what ever it is, I understand. |
I don't know what if this is what you're referring, but no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state. This is called the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and the pressures arising from it, electron and neutron degeneracy pressures, come into play in holding up white dwarfs and neutron stars, while plays lesser roles in holding up less dense stars. In the case of the black hole, the gravitational field is so strong, it overwhelms the pressure arising from this phenomenon.
quote:
So all this matter is being compressed into tinyness?
I think that there is something going on here that is not known or cannot be explained as of yet. |
Let's say you look at the sun. You've got a relatively large gravitaitonal field that's pulling matter towards its center. What's holding it up? Doesn't it "make sense" that it should just collapse into something infinitesimally small, that the sun should compress to a tiny dot? Think about it for a minute.
The pressures that hold up stars like the sun up are not relevant as they become more and more dense due to increases in gravity. Eventually, there aren't any pressures able to hold up the star when it collapses to a black hole.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:24
|
|
Excellent thread  , proof positive that constructive discussion arises in the OT
GSmoove- I'll try to answer your questions by refuting Boris when he says that there is no proof of a magical God.
Starting from the Gospel of John:
24 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.
25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"
27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Jesus does not say that one must believe in Him without checking the evidence, but rather challenges Thomas to use his hands and test for himself.
However, we do not have the luxury of a physical encounter with the Lord, as Thomas and the rest of the Apostles had. Instead, there are 2 ways in which God reveals Himself to man today, through General Revelation and Special Revelation.
General Revelation is the evidence of our senses, uncovered through scientific inquiry and our own experiences. One testimony, is the necessary conditions to produce life here on Earth. These conditions include, among many others, the strength of the Earth's magnetic field, the distance from the Sun, the composition of the atmosphere, the tilt of the Earth's axis producing seasons. Even the ratio of the 4 fundamental forces, if altered slightly, can prevent higher lifeforms from developing, or the formation of the Earth.
Your own experiences, your longing for something beyond the ordinary is also part of General Revelation. If we did not long, would we look? We know that we need something, and we know something is out there, but we do not know what it is, or where we can find it.
The purpose of Special Revelation is to fill this need, to teach us about the nature of God. We cannot find this anywhere else. Special Revelation consists of the inspired books of the Bible, and for the person of Jesus Christ, the Gospels.
For those who doubt, again we are encouraged to test. The Bible is a more reliable document than any other historical record of its time period, because there are more and older copies preserved. Even the exploits of Caesar were recorded around 80 years after they occurred, compared to the Gospels, which were written between 30-50 years after the death of Christ.
The Gospels contain much more evidence than I can post here as to the existence of God through the person of Jesus Christ. Gsmoove, if you are sincere as to your desire, look here. You will find the answers you are looking for.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Excellent thread , proof positive that constructive discussion arises in the OT
GSmoove- I'll try to answer your questions by refuting Boris when he says that there is no proof of a magical God.
. |
Uh, ok...where was the proof?
Quoting the Bible doesn't prove anything. There is no scientific evidence of God's existence, and science flatly contradicts the Bible in numerous circumstances. It has, in fact, proven that the Bible cannot be taken literally.
The Bible is remarkably unsubstantiated in many regards. It is a good source of some history, but any of that history is verfied by other documentary sources from the period. Any of it that isn't substantiated by such is questionable. At any rate, there is nothing in the annals of history/archaeology/anthropology/biology/physics/etc. that proves the existence of God. Substantiating a historical event in the Bible doesn't prove God exists. It only shows the event happened, and someone wrote it down and maybe ascribed some divine meaning to it. Who knows?
quote:
General Revelation is the evidence of our senses, uncovered through scientific inquiry and our own experiences. One testimony, is the necessary conditions to produce life here on Earth. These conditions include, among many others, the strength of the Earth's magnetic field, the distance from the Sun, the composition of the atmosphere, the tilt of the Earth's axis producing seasons. Even the ratio of the 4 fundamental forces, if altered slightly, can prevent higher lifeforms from developing, or the formation of the Earth. |
Doesn't prove a thing, I'm afraid. You seem to be saying the odds of the Earth even existing are small, therefore there must be a God. That's a huge logical fallacy. Especially since, given the absolute vastness of the universe, the odds really are 100% that such conditions would exist to create what his here today. Our very existence is proof it is possible. It is not proof it was wrought divinely.
quote:
Your own experiences, your longing for something beyond the ordinary is also part of General Revelation. If we did not long, would we look? We know that we need something, and we know something is out there, but we do not know what it is, or where we can find it.
The purpose of Special Revelation is to fill this need, to teach us about the nature of God. We cannot find this anywhere else. Special Revelation consists of the inspired books of the Bible, and for the person of Jesus Christ, the Gospels. |
Again, this proves nothing. Intellectual curiousity or desire for spiritual fulfillment is not proof of God. Neither is a real sense of "My heart tells me I'm right, so it must be so!" As I mentioned, people of all religions and spiritualities say this, as to many atheists. They can't all be right. To say one is absolutely right, the others all wrong, in the face of no evidence to support it is arrogance.
If you feel moved by the Bible and want to make it an example for your life, that's fine. Please do what you feel is right. But don't pretend it's evidence of anything it is not. It is only evidence that you have faith in one of the thousands of spiritual paths.
More importantly, leave it out of science.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zkribbler
|
 |
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Feb 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
A brief explanation of black holes.
Singularities
When the sun burns out, it will turn into a ball of nuclear ash. A black dwarf. No biggie...a hazard to interstellar travel is all.
But, if the sun was twice as big as it is (2 solar masses), when it burnt out, the strength of its gravitational pull would be enough to drive the electrons into their nuclei, where they would combine with protons to form neutrons. Presto, a neutron star (aka pulsar).
But, if the sun were 3 solar masses, the collapse would continue as the very matter of the star was driven into itself and the star would shrink down until it measures 0 x 0 x 0. A singularity. Lots of mass, no volume.
Event horizons
One thing Einstein realized about gravity is that it works exactly like accelleration. If you're in a closed room, you can do no experiment by which you could tell if you were held to the floor because of gravity or because the room was accellerating upwards.
Because a singularity is an infinitely dense structure, its gravitation field is immense. The pull of its gravity exceeds the speed of light. Thus, if you were in the vicinity of a singularity with a flashlight, pointed the flashlight away from the singularity, and turned the flashlight on, the light from the flashlight would fall back into the singularity.
As you travel farther away from the black hole, the pull of gravity decreases. At some distance, the pull of gravity exactly equals to speed of light. This distance is the same in every direction from the singularity, i.e. it mathematically forms a "sphere" around the singularity. The light from any event which happens within this sphere will not escape. It is below the "event horizon." Events which happen above the event horizon will be seen because light can escape.
(The above explanation is an oversimplification, but it explains things to people who don't know what these terms mean.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
General Revelation is the evidence of our senses, uncovered through scientific inquiry and our own experiences. One testimony, is the necessary conditions to produce life here on Earth. These conditions include, among many others, the strength of the Earth's magnetic field, the distance from the Sun, the composition of the atmosphere, the tilt of the Earth's axis producing seasons. Even the ratio of the 4 fundamental forces, if altered slightly, can prevent higher lifeforms from developing, or the formation of the Earth. |
That's the strong Anthropic Principle, which doesn't prove anything. We exist, therefore the condition here must be conducive to our existence. D'oh.
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Your own experiences, your longing for something beyond the ordinary is also part of General Revelation. If we did not long, would we look? We know that we need something, and we know something is out there, but we do not know what it is, or where we can find it. |
Suppose this is true. This does not lend more weight to Christianity than to Bob, the Giant Banana, the 10-foot Hare, Umguf the Invisible Pink Unicorn with Purple Polka Dots, Zeus, Odin, Ra, the Celestial Emperor, and a whole host of other gods.
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
The purpose of Special Revelation is to fill this need, to teach us about the nature of God. We cannot find this anywhere else. Special Revelation consists of the inspired books of the Bible, and for the person of Jesus Christ, the Gospels. |
Just to let you know that the bible was compiled by the Church in 397 CE (IIRC). There are some differences between Catholic and Protestant bibles. Why? Why, for example, that the Gospel of Thomas isn't included?
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
For those who doubt, again we are encouraged to test. The Bible is a more reliable document than any other historical record of its time period, because there are more and older copies preserved. |
Which time period? The OT or the NT? Clearly the New Testament has no historical significance. Just because a book is textually accurate doesn't mean it is also factually accurate.
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Even the exploits of Caesar were recorded around 80 years after they occurred, compared to the Gospels, which were written between 30-50 years after the death of Christ. |
You are assuming there was a Jesus of Nazareth. The internal consistencies of the bible, particularly the inconsistencies among the Sypnotic Gospels, and between the Sypnotic Gospels and Paul's writings, cast some serious doubts on this point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:24
|
|
You seem to be saying the odds of the Earth even existing are small, therefore there must be a God. That's a huge logical fallacy.
-Boris
General Revelation does not prove that God exists. Nowhere do I say this. Ascribing the creation of the Earth to chance is like a poker game with 5 straight royal flushes off the draw. Either you are just extremely lucky or cheating. If you were the other player what would you assume? That 5 royal flushes is just luck?
"Clearly the New Testament has no historical significance"
Urban Ranger
My intention to defend the historical accuracy of the Gospels is not to say that the Gospels are the true account. All I said is that the Gospels are just as accurate if not more than any other historical records we have. To reject the Gospels without examining them, you must reject all history that we have. Are you willing to do this? Examine the Gospels, and then we can hash out whether this is a valid account.
"Suppose this is true. This does not lend more weight to Christianity than to Bob, the Giant Banana, the 10-foot Hare, Umguf the Invisible Pink Unicorn with Purple Polka Dots, Zeus, Odin, Ra, the Celestial Emperor, and a whole host of other gods. "
Urban Ranger
General revelation will not get you to Christianity. Nowhere do I say this. Only the Gospels will do so. All of these other gods are an attempt to fill this spiritual void.
"There are some differences between Catholic and Protestant bibles. Why? Why, for example, that the Gospel of Thomas isn't included?"
-Urban Ranger
This issue is with inspiration. Catholics believe that the OT Apocryphal books are inspired, while Protestants believe that they are not. The Gospel of Thomas is not considered to be inspired by either. ALL Christian denominations believe that the Gospels are inspired, and those are the only books under question.
"The internal consistencies of the bible, particularly the inconsistencies among the Sypnotic Gospels, and between the Sypnotic Gospels and Paul's writings, cast some serious doubts on this point."
Where, what passages, etc. I am perfectly willing to hash out these inconsistencies. Show me which ones are problematic fo you.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-12-2002 00:15
That's an interesting combination of words... 
|
|