30 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AvinashTyagiBesides the fact that the Cyclic model of Steinhardt and Turok is a highly controversial one within the physicist community, you're still only claiming that these sections and passages exist -- you haven't shown them yet.
Like I said, there are sections which refer to there being an infinite number of universes that are born and then over time die to be replaced by new universes, very similar to Brane cosmology and the cyclic theory.
You get passages talking of species of creatures changing over time in appearance, obviously evolution, and evidence of early man referr ...[text shortened]... ook at the Schroedengers cat paradox. Heck there is references to Atoms and Subatomic particles
EDIT: Don't take my aggressive style personally (since you're not no1marauder). I'm just pointing out that your argument is incomplete in its present form.
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt may be controversial, but heck so much in modern physics is still theoretical, we still haven't confirmed the existence of Superstrings/Branes
Besides the fact that the Cyclic model of Steinhardt and Turok is a highly controversial one within the physicist community, you're still only claiming that these sections and passages exist -- you haven't shown them yet.
EDIT: Don't take my aggressive style personally (since you're not no1marauder). I'm just pointing out that your argument is incomplete in its present form.
No I know I haven't shown the passages, i've read them in the past but I don't have them on me to show (if I can find them online I'll post them later), so I know my argument is incomplete, and don't worry I don't take it personally as long as you don't launch personal insults.
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by AvinashTyagiIt's worse than that. Several aspects of superstrings/branes cannot be empirically verified which means that, strictly speaking, these are not scientific theories.
It may be controversial, but heck so much in modern physics is still theoretical, we still haven't confirmed the existence of Superstrings/Branes
30 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerAs you well know, the dating of the Gospels are imprecise. And you have claimed that other writings like those of Josephus and Tacitus written a "Half century after the Gospels" as proof of Jesus' existence. Now hypocritically you are suggesting that writings written around the same time are now totally useless in determining the exact same question!
And you're not being disingenuous in ignoring that these "early Gospels" were written at least half a century (if not more) after the canonical ones (a point that is relevant when we're talking historicity)? Or that the ones "[denying] Jesus'[sic] divinity" actually still maintain that Jesus was divine (i.e. as the Logos), just of a lower order ...[text shortened]... Father?
And which one specifically denies that Jesus existed in flesh and blood form?
The "divinity" point is semantic nitpicking. They deny Jesus was God, period (everything is "divine" according to some early Christian writings).
I don't exactly remember, though I have read some. I'll try to locate them, though it's surely a waste of time unless you are denying their existence.
EDIT: Ignatius was writing against the "heresy" of Docetism by 100 AD wasn't he?
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerWell we might be able to verify the existence of Supersymmetric partners with the Hadron Collider
It's worse than that. Several aspects of superstrings/branes cannot be empirically verified which means that, strictly speaking, these are not scientific theories.
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by KellyJayWell any God could be real, including the FSM. Either
Well that takes this discussion away from man's beliefs and goes
strait to the question is God real or not, and if so which one. I would
argue that the God of the Bible could be real, but that would still not
mean that everyone who claims to be a Christian is getting it right
when they define Him.
Kelly
1 There are no Gods and all religions are wrong
2 There are Gods but no human religion is anywhere near the truth
3 There are Gods and some religions are closer to the truth than others (they're all still wrong though because they all claim to be right!)
4 There are Gods and one of our religions is True.
Assuming that theists position is 3 or 4 (mine is 1 or possibly 2), they must have reasons for believing that their religion is the closest to the truth. If they thought otherwise they would change religions. So I'd just like to know your reasons for believing that your religion is the most true.
--- Penguin.
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAs you well know, the dating of the Gospels are imprecise.
As you well know, the dating of the Gospels are imprecise. And you have claimed that other writings like those of Josephus and Tacitus written a "Half century after the Gospels" as proof of Jesus' existence. Now hypocritically you are suggesting that writings written around the same time are now totally useless in determining the exact same question!
...[text shortened]...
EDIT: Ignatius was writing against the "heresy" of Docetism by 100 AD wasn't he?
I was using the conservative estimates.
And you have claimed that other writings like those of Josephus and Tacitus written a "Half century after the Gospels" as proof of Jesus' existence.
Different kind of literature.
Now hypocritically you are suggesting that writings written around the same time are now totally useless in determining the exact same question!
Nothing hypocritical about it. Different genres of literature have different weightage when it comes to evaluating historicity.
The "divinity" point is semantic nitpicking.
Not at all. If you asked an Arian whether Jesus was "divine", he would say yes. If you asked him whether Jesus was God, he would say no.
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by AvinashTyagiThe problem is that as new theories are developed and old ones are discarded the passages in the Bible will magically take on new meaning or be revealed as never meaning that at all.
It may be controversial, but heck so much in modern physics is still theoretical, we still haven't confirmed the existence of Superstrings/Branes
No I know I haven't shown the passages, i've read them in the past but I don't have them on me to show (if I can find them online I'll post them later), so I know my argument is incomplete, and don't worry I don't take it personally as long as you don't launch personal insults.
Unless you can present passages with significantly specific and indisputable meaning in the oldest known version of the text then there is no reason to assume that any similarity to a scientific theory is anything other than coincidence.
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe isn't talking about the Bible. He's talking about the Vedas and Upanishads.
The problem is that as new theories are developed and old ones are discarded the passages in the Bible will magically take on new meaning or be revealed as never meaning that at all.
Unless you can present passages with significantly specific and indisputable meaning in the oldest known version of the text then there is no reason to assume that any similarity to a scientific theory is anything other than coincidence.
Does that change your argument?
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't see why religious doctrine, the interpretation and application of religious texts to daily practice, shouldn't be as flexible as scientific thought in order to serve the communities that use them to order their lives. Religion should serve humanity, not vice-versa, and the same goes for science.
The problem is that as new theories are developed and old ones are discarded the passages in the Bible will magically take on new meaning or be revealed as never meaning that at all.
Unless you can present passages with significantly specific and indisputable meaning in the oldest known version of the text then there is no reason to assume that any similarity to a scientific theory is anything other than coincidence.
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHow can communities order their lives by religion if all tenets of that religion are up for a popular vote?
I don't see why religious doctrine, the interpretation and application of religious texts to daily practice, shouldn't be as flexible as scientific thought in order to serve the communities that use them to order their lives. Religion should serve humanity, not vice-versa, and the same goes for science.