BS: Alternative to Science??

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 07:41 PM

Well done GfS! The first post by you since you started to post gibberish that is one hundred percent aaccurate and provable.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 09:45 PM

Pete... yes, Newton presupposing a creator WAS acting unscientifically. The same can be said about Descartes, who did presuppose one in order try to construct a logical proof.

And yes.. presupposing NO creator is also an error of sorts, but of a different type. It is a logical error, since one cannot prove a negative. Any good scientist merely shrugs and says "I see no compelling evidence for a sentient creator."

"...the obvious ie that anything that comes into existence must have a sufficient cause."

Umm... at the point of the consideration of an absolute, ultimate '1st cause', that 'obvious' point gets a bit shaky. What you get is a logical "infinite regress" as the idea of causes of causes of causes gets to be a blur. Simply stating that "God WAS the first" doesn't solve it. That answer may 'satisfy' some people, but IF the rule about sufficient cause is correct, then even a god must have a cause. In a pure absence of anything, why would there BE a god?
   We simply can't reasonably make claims about it all. Even physicists and astronomers are merely guessing as they try to imagine a scientific way to approach the "beginning".

And, sure... Jewish scribes were mostly pretty careful... *smile*... at copying what they were told. Not only that, but those differences were NOT all "mostly minor". There are errors in translation that cast doubt on even what the original written accounts TRIED to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 09:51 PM

Well, blind bible-basher pete, Newton was one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, but he went to his grave still nurturing a lifelong belief in alchemy. Would you care to use that as justification for your "case" as well? Huh? Or is this just another example of your ignorant cherry-picking?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 10:08 PM

...and I'm sure with your infinite wisdom, and knowledge, you have deemed him, by judgement, to be, one of the greatest scientists ever...., as if you, with your infinite wisdom, and knowledge, were capable of that judgement....or did you read it somewhere?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 06:16 AM

Yeah, The News of The World editors were careful too...

The bible contains magic reported as fact.

Not a good basis with which to question reality now, is it?

A comfort blanket maybe, but as an alternative to science in the same way a priest is an alternative to a baby sitter.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 06:47 AM

Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived. His monograph Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published in 1687, laid the foundations for most of classical mechanics. In this work, Newton described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, which dominated the scientific view of the physical universe for the next three centuries. Newton showed that the motion of objects on Earth and that of celestial bodies is governed by the same set of natural laws: by demonstrating the consistency between Kepler's laws of planetary motion and his theory of gravitation he removed the last doubts about heliocentrism and advanced the scientific revolution. The Principia is generally considered to be one of the most important scientific books ever written, both due to the specific physical laws the work successfully described, and for its style, which assisted in setting standards for scientific publication down to the present time.
Newton built the first practical reflecting telescope and developed a theory of colour based on the observation that a prism decomposes white light into the many colours that form the visible spectrum. He also formulated an empirical law of cooling and studied the speed of sound. In mathematics, Newton shares the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of differential and integral calculus. He generalised the binomial theorem to non-integer exponents, developed Newton's method for approximating the roots of a function, and contributed to the study of power series.

I don't normally see much need to respond to your posts, Goofus, as you're such a cock, but in this instance I thought I'd (admittedly idly: one's time can so easily evaporate, arguing in the presence of such intransigent and capricious eejits as your good self) just paste this opening section of the wiki entry on Newton. Now if you see anything there that diminishes the almost-undisputed (except, apparently, by "Guffo-the-Cock") reputation of Newton as one of the most important and pivotal figures in the history of science, then let's be having it, old chum.

As it appears to be your wont to contradict everything I say, let me put this to you in an effort to tempt you into continuing the practice: "Guffo is not a prize cock".

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 07:15 AM

Of course, bringing The Principia into the equation can be interesting to the real debate this thread was supposed to promote..

Newton's conclusions, laws and rationale worked for a long time, and if the observable universe were our only reference, still would. However, despite this work being every bit as important to human history as the bible, it has one small difference...

It is OK to refine it, dispute it, debate it or even dismiss it. (I came close in my PhD viva, my subject being mechanical vibration. The look on the face of one prof. made me back track slightly though. Perhaps there is something holy about the rudy thing after all?)

No, really. it is ok. There is nothing revered in it, nothing that Newton, despite his alleged pomposity, would have objected to. In fact, the preface by Halley invites just that.

The upshot being that once it became obvious that the quantum level put physics on a different footing and all bets were off, observable physics became known as Newtonian or classic physics.

Biblical teachings however suggest that only the observable exists, otherwise it would have reference to the building blocks of life rather than jealous gods and brimstone. As nobody who wrote the various bits had seen much further than The Roman Empire, that tends to make it at best an unreliable witness. Where is the information on quarks? Why do we have to name Higgs Boson after two c20 scientists if the bible could have come up with a name for it? After all, it is the one thing that could even begin to make Genesis any more than fantasy?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 11:18 AM

OK..you answered it...you read it.

Another parrot.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 01:57 PM

"That answer may 'satisfy' some people, but IF the rule about sufficient cause is correct, then even a god must have a cause. In a pure absence of anything, why would there BE a god?"

I think we've been here before. pete, the brainwashed fundamentalist, wriggles out of that one by telling us that such a question is "meaningless". Slimy, dishonest, pious tosh, of course; it's the massive flaw in his flimsy edifice!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 02:18 PM

One for Mr Spaceman ... sorry, GfS!

"The fact remains, we can, and do 'plug into' something higher....when it happens, however it happens, and you know that's what happened...listen up and pay attention...Fair enough?"

Right, GfS, I think it's high time that you revealed, in detail, the sorts of insights/experiences/orgasms that you've had when you've 'plugged in' to la la land!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 03:36 PM

bill-as shimrod says,we have been here before and as a former methodist [assuming you got some theology] will know that God does not live in our time/space /matter parameters but is eternal,spiritual,supernatural and to ask who created Him is an illogical question akin to asking "to whom is the batchelor married?"
everything that HAS A BEGINNING must have a sufficient cause.moreover that cause cannot be part of the creation or we would be talking of an infinite regression . the theist position does give an explanation that is at least logical.compare that to the atheist position that ultimately amounts to something arising from nothing,no matter how you dress it up.
perhaps you could elucidate as to what these "not minor" translations are that cast doubt on the accuracy of the many mss in establishing a good reading of the original autographs?.i do know that the nt at least is plentifully attested by many and early ms and that parts of th ot were essentially valdated for authenticity by qumran discoveries.pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 04:17 PM

I'd LOVE to.....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 05:40 PM

"God does not live in our time/space /matter parameters but is eternal,spiritual,supernatural ..."

OK, pete, where in the Bible does it say that?

And GfS, just f***ing get on with it! Convince me with specific examples, from your own experience, of contact with the f***ing numinous.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 06:02 PM

If Goofus told me it was raining I'd look out the window before agreeing.

The only poster to this forum ever to achieve negative credibility.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 06:21 PM

Ah, pete... I "got some theology" from many sources, including a college course on comparative religion. I have attended services in High Episcopalian church, Southern Baptist "Holy Roller" congregations, and Catholic Mass. I have driven cross-country with 7 Presbyterian ministers, discussing all sorts of religious ideas. This in addition to all those courses in logic & Philosophy where we dissected most ideas about theology as well as within theology.

What I have learned is that you must be careful how you state claims about religious concepts. You assert something about "God" that internally assumes what you wish to claim.."God does not live in our time/space /matter parameters but is eternal,spiritual,supernatural..., etc... is what is in question! You don't prove it by asserting it. (and it is not in the same logical category as clever conundrums about 'married bachelors'.)

As to errors in translation in older MS (and even outright intentionally alterations) one only need search Google for biblical translation errors. There are various sites...some by serious scholars who are actually Christians who want to know exactly what the basic MS said... and whether they disagree... as they sometimes do.

One random example http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm (Do note their explanation below about why 'forgeries' meant something entirely different in the centuries just after the Christian era began)

So, Pete...there is SO much to consider when trying to evaluate the myriad of ideas about creation and God/gods, and because there are dozens, if not hundreds, of variations thru human history, MY explorations in theology have led me to just be skeptical of all of them.
I can't prove them wrong... but the rule is, if proof is needed, it is the place of those who make the claim to provide the proof.....and... since certain things cannot be proved, they are just reduced to choosing one and belief in it. Then... *sigh*.. the debate turns to whether YOUR belief conflicts with HIS belief... and how to keep both--or all 637 sides-- from fighting about it.

It's all kinda complicated, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 06:24 PM

But... for a few specific examples of translation errors, just make the point: from this page More detail there.

"In the original Hebrew, the 10th Commandment prohibits taking, not coveting. The biblical Jubilee year is named for an animal's horn and has nothing to do with jubilation. The pregnant woman in Isaiah 7:14 is never called a virgin. Psalm 23 opens with an image of God's might and power, not shepherding. And the romantic Song of Solomon offers a surprisingly modern message."

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 04:53 AM

Translation errors, same as borrowing other religions' fantasies, are all well and good and fascinating in their own right, especially in context of how much civilisations have risen and fell under the banner of interpretation of God.

However, no matter what was originally written, the point still remains that ascribing supernatural powers to people and claiming an invisible sentient being is orchestrating the moves of humans, on the basis of us being "in his image" is still fantasy and has no foundation other than heritage of believing it so.

Which doesn't, cannot and will not make it an alternative to seeking to know what makes a clock tick, or science as it is known.

Out of interest, I have no issue with indulging people and using a word to describe what science hasn't got to the bottom of yet, and if we call that word "God" then it has the convenience of a universally accepted word, and for those steeped in reality, it has the novel effect of shrinking and describing less with time. In the same way as proclaimed faith is shrinking at about the same rate.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 10:45 AM

Wait a minute.

If there's no God, then there's no paradisal reward for good people who think like me, and no punishment for bad people of the sort I hate.

Everybody will just be dead.

How fair is that?

(Theoretically there could be a fabulous afterlife for everybody even without a God, but that belief, as unfounded as any other, isn't very popular - not even among Buddhists.)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 11:05 AM

The worst thing, for skeptics like me, is that IF we are right about doubting an afterlife, WE don't get to say "I told you so!".

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 11:12 AM

As for married batchelors, well I'm one (BSc in Electrical Engineering if you must know), so the answer to where they live is here. Hey, you say, you changed the meaning of "batchelor" from the one in the question... no I didn't- ******* (or more likely the writer of the book ******* cribbed it from) had a particular meaning for the word in mind when the question was posed, which wasn't stated. In the case of the bookwriter, probably deliberately and dishonestly, in *******'s case through simplicity (as in sancta simplicitas).

And likewise with the transcendent God- the easy slip between the as-yet-unknown flaw in quantum symmetry that (?) caused the big bang being decribed metaphorically as "creator" and the equation of the same with Big Beardie In The Sky Who Doesn't Want You To Poke Your Whatsit Up Other Folks' Wheresits.

Which rather brings us back to the original topic of the thread, back when the world was young. There is an alternative to science- stop thinking, shut up and believe what the minister tells you.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 06:46 PM

Do mice, cod, blackbirds and aphids go on to an 'afterlife' after they die?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 07:27 PM

naaawww... they don't have 'souls', because I suppose, they can't comprehend a 'god' and appreciate how to worship....though I had a cat once who knew how to BE worshiped.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 04:22 AM

Yes, Bill, I suppose you're right. God gave us 'dominion' over the rest of nature and, no doubt, our rape and destruction of it is all part of His purpose.

By the way, GfS, you've gone very quiet (unusual for you); are you still trying to think of occasions when you've been influenced by 'unseen forces'? When can I expect some sort of response to the challenges I set you recently? Convince me, GfS!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 04:36 AM

everything that HAS A BEGINNING must have a sufficient cause

Aquinus, I believe?

There are a few hundred years of treaties to work through arguing that that ain't necessarily so...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: bobad
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 09:35 AM

Read on the web this AM:

Science: Accurately predicted hurricane Sandy, saving lives and property.

Religion: Blamed it on the gays.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 10:47 AM

Aquinus? Maybe he did formulate one use of the term... but the primary source of our basic way of defining causality was from Aristotle.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Aristotelian

I sat thru some LONG classes on the various conceptual types of causes many years ago. They were logically quite complete when discussing events within existing reality, but nothing about the system quite copes with **ultimate** causality.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 11:28 AM

You are right of course, Bill. But as you will know Aquinus' form has specific relevance to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Jack Sporcket
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 02:15 PM

But has it really got over 1000 posts without someone pointing out that his name was "Aquinas"? And nobody picked me up on "batchelor" either. Spelling is serious: otherwise, how can we distinguish between satan and Santa? God and Dog? Solomon and Sodomy?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 03:08 PM

mea culpa...mea culpa... mea MAXIMA culpa!

Going too fast and reading for content while neglecting spelling is way too easy here...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 03:09 PM

shimrod-never thought you would ask me to quote the bible!
i only wish i could take that as a query rather than a challenge.
isaiah 57 v 15 "for thus saith the high and lofty one that inhabiteth eternity,whose name is holy;i dwell in the high and holy..."
the text goes on to say that he also dwells with those of a contrite heart.sadly i dont think there is any danger of that for you at present.
john 4 v 24 "God is spirit,and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth"
isaih 55 v 9 "for as the heavens are high above the earth,so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts"

bill-your post will take longer to process....

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 03:27 PM

Yes, I admit I spelled Aquinas incorrectly. For some reason I usually do. And his is one of the easier names for a philosopher!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 04:25 PM

Thank you, pete. Although I note that your quoted verses say nothing about "married batchelors", do they? And, no, there's no danger of me having a "contrite heart". If by that phrase you mean someone who meekly accepts pious 'piffle-paffle' as some sort of absolute, unassailable truth, there's absolutely no danger of that at all!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 06:55 PM

the text goes on to say that he also dwells with those of a contrite heart.sadly i dont think there is any danger of that for you at present.

How do you know? You're not supposed to judge, remember? Typical bloody fundamentalist hypocrite. Cherry-pick the bits that suit you and sod the rest. Until that suits you as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 11:37 AM

nd a happy new year to you too..!

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 11:46 AM

Yes Pete, no hurry... if I assume you meant the post about Biblical errors, etc.... there WAS a lot in it- but it is a complex topic.
Just PLEASE don't rely on some argument claiming that any 'errors' were simply human misunderstandings of God's inspiration-- that would be another circular argument assuming that the original MS were divinely inspired! THAT is what is being questioned and debated.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 12:08 PM

How come the supposedly infallible Genesis offers not one but two rather inconsistent accounts of Creation?

And what of last month's question as to whether we were given the power of reason so as to trick us into thinking science is better? Still no takers?

Does God really make bets with the devil as he does concerning Job? And when Job begs to know why he's being tortured and his family's been killed, shouldn't God have just told him the truth?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 06:47 PM

i did read both links and perhaps it will surprise you that i already knew about some of the passages that there is some doubt about authenticity.i,m surprised they did not throw in 1 john 5v7 kjv for good measure.such passages may be questionable but hardly affect the broad teaching of the bible.
last i read the wellhausen hypothesis is old hat that has lost credibility for some time.there will of course still be its supporters but i suspect more conservative scholars would give them a run for their money.
i,ve only done a very basic nt gk course and no heb.i do know however that heb words can have a range of meaning.the writer on huff may well be right on the word for jubilee but the passages concerned detail the specifics of the celebration.
some of the comments following the article also provided sometime scholarly perspective on the authors points.
some of the first articles complaints were a difference of interpretation ,some ,i suspect from trying to find ways to make it pc.
the teaching of biblical inerrancy only extends to the original autographs which though we dont have now ,we do have a lot to establish a good degree of accuracy.
i think we are drifting off topic but if you want to talk specifics lets do it one point at a time.
if i cant give an answer i will admit to it
circular reasoning to use the bible to validate the bible?
if we were talking koran or book of mormon your case would be stronger but the bible is a collection of books whose writers affirm each others writings.
that admittedly is not proof.it is presupposition - just like the atheists presuppositions of the GTE - a faith position!
wishing you a great new year at 23:45 31-12-12.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 07:48 PM

> the teaching of biblical inerrancy only extends to the original autographs which though we dont have now

Fine. But if we don't have them, we don't know what they said or which (if either) version of Creation is correct or, if error has been allowed to creep in, what really is inerrant and what isn't. (It also would be interesting to know why God would have allowed errors and contradictions to creep into Holy Writ since they confuse everything and everybody.)

Just as it would be interesting to know why God-given reason should be abandoned when it methodically and consistently reaches the stage of science which questions the existence of God. Or why God allegedly made a bet with the devil at Job's expense. Or why His answer to Job is merely to contrast, angrily, His Own infinite power with Job's abjectness and dependence.

Unlike religion, it is the nature of science to be consistent.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: John P
Date: 01 Jan 13 - 10:14 AM

There are things that are knowable and things that aren't. The cause of the beginning of the universe is one of the things that isn't. No one has any evidence about anything having to do with it, nor is it possible for them to have any.

If we're going to make guesses, I rather like the idea that there was no beginning and no cause. Everything always was (is). It makes as much sense as any other explanation and has grandeur and mystery to boot.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 01 Jan 13 - 11:00 AM

The question "Why should there be something rather than nothing?" is no more profound than "Why would there be nothing rather than something?"

After all, there *is* something rather than nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Musket
Date: 01 Jan 13 - 12:43 PM

The cause of the beginning of the universe as can be observed cannot be known at present, and the odds are never shall be.

However, cause aside, the timing and events afterwards can be demonstrated with increasing accuracy.

The snag is, they just seem to demonstrate that those who wrote ancient scriptures weren't describing the interference in life of an imagined deity after all. If they were, they would have got things a bit more accurate. Especially the bit about us being in his image. Belly button aside, evolution and our knowledge of it settled that score to the point where creationists do religions no favours as religions get embroiled in the ridicule that causes people to laugh at young earth creationists and their absurd excuses for their ridiculous stance.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Jan 13 - 12:48 PM

Heidegger didn't call that question more 'profound', he just said that it was 'philosophically prior'.

"...writers affirm each other's positions"... So.. you already see the problem with that...

But, you can't win an argument by accusing your opponents of using the same flawed techniques that YOU use...

It's even worse when you try to equate the arguments that 'careful' atheists make with the awkward ways some biblical 'scholars' pick & choose their supposed data.

and... by the way, I took some time to read about Wellhausen. It seems that what is now questioned is the specific details he claimed about various authors and timelines... NOT that there were many authors and rewritten & retranslated parts!

And Pete....one more thing: your shortcut abbreviations make following your discussion a bit tedious. Not everyone immediately gets what GTE and gk & ms refer to.... and even MORE so 'heb', by which I assume you mean *Hebrew*. That borders on an insult.
   Why not spell things out and use capitals and the various accurate punctuation marks>? I know you CAN use the shift key.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: TheSnail
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 08:29 PM

I know it's a mistake to disturb old bones but this programe on BBC R4 was quite interesting -
Head to Head - Scientific Progress

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 10:24 PM

will listen tomorrow

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Feb 13 - 12:09 AM

...cannot be known at present, and the odds are never shall be...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative to Science??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Feb 13 - 03:34 PM

""By the way, GfS, you've gone very quiet (unusual for you); are you still trying to think of occasions when you've been influenced by 'unseen forces'? When can I expect some sort of response to the challenges I set you recently? Convince me, GfS!""

Be careful what you wish for Shim.

Here he is again, taking a break from Gay bashing to revert to the great non sequitur, with nothing of any relevance to say.

Don T.