The Faith & Religion mega Thread

I am especially hoping that sundialsvcs has the cajones and intellect to check out those Webb test photos to see how he factors that in to his disdain for "billions and billions".

The initial Deep Field image was explained as a "slice" of sky roughly equivalent to an adult human holding a single grain of sand at arm's length and THAT's the size of the slice of sky in the photo, zoomed in. Now first imagine how many grains of sand it would take to blot out the hemisphere of sky above. Now realize that one slice in the sky that Webb photo'd shows THOUSANDS of Galaxies, each with many millions if not billions of stars in those thousands of galaxies. Multiply the thousands of galaxies in that grain-sized area times millions if not billions of stars in each. Now multiply that times the numbers of grains of sand to blot out less than half the view from Earth. See the conundrum staring you in the face? "Billions and billions" is the only truthful way to describe it. Science didn't CHOOSE to use such terminology as some sort of stupid "hand-waving". We are just reporting what we find.

If you don't like the contents of our findings you are perfectly free to go have a look for yourself. If there is no serious observatory within reasonable travel distance, even a local Astronomy club with a $500 telescope can show you "billions and billions" you can see with your own eyes and brain.

To stay perfectly On Topic, THIS is why there can be no solid argument against or for a Divine Creator but overwhelming evidence that scripture, all of them, are NOT divinely inspired at least in any way that humans can interpret in an assumed literal fashion. Also this does not diminish the value of such historical mythology any more than debunking Gilgamesh is necessary or useful. It's still a window on the Past... but they should always be seen in such a light. Even scholars who devote their entire lives to study of scripture, argue their meaning.

Originally Posted by enorbet See the conundrum staring you in the face? "Billions and billions" is the only truthful way to describe it. Science didn't CHOOSE to use such terminology as some sort of stupid "hand-waving". We are just reporting what we find.

To be fair to sundialsvc, he was not objecting to the use of "billions and billions" simply to refer descriptively to the number of stars in the universe or even to the number of years the universe has existed. He was objecting to the assumption that once you have "billions and billions" of anything – stars, years, whatever – it somehow guarantees the eventual occurrence of anything you choose to suggest, however unlikely.

To stay perfectly On Topic, THIS is why there can be no solid argument against or for a Divine Creator but overwhelming evidence that scripture, all of them, are NOT divinely inspired at least in any way that humans can interpret in an assumed literal fashion.

And what, pray, has divine inspiration to do with the question of whether we should interpret the scriptures literally? Can you quote me chapter and verse where God says, "Oh and by the way, you need to interpret the rest of this book literally."?

Even scholars who devote their entire lives to study of scripture, argue their meaning.

Exactly!

"Thank you, @Hazel. You hit my point squarely."

Originally Posted by hazel To be fair to sundialsvc, he was not objecting to the use of "billions and billions" simply to refer descriptively to the number of stars in the universe or even to the number of years the universe has existed. He was objecting to the assumption that once you have "billions and billions" of anything – stars, years, whatever – it somehow guarantees the eventual occurrence of anything you choose to suggest, however unlikely.

And, @enorbet, I would kindly now chastise you for even referring to "cajones," or to accuse me of "disdain." These positions have no proper place here. "Whether you acknowledge it or not, you, sir, have an agenda" that is in fact as (IMHO) every bit as "faith-based" as whatever you decry. And the reason why I say this is that you are ready to insist that you are right, and that others (like me ...) are possessed of less-than-"scientific" motivations. Proper "scientific inquiry," like "public debate" such as this, should never judge any participant ("fellow scientist"), nor seek to. To do so invites "confirmation bias."

Of course I do not mean this personally, and I specifically do not want you to take it nor to respond as such. (This is a side-channel that won't lead back to the river.) Therefore let us simply move on to the 10,984th post (wow ...) in this thread.

(P.S.: "Isn't this some kind of 'Internet Record?'")

P.S.:

o stay perfectly On Topic, THIS is why there can be no solid argument against or for a Divine Creator but overwhelming evidence that scripture, all of them, are NOT divinely inspired at least in any way that humans can interpret in an assumed literal fashion. Also this does not diminish the value of such historical mythology any more than debunking Gilgamesh is necessary or useful. It's still a window on the Past... but they should always be seen in such a light. Even scholars who devote their entire lives to study of scripture, argue their meaning.

I guess that's why I briefly introduced a "myth" thread. Because, in my opinion at least, when you try to intersect the set of "Divine Creator" arguments, with the "Evolution Explains Everything" arguments, with "every single one of the 'Great Kahuna Question™' arguments" ... when you try to intersect any of these sets with "Actual Science," then I think that you should only wind up with: "the empty set."

That is, "unless you acknowledge what 'science' is doing at the time."

In my opinion, there are two equally-valid branches of "science." One is purely experiment-based: we not only have to be able to construct an experiment, but our peers must be able to replicate it. The second is more-or-less philosophical, engineered to take us into the realms where "experimentation ... today ..." cannot [yet ...] go.

Frankly, I think that we all run into a whole lot of (very human) trouble when we forget where "that hard and inescapable dividing line" lies. Yes, I guess that it sux to be human, with a well-less-than-one-century lifespan, but here we all are. Let's make the best of it.

Originally Posted by hazel To be fair to sundialsvc, he was not objecting to the use of "billions and billions" simply to refer descriptively to the number of stars in the universe or even to the number of years the universe has existed. He was objecting to the assumption that once you have "billions and billions" of anything – stars, years, whatever – it somehow guarantees the eventual occurrence of anything you choose to suggest, however unlikely.

I grasp the possible progression in which it is possible for someone who wishes to create fraud, serve an agenda other than finding facts, etc to use "billions and billions" in a deception (whether the target is self or others) or to serve confirmation bias but over time I haven't seen that sundialsvcs always stops there. He has upon occasion used it as "broad brush" to dismiss without any further consideration. Others here have taken up that stance to dismiss dissent even more casually. I mentioned my interest in sundialsvcs response because he seems more careful and consideratethan some others.

Originally Posted by hazel And what, pray, has divine inspiration to do with the question of whether we should interpret the scriptures literally? Can you quote me chapter and verse where God says, "Oh and by the way, you need to interpret the rest of this book literally."?

Perhaps I was less than clear. It isn't that I think scripture states it must be taken literally (though some passages can be interpreted that way since some writers propose deep censure and even death for dissent). It's that some individuals nevertheless believe it must be taken literally and assume they are capable of doing so. Again, sundialvcs, has clearly stated that is not his position. I think he rightly sees scripture as metaphor.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs And, @enorbet, you, sir, have an agenda" that is in fact as (IMHO) every bit as "faith-based" as whatever you decry. And the reason why I say this is that you are ready to insist that you are right, and that others (like me ...) are possessed of less-than-"scientific" motivations. Proper "scientific inquiry," like "public debate" such as this, should never judge any participant ("fellow scientist"), nor seek to. To do so invites "confirmation bias."

It is my view that blanket statements don't work in this context as in most. Specific subjects require specific answers. I am extremely confidant that I do not indulge my whims in this blanket manner BUT there are specifics about which I can be adamant where confidence is especially high. Please try not to confuse the two. Faith and Science are not "cut from the same cloth". I don't understand why this isn't clear yet. There have been subjects discussed here about which I have been mistaken and clearly stated so. I don't see any shame in being mistaken. It's part of learning and a necessary component at arriving at truth and there are Truths as we have discussed stemming from Logic and Mathematics beginning with solid premises and 1 + 1 = 2.

One specific case I do bring up often is your assertion Apollo flights landing Man on the Moon was a hoax. Your position on this IS "less than scientific", IS "agenda ridden" and apparently IS rigidly determined to dismiss any evidence in opposition to your position without any further research at all, simply based on your feelings "something didn't seem right" as a child viewing the live feeds, despite expert testimony or evidence, the lack of Russian denial or reveals, or the utter impossibility of some 20,000+ individuals keeping a secret coverup for 50+ years, not to mention risking multiple repeats of Apollo landings without a single reputable denial or betrayer of a hoax. I submit THAT is confirmation bias sundialsvcs.

It is a mistake to think that Science welcomes all concepts. It is a waste of time to discuss whether Phlogiston might actually be how fire works once properly falsified. Scientists, including myself, do not SEEK to judge participants badly offhand and I have witnessed some being WAY too polite IMHO with Flat Earthers in public discussions. Proper debate assumes that both sides are actually willing to examine evidence honestly and with honor which sometimes results in being proven mistaken. This is little different than sports contests where Sportsmanlike Conduct is supposed to be a given, where the contest takes place on a level playing field or certain elections in which a sore loser claims fraud even after Conservative proofs are in (see lostnotstolen.org ) AND cohorts (*cough* Bannon, to name one) admit that was the plan all along.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Of course I do not mean this personally, and I specifically do not want you to take it nor to respond as such. (This is a side-channel that won't lead back to the river.) Therefore let us simply move on to the 10,984th post (wow ...) in this thread. (P.S.: "Isn't this some kind of 'Internet Record?'")

While I think there just might be a bit of "tongue in cheek" above it is perfectly OK with me. I not only find you engaging but a genuinely smart and decent fellow. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I strongly suspect you and I would have rousing face-to-face discussions and debates over coffee. Raw text does not convey the earnestness I suspect exists in our countenance unavailable or obscured on the printed page.

Originally Posted by enorbet OTOH, if you say "God created the Universe in seven days" and someone else says "God created the Universe in sixty days" and we ask each "Why do you believe that?" all each can say is somebody else said so.

Not so. Again you ignore my statements as to the reliability of what's in the Bible. Nothing in it has been disproven. Truth cannot be disproven. That, combined with what else it contains, and the mass of its extrinsic support, makes it the infallible source of truth. Us young earth, Bible believers believe old earther analysis of confirmed data, and the characterization of much data claimed as supporting evidence, is not reliable or valid, and much more difficult to believe.

The whole old earth theory of existence originated as a plan by athiests to weaken belief in what the Bible actually says so as to discard its authority. With this kind of bias, most old earth analysis tends toward belief that observations and speculations prove the desired result, and discard or ignore evidence that supports young earth. Old earthers believe against miracles, against God, against historical worldwide flood, against irreducible complexity, against intelligent design. That's an incontrovertible bias miscoloring characterization of truly scientific observations, and speculations about that which is not subject to scientific proof. The best support older earthers proffer is that anything is possible given enough time, paradoxically excepting God.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs If these self-control mechanisms didn't exist, entropy would take over and the whole system would break down. But, it never does. And we don't entirely know why [not].

Some of us do.

Originally Posted by mrmazda Not so. Again you ignore my statements as to the reliability of what's in the Bible. Nothing in it has been disproven. Truth cannot be disproven. That, combined with what else it contains, and the mass of its extrinsic support, makes it the infallible source of truth. Us young earth, Bible believers believe old earther analysis of confirmed data, and the characterization of much data claimed as supporting evidence, is not reliable or valid, and much more difficult to believe.

Just because one person states something has no bearing on it's validity. The statement "Nothing in it has been disproven" can only be made by someone who insists it must be so and ignores any examples of obvious contradictions in scripture even within the same chapters let alone comparing one to another. I will avoid getting into a "chapter and verse" item by item since it is well documented by actual scholars and concede that it is highly likely you know more than I on that subject. That doesn't diminish the fact that actual scholars and historians note the efforts to derive from earlier texts from as far back as Gilgamesh and probably further. Genesis in one verse has animals created before Man and in another Man before animals. Slavery is not only accepted but condoned and even delineates "proper treatment". Also historians have proven that some "prophesies" were written AFTER the event took place and some others simple never happened.

If you don't see such faults, even without getting involved in any contradictions to Science and Nature, I see evidence of willful blindness. In fact I see sundialsvcs parallel thread on the "value of myth" to apply here. The simple fact that there are many hundreds if not thousands of Christian Sects, several claiming literal interpretation of the Christian Bible, in one fell swoop says something about it's universal value as well as disproving that any attempt at literal interpretation is biased, subjective folly. It's strength is in it's format that can be so widely interpreted and it says more about the interpreter than the text itself.

Originally Posted by mrmazda The whole old earth theory of existence originated as a plan by athiests to weaken belief in what the Bible actually says so as to discard its authority. With this kind of bias, most old earth analysis tends toward belief that observations and speculations prove the desired result, and discard or ignore evidence that supports young earth.

This seems highly unlikely since the beginnings of just Paleontology date back to less than 400BCE, before the Christian Bible was collated, edited, added to and combined. You vastly overestimate how important atheists view ANY scripture as proof of a Creator or literal description of History or Nature. I am an atheist yet I have zero interest in trying to disprove a Divine Creator because it is a Fool's Errand, actually impossible through Logic and Evidence. I do have a potent interest in opposing literal interpretation of scripture and specifically where it contradicts the progress in scientific evidence. I don't hate God any more than I propose Santa Claus is a kindly if impractical old gent. I simply don't conclude they exist at all.

Originally Posted by mrmazda Old earthers believe against miracles, against God, against historical worldwide flood, against irreducible complexity, against intelligent design. That's an incontrovertible bias miscoloring characterization of truly scientific observations, and speculations about that which is not subject to scientific proof. The best support older earthers proffer is that anything is possible given enough time, paradoxically excepting God.

Sorry, but "scientific proof" disagrees with you excepting a handful of shills for the "Discovery" folks you often reference. The difference is the preponderance of evidence is on the side of expert majority, not those desperate for political power.

@enorbet: I believe that one cannot and must not overlook the provenance of these "scriptures." What we know about where they came from, how they were preserved or passed on, and, in the case of the Christian Bible, "how they made the cut to be called 'canonical.'" (Or, to be an also-ran, now contained in the Catholic "Apocrypha.")

Therefore, I believe that if you look for "literal truth," say in Genesis 1-2, you are willingly overlooking something beautiful in your zeal to make the text be something that, I believe, it cannot possibly be, and was never intended to be.

I know that some "Christians" refuse to think about things like this – "God said it, I believe it, and That settles it.™" (I even know who some of those people are ...) But as for me, I think that's just silly. However, I respect their beliefs while never sharing them. (I have learned to "smile, disarmingly ...")

Ancient books are full of apparent errors and contradictions. It goes with the territory. But, let the record show that these books (as have others ...) have shaped human history for thousands of years. And I'm not ready to write that off to "ignorance" or "superstition."

"X has not been disproven" is an interesting form of logical fallacy, similar to "begging the question." The observation that something has never been proven to be false does not make it true . . .

"I saw you steal that car, therefore you stole it. Prove me wrong!"

Literal interpretation of any scripture, and even giving God a name, impose limits on something limitless and sovereign; as if God could be imprisoned... Formal religions try (in vain) to enslave God to human vanity (because it's pretty vain and conceited to assume your version can correctly predict God's behavior)... Descartes asked a great question for his time: what if God's lies and deceives? Same question posed by the Matrix--what if we're all in computer simulated vr comas, meanwhile powering alien spacecraft? Or by somebody else who phrased it, what if we're all brains in a vat, with electrodes hooked up to computers, with mad LQ hackers programming them to perceive typing into a forum thread about them...

To really answer these questions, you, as "in-the-image" creators, have the opportunity to sculpt the universe to however you would most want it--you have absolute enough freedom of interpretation to find hidden meanings in anything and everything if you so choose to create them... and whatever you tell yourself that you believe over and over again until its ingrained habit: so shall you believe...

So be careful, because every slight shade of interpretation is a different universe, and: you get what you pray for!

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs @enorbet: Ancient books are full of apparent errors and contradictions. It goes with the territory. But, let the record show that these books (as have others ...) have shaped human history for thousands of years. And I'm not ready to write that off to "ignorance" or "superstition."

While nobody has proposed that Helios mounts his radiant horse-drawn chariot every day and rides across "the firmament" in roughly 1600 years, we still say "The Sun rises and the Sun sets". So it can rightly said that the myth "shaped human history for thousands of years" and though a beautiful image and a somewhat intuitive observation, it is nevertheless by definition "ignorant superstition".

Frankly I do *not* (thank you, ntubski) see that recognition as derogatory when we are referring to ancient explanations of natural phenomena so I don't consider that "writing off". They didn't know any better because they couldn't know any better. They had neither the tools nor the history of use of appropriate tools. It's only derogatory when applied to anyone who thinks that explanation is valid AFTER such tools and history exist that falsifies that concept/event.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs "X has not been disproven" is an interesting form of logical fallacy, similar to "begging the question." The observation that something has never been proven to be false does not make it true . . .

Good one, sundialsvcs. That is the valid logical concept in the quote "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Just because we don't know a thing yet does not mean we can never know it.

In a deep and abstract example, the constant for the relationship between the circumference of a circle and it's diameter, or pi, is thought to be an irrational number with no repeating pattern. It is supposed it goes on, possibly to Infinity, without ever displaying any pattern. This was thought so in the 1400s when pi was calculated to 72 decimal places. 72 places is an extremely precise number, but nevertheless, at that time it could not be assumed that no pattern exists with say 144 places. In 2022 pi has been calculated to 100,000,000,000,000 decimal places and still no pattern has emerged. STILL it cannot be said that no repeating pattern is possible despite the vastly more precise and thorough evidence, just that the odds are extremely low (and progressively getting lower) that a repetition can ever emerge.

Of course that is very different from a situation where, if it had occurred, that at say 99 decimal places a pattern had emerged (no absence existing with new, better precision) , which is more like items that are disproved or found false in scripture, more like Helios above.

Originally Posted by enorbet Frankly I do see that recognition as derogatory

I think you are missing a crucial "not" here.