- Status
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
What you think is not relevant in this case. Neither is what Saul claims in the text.
Not being a historian, I am not familiar with the details of the actual foundations of common historical claims. But what I do know is that none of the historical claims you refer to as being “unverified but believed” deals with someone being a god. Thus the impact of those unverified claims will never be on the level of the claims in the bible. Therefore I require a whole other level of verification when it comes to any biblical claims.
Not sure. But I think I would recognize a good piece of evidence if presented to one.
Why are myths transmitted down? Some people transmit what they think happened. Some people make up stuff, for various reasons. Exactly how were he authors persecuted?
If they were on a divine mission I’d expect this divine being to support them with what they needed to do the job in a way that would clearly suport their claims. Pargament was really expensive back then and a seriously limiting factor as well as the ability to read and write. But if Yeshua could make wine from water and multiply fish and bread, why not simply multiply a sheet of pargament to all sheets necessary to mass produce the books and magically make all the disciples fluent in all languages necessary to communicate the information? Instead we have a story with all the hallmarks of human capacity alone. Ergo, nothing really supporting the claim that this sect was different from any other religious sect.
So they claim. I have yet to be introduced to any empirical support thereof. If I am to witness a miracle I’d appreciate a heads up so I could document it properly. But a divine, all-knowing being would already know this about me.
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Oh I know exactly what you mean. When it comes to languages I start to panic and cry for mommy as soon as I get water above my ancles.
A
AlNg
Guest
According to the following article light does have mass. When measured in mass units, the photon weighs 4.7 x 10^-38 kg.
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
I think you need to work a bit on your source criticism…
" About the Author Erik Lovin
Erik has a BSc degree and is a retired professional photographer who is now a published Author of many books. His passion is understanding how life and the universe works. He is currently blogging about the science of the Big Bang and the science of cosmology. Erik is helping his tribe with questions about the universe. His goal is to help find a theory of everything (TOE). In order to do that, he is trying to prove light has mass and that the fabric of spacetime is a false theory."
A
AlNg
Guest
I don’t think so. According to my understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, do you agree or not?
And do you accept that philosophy or not? If not then what is your interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Anyway, getting back to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, physical systems do not have definite properties before they are measured. If that is true, then since no one was around when there was nothing, it is a mistake to say that there could have been a quantum fluctuation since it could not have been measured.
A
AlNg
Guest
This is an ad hominem response but does not respond to his comments directly.
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Someone claiming to be able to falsify a cornerstone in physics. Wow! And where does he report this? On his blog. Not in a article in a scientific journal according to the procedures of the scientific community. He refers to the negative mass experiment. The link does not go to the original article and the scientific journal in which the experiment was presented. No. It goes to “The Guardian” and a popular scientific explanation of the experiment.
Is this how you get your scientific information?
A
AlNg
Guest
I read in other places that a box with light may weigh more than a box without light. So he is not the only person advocating this. There are so many arguments in favor of light having no mass of course, but you have chosen to give an ad hominem argument instead of responding to his comments directly. And you have not responded to the question of the Copenhagen interpretation according to which physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured,
Last edited:
G
Gab123
Guest
Again, the cosmos is governed by rational laws, comprehensible through logical language of mathematics. That alone is proof that the cause and source of the universe is rational.
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Kindly present one such law.
Last edited:
G
Gab123
Guest
How can a rational cosmos not have a rational source? Please explain.
Again, atheism is not built on logic, but rooted in a psychological complex; the evidence is that there are plenty of intellectual equations that prove the necessity for God’s existence while atheism cannot bubble up a single intellectual argument for why God cannot exist. Saying “no” and “it’s wrong” and “I simply don’t believe” are not intellectual arguments.Gab123:
Ho boy…
Are you familiar with ad hominems? A logical error involving attacks on the person instead of the point their making?
As the late Frank Sheen explained, If you omit God, we see nothing as it is but everything as it is not—which is the very definition of insanity. God is the explanation of everything. Leave out God, then, and you leave out the explanation of everything, you have everything unexplainable.
Science studies the constitution of matter, it does not study the two far more vital questions—by whom were they made, for what were they made. You cannot use anything intelligently until you know what it is made for. Science cannot tell you what the universe was made for: only its cAuse and Maker can do that—the Eternal Rational Being—because He knows what He had in mind when He made it. And it is not only the whole universe that you see wrong if you leave out God. You do not see any single thing right. God is at the center of the being of each individual thing, giving it the existence it has, keeping it in existence. To see anything without seeing God holding it in existence is to be living in a world of fantasy, not the real world.
Think of a physical landscape at sunrise; it is not that you see the same hills and trees and houses as before, and now you see the sun as well. The sun is not just one more item; you see everything sun-bathed. God is not just one more item; we must see everything God-bathed. Only then are we seeing everything as it is. And it is not only a question of seeing; this truth effects our actions too. Sin is an effort to gain something against the will of God; but the will of God is all that holds us in existence; when we sin, we are hacking away at our only support! What could be more idiotic?”
This illustrates the psychological complex mentioned earlier. Instead of being cavalier, try tackling what said. Again, how could they have known a month before that the was going to be a phenomenon on the specific day they were told to gather? And what weather phenomenon is like the thing they witnessed? I don’t expect an answer because of the complex, but it illustrates atheism well.
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Is light matter? Is time, space or gravity, matter?
Neither do you. Do you know why? Because you can’t verify if any explanation you devise is a correct description of the subject you claim to study.
Of course it is the same landscape you see regardless if it is seen at sunrise or not. What kind of changes do you think light causes?
You mean like your response when I pointed out that you don’t understand the meaning of scientific laws.
G
Gab123
Guest
Again, the problem is the complex that’s creating the mental block. It’s like trying to convince someone that 3x3=9, but they keep arguing that it is not reasonable and go in circles trying to refute that 3x3=9.
I advise you to go and ponder the things that were discussed in this thread and waste our time no more.
I advise you to go and ponder the things that were discussed in this thread and waste our time no more.
H
Hume
Guest
If by rational you mean it behaves according to the laws inherent to matter and energy, then there is a source. The Big Bang.
“Well! What caused the Big Bang, hmmm?!?”
Dunno. What caused your deity?
“He is causeless and eternal!”
Ok, then the universe might also be causeless (if you can claim it, I can too). Or it may have come from another universe. Infinite regress.
“Aristotle (thus Augustine and Aquinas) didn’t like infinite regress!”
Who cares?
It’s built on a lack of evidence for anything else. Sounds pretty logical to me.
The basis of my disbelief in any gods is nearly identical to the basis of my disbelief in, say, Thor. Or unicorns. Or Bigfoot.
You disbelieve too. It’s just that your disbelief extends to every god in history except the one you like.
I just added the one extra.
Since you like psychology, try this on for size.
Man is largely powerless.
Man creates a deity that has absolute power.
Appeals to this deity might change outcomes that man cannot control.
Man feels less powerless.
Last edited:
O
openmind77
Guest
I think you replied to the wrong person.
H
Hume
Guest
Apologies. On my mobile and I’m not as skilled in its use.
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
There was a time when that cute comment would have resulted in a broken laptop here. Thanks to amphetamine that is no more.
P
Pattylt
Guest
So why haven’t we all been given this great miracle? Why only small or large groups in one location. I AM the one looking for evidence…any evidence…and I never get any? I’ve begged, pleaded and prayed for any confirmation…any experience of the divine…nothing.
What is Gods point of granting a few some amazing miracle but withholding it from millions of others…especially those that would benefit the most?
It’s ok. I’m used to no answers. How dare I ask for evidence that even St Thomas was given!
S
stpurl
Guest
do you remember what Jesus said to St. Thomas?
“You believe because you have seen. Blessed are those who have not seen. . .and have believed.”
I often think that when you come right down to it, the majority of people who actually spoke to or saw Jesus did not believe in Him. Maybe they did for a while, then gave up when He appeared to be crucified (and they perhaps didn’t witness Him after the resurrection). Maybe they tried to be His followers but didn’t like the whole communal living; they couldn’t trust that what they had ‘earned’ would be shared fairly. Maybe they were shamed by family members. Maybe it was all ‘too hard’.
And I think, if that occurred among people who saw Him, knew Him, maybe were even healed by Him, then why do I think that I’d be different if He showed himself to me?
“You believe because you have seen. Blessed are those who have not seen. . .and have believed.”
I often think that when you come right down to it, the majority of people who actually spoke to or saw Jesus did not believe in Him. Maybe they did for a while, then gave up when He appeared to be crucified (and they perhaps didn’t witness Him after the resurrection). Maybe they tried to be His followers but didn’t like the whole communal living; they couldn’t trust that what they had ‘earned’ would be shared fairly. Maybe they were shamed by family members. Maybe it was all ‘too hard’.
And I think, if that occurred among people who saw Him, knew Him, maybe were even healed by Him, then why do I think that I’d be different if He showed himself to me?
- Status