Jesus and Comparative Mythology

[Kaninchen]

Sounds more like a Nietzschean argument rather than one coming from another theist

No, it’s just fairly basic stuff from a member of a religion, one of whose members described his life as being like a child investigating interesting pebbles on a beach (incidentally, he also came up with General Relativity), or, perhaps, in another light, from somebody whose first graduate student experience was at a department of Philosophy whose founding father had been Karl Popper.

Awe, beauty, problems, argument, guess and test.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hi, I’m starting this thread because there was an interesting dicussion started in another thread that was somewhat off-topic.

The only fair way to look at your list is to go through thes deities one at a time. So let’s start with the Egyptian Deity Osiris. You say, in quoting Wikipedia, that Osiris is a god who, a god who “is born, suffers death (or an eclipse or other death-like experience), passes a phase in the underworld among the dead, and is subsequently reborn, in either a literal or symbolic sense.”

(i) is born
What parellel this has with Jesus I’m not quite sure. Yes, Jesus was born, but why is that so special?

(ii) suffers death
Yes, Osiris suffered death. But it is in no way like that of Jesus. To quote Chritian Apologist J.P. Holding: *“There was a big party, at which Set had a coffin brought in and encouraged everyone, including 72 participants in the scheme and one queen of Ethiopia, to lay down for a fit. Finally it came O[siris]'s turn, and he was persuaded to lay down in the coffin. Once O was inside, Set nailed the coffin shut and threw it in the river; O suffocated.” *
Frankly, I can’t see early Christians looking at that and from there coming up with the Passion narrative-- it’s absurd.

(iii) passes a phase in the underworld among the dead
This claim is unique. I could not find any skeptics using it. If you could please share with me where the specific claim originates from, that would be awesome.

FWIW - why is the existence of parallels a reason for concern ? Yet, it seems they are ​

 

[yankee_doodle]

No, it’s just fairly basic stuff from a member of a religion, one of whose members described his life as being like a child investigating interesting pebbles on a beach (incidentally, he also came up with General Relativity), or, perhaps, in another light, from somebody whose first graduate student experience was at a department of Philosophy whose founding father had been Karl Popper.

Awe, beauty, problems, argument, guess and test.

Einstein himself was never a religious Jew … so are you saying Judaism is a race? If so, how much sense does it make to base an ethnic identity on mythology?

 

[yankee_doodle]

So now you have a newfound respect for The Church (tiny though it may be) Yankee?

It was a good first step; and the logical implications are mind boggling (when you think about it).

The entire Galileo affair surrounded scriptural interpretation, or the churches understanding of what they believe is the word of god. They’ve essentially admitted to misinterpreting the world of god, so how can they logically sustain the concept of infallibility (no matter whether the concept is confined to faith and morals or not … at a very minimum interpreting the word of god is a matter of faith isn’t it)?

 

[abucs]

yankee, your idea that the entire Galileo affair surrounded scriptural interpretation is part of your Fairy Tales that you believe about history.

Galileo’s main opponents were academics and professor’s. The trial of Galileo centred on scientific proof of the earth going around the sun.

The simple truth is that the 68 year old Galileo could not prove it.

Galileo, as were the creators of just about all our science, was thoroughly Christian, not from some latter cult of atheists.

Two of his three children were nuns and his uncle was a Bishop. He was the personal friend of 2 Popes and was following the very Catholic idea of the Earth going around the Sun that was promoted originally by the Catholic monk Copernicus in the Vatican gardens 100 years before Galileo’s trial. The Pope of the time of the 68 year old Galileo affair was in his youth also a believer in the Sun centred model and worked with Galileo and other Catholic scientists.

The discussions of the affair involved Galileo arguing the tidal waves proved the earth moved and his opponent scientists claiming that tides were due to the moons position - they were right. The main arguement was why no paralax was observed in the sky if the Earth moved around the sun.

jefferson.kctcs.edu/faculty/graney/CMGRESEARCH/PhysicsAstro/PIPGalileoforWeb.pdf

Today we know the answer for this but Galileo then didn’t.

The idea that Galileo’s opponents were waving bibles (quoting what exactly ???) is a Fairy Tale that you have Yankee. and as an atheist you have many of them.

with Galileo losing the debate, the old man was told to go back to his house, stop studying astronomy and stop publishing. Galileo didn’t bother listening to any of this. And what did the big bad church do to Galileo when he ignored them ? They didn’t do anything to him at all. The Church in the decades directly afterwards went on to convert Cathedrals across Europe to observatories and this was the golden age of astronomy. The Jesuits went out all over the world and taught this new science in all of the foreign courts such as China and Japan.

Nobody bothered with the Galileo affair at all until the 19th century when atheist philosophers resurrected the story and created a Fairy Tale of science Vs religion that members of the atheist cult still believe to this day.

Christians developed western science to describe and explain God’s creation. That was the philosophical basis for creating science. Since God is not a creation of himself, science cannot be used to prove the creator except by inference. The creators of science all knew this to be true. The 19th century atheist philosophers (who were not scientists) with their belief that nature is everything didn’t share this founding philosophy of science.

Their followers today want everything proved by science because in their own minds the material is all that exists. That philosophy is wrong IMHO - and has nothing to do with science.

A computer electrician that knows the working of computers might be able to infer something about the mind of the person who designed the computer by studying parts and the inner workings but he could not tell you anything definite about that creator because the creator of the computer is not made up of and is not under the same design as the computer components itself.

Likewise science was created to tell us about God’s creation - read Issac Newton, it cannot by its very nature give a definite description of God.

This was the founding principle of science. It may not be your 19th century philosophy. But the main problem is that many atheists cannot separate science and their 19th century athiestic philosophy. Christians don’t criticise western science, we created it. But we do strongly criticise your atheistic philosophy that you have attached to science and that underpins your thinking.

 

[yankee_doodle]

yankee, your idea that the entire Gallileo affair surrounded scriptural interpretation is part of your Fairy Tales that you believe about history.

Oh gosh … here we go. Angels and demons, talking snakes and rivers turning to blood, god-men who rise from the dead, virgins impregnated by spirits …

yeah, I’m the delusional one

Galileo’s main opponents were academics and professor’s. The trial of Galileo centred on scientific proof of the earth going around the sun.

The simple truth is that the 68 year old Galileo could not prove it.

At this point your own church reversed its decision concerning Galileo … do you disagree with the church & pope? Doesn’t that land you a few thousand years in purgatory (unless you cough up a few hundred bucks, there goes that new lawn mower )

Galileo, as were the creators of just about all our science, was thoroughly Christian, not from some latter cult of atheists.

let’s see, you guys imagine wafers of bread turn into human flesh after you ingest it (where exactly in the esophagus does this transition take place) … and we’re the cult?

Two of his three children were nuns and his uncle was a Bishop.

They were born into a medieval society, it’s not their fault they believed such absurd thing.

He was the personal friend of 2 Popes and was following the very Catholic idea of the Earth going around the Sun that was promoted originally by the Catholic monk Copernicus in the Vatican gardens 100 yeears before Galileo’s trial. The Pope of the time of 68 year old Galileo affair was himself also a believer in the Sun centred model in his youth and worked with Galileo and other Catholic scientists.

what does that tell you? They even turn on their friends …

The discussions of the affair involved Galileo arguing the tidal waves proved the earth moved and his opponent scientists claiming that tides were due to the moons position - they were right. The main arguement was why no paralax was observed in the sky if the Earth moved around the sun.

jefferson.kctcs.edu/faculty/graney/CMGRESEARCH/PhysicsAstro/PIPGalileoforWeb.pdf

even if you were right, should a guy be persecuted and imprisoned for his opinion on the moon? How can you not realize how utterly ridiculous this sounds

The idea that Galileo’s opponents were waving bibles (quoting what exactly ???) is a Fairy Tale that you have Yankee. and as an atheist you have many of them.

I never said any such thing. This rant of yours is almost as absurd as religion.

with Galileo losing the debate, the old man was told to go back to his house, stop doing science and stop publishing. Galileo didn’t bother listening to any of this.

why should he? He’s a hero in my book, whether right or wrong about his scientific theory, for not capitulating to a church full of self indulgent corrupt men dripping with false piety.

And what did the big bad church do to Galileo when he ignored them ? They didn’t do anything to him at all. The Church went on to convert Cathedrals across Europe to observatories and this was the golden age of astronomy. The Jesuits went out all over the world and taught this new science in all of the foreign courts such as China and Japan.

Huh? They put him under house arrest. As for your imaginary golden age of astronomy, today is the golden age of astronomy (and the only thing golden in the theocracy that was medieval Europe was the candle holders in the Vatican).

Nobody bothered with the Galileo affair at all until the 19th century when atheist philosophers resurrected the story and created a Fairy Tale of science Vs religion that members of the atheist cult still believe to this day.

oooo … the atheist boogy man. Gotta love your religion of love. Whether it’s scientists, Jews, homosexuals, atheists or agnostics, or whomever disagrees with you – kill them, chastise them, wish they burned in an eternal hell, bla, bla, bla.

Insanity!

Christians developed western science to describe and explain God’s creation. That was the philosophical basis for creating science. Since God is not a creation of himself, science cannot be used to prove the creator except by inference. The creators of science all knew this to be true. The 19th century atheist philosophers (who were not scientists) with their belief that nature is everything don’t share this founding philosophy of science.

Sure, if you believe in fairy tales.

They want everything proved by science because in their own minds the material is all that exists. That philosophy is wrong IMHO - and has nothing to do with science.

whatever …

 

[abucs]

Read you last post yankee,

you cover everything from wafers to bogeymen to rivers of blood.

I say again - you are creating a caricature of religion.

Yes, you are delusional.

If you want to deal with one question at a time please feel free to pick one.

The scatter gun approach to state the dogma’s of your own caricature of religion is no more than a meaningless mantra - unless you want to be specific and engage in an intellectual fashion.

the main basis of my posts is trying to separate the realities of the rise of science from your atheistic delusions.

 

[Kaninchen]

Einstein himself was never a religious Jew … so are you saying Judaism is a race? If so, how much sense does it make to base an ethnic identity on mythology?

Not a race, a ‘people’. Are there any ethnic identities that are not based partly on myth?

 

[yankee_doodle]

Read you last post yankee,

you cover everything from wafers to bogeymen to rivers of blood.

I say again - you are creating a caricature of religion.

Yes, you are delusional.

whatever helps you sleep at night …

If you want to deal with one question at a time please feel free to pick one.

you mean you’ll try to explain why people really do have visions of Mary on the tree in their yard

The scatter gun approach to state the dogma’s of your own caricature of religion is no more than a meaningless mantra - unless you want to be specific and engage in an intellectual fashion.

I had to cover a lot of absurdity in a short blurb. You’re right … I didn’t do it justice (it’s really much more silly than I can describe in a short paragraph).

the main basis of my posts is trying to separate the realities of the rise of science from your atheistic delusions.

ahh, so you’re a qualified scientist and a paranormal expert (what a guy)? Awesome … please tell me why pesky people who simply ask for a proper degree of evidence for wild absurd claims are “delusional” (can’t wait to hear this one)

 

[yankee_doodle]

Not a race, a ‘people’. Are there any ethnic identities that are not based partly on myth?

good point …

 

[Kamalayka]

Well, obviously there are going to be differences between myths – big differences, in most cases.

The point, as I understand it, is that in general the ideas of magical birth, death, and resurrection are extremely common in world mythology, in a variety of forms. The fact that the Jesus story fits into the pattern might lead one to suspect that it’s a myth like any other.

Christians have long been aware of this problem – and the typical response, at one time, had been to suggest that these pagan stories were meant to prefigure the coming of Christ. [Milton, in Paradise Lost, goes as far to suggest that the gods of pagan mythology were demons who – knowingly, unknowingly? – modeled their myths on Christ’s sacrifice]

Of course, that’s special pleading. Voltaire was probably the one who first made popular the argument that it’s the other way around: that the myth of Christ draws on those other myths (consciously or unconsciously…see Joseph Campbell’s work for the notion that myths come from the Unconscious mind).

There’s really not much to discuss here. I don’t think that this is a very good argument against Christianity because believers will always use special pleading to claim that their myth is the special one. A better argument against Christianity is that there’s no evidence for any of these myths, Christian or otherwise.

It very well could be Satan. I have seen demons personally, so I know for a fact that they exist. (I also know from Revelation that demons are extremely intelligent. I suppose that comparing human intelligence to a demon’s would be like comparing the strength of an ant to that of an elephant.)
I’m not arrogant enough to assume what the atheists here do!

This reminds me of something:

Have you ever went to Youtube and looked up “Eucharistic miracles”?

 

[AntiTheist]

It very well could be Satan.

Sure. Or it could be that Osiris is the one, true god and that all other god-man legends (including the Jesus legend) are the work of Set. Or it could be that Krishna is the one, true god and that all other god-man legends (including the Jesus legend) are the work of evil rakshasas (the Hindu version of demons).

Or it could be that they’re all just stories.

This is what I mean about special pleading. You’re finding reasons to pick your favorite myth as the “true” one and dismiss all of the others, while you could just as easily pick another myth as the “true” one and dismiss all the others in the same way.

The fact that you’ve apparently “seen demons” is irrelevant. It could have actually been a rakshasa that you saw, or a deva or the agents of Set, or it could have been a dream or something disagreeing with your stomach.

It’s amusing that you think atheists are the “arrogant” ones when you’re here making huge, huge assumptions: that what you think you saw was what you assume it was, that your favorite myth happens to be the right one, that you’re not being misled by some other spiritual being, etc.

I’m making no such assumptions. I just don’t see any reason to believe any of this stuff.

 

[abucs]

whatever helps you sleep at night …

you mean you’ll try to explain why people really do have visions of Mary on the tree in their yard

ahh, so you’re a qualified scientist and a paranormal expert (what a guy)? Awesome … please tell me why pesky people who simply ask for a proper degree of evidence for wild absurd claims are “delusional” (can’t wait to hear this one)

Firstly, yes i am a qualified scientist with over 15 years in the field and now back at Uni studying post graduate.

With your explanation that i’ll try to explain someone having a vision of mary on their tree in their backyard - again you are running away from serious conversation and trivilising Christianity in a caricature fashion. while you continue to produce the most absurd picture of Christianity, your mind does not have to deal with the real issues.

If we are dealing with visions in general then we are dealing with whether the material is the primary basis of reality. (or to an atheist - the only basis of reality).

Science has come a long way in recognising that mater is not primal. Witness the ideas of string theory, 14 dimensions, paralle universes etc.

I don’t agree with those theories, but there are reasons why they are postulated. we know the material is not fundamental to ultimate reality. Our science tells us this in many ways. A 19th century materialistic philosophy is out of step with such ideas.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Firstly, yes i am a qualified scientist with over 15 years in the field and now back at Uni studying post graduate.

With your explanation that i’ll try to explain someone having a vision of mary on their tree in their backyard - again you are running away from serious conversation and trivilising Christianity in a caricature fashion. while you continue to produce the most absurd picture of Christianity, your mind does not have to deal with the real issues.

If we are dealing with visions in general then we are dealing with whether the material is the primary basis of reality. (or to an atheist - the only basis of reality).

Science has come a long way in recognising that mater is not primal. Witness the ideas of string theory, 14 dimensions, paralle universes etc.

I don’t agree with those theories, but there are reasons why they are postulated. we know the material is not fundamental to ultimate reality. Our science tells us this in many ways. A 19th century materialistic philosophy is out of step with such ideas.

Well, Fermi Labs is looking for surplus gravitons that disappear into assumably another dimension right now. Scientists have also discovered the universe is lopsided (half of the sky appears to have larger deviations from the average temperature of the radiation in the cosmic microwave background). They think this could mean there was a universe prior to our own (and hence time would have began prior to the big bang).

Obviously we need to wait & see how the research pans out – nevertheless, we know evolution is a fact, chemists have viable scenarios with regard to abiogenesis, and comparative mythology (no matter what you guys say) is very compelling.

When I personally add it up – I see little reason to base my life on what I’m pretty sure are ancient myths. You do & you have every right to do so; but to say we’re unreasonable seems ignorant and backwards to me … regardless of how qualified you may be (when objectively speaking atheism makes perfect sense, if truth is what you’re interested in).

When you say material is not fundamental to ultimate reality, I’d like some elaboration. There’s no credible scientific body I know of postulating a spiritual reality, so what are you talking about? Are you talking about dark matter (because if you are that is material, or mass, and even though we can’t see it directly, we can detect it through gravitational lensing)? Are you talking about quantum theory? What???

The way I see it conflating religion with science has “always” been folly. No good physicist worth his salt should ever ever postulate a non-material cause for anything. That’s as good as tossing a white towel in the ring, and saying we’re too stupid, therefore god.

 

[abucs]

Well i would say a few things. Firstly you are entiitled to your opinion, of course. And you must follow what is the most sensible with regards to how you see the world.

One philosophical question i would ask is this - will man, sometime in the future, with tens of thousands of years of intelligence behind him, be able to create a rational self sustaining universe with life ? Considering that he has at his disposal : his inteligence; already existing material and laws; a working model to copy from; and the results of a gigantic amount of triasl and error runs ?

If we answer no, man will not be able to do that, then it is difficult to support it happening out of nothing by chance, the first time around.

If we answer yes, man with his scientific endevours will be able to do that (and that is what i would argue for) then by rationality, we have to be open to the very real possibility that it has already been done for us.

What i basically would argue for, in the secondary nature of matter is the fact that matter pops in and out of existance as a normal part of ‘nature’. That it follows a probability reality rather than a definite positional reality, that matter seems to ‘act differently’ on observation that cannot be accounted for in a ‘mechanical disturbance’ way, and finally that all matter seems to be connected (by something) in a non material way, and this non material way does not act in a ‘cause and effect’ way but gives the appearance, for some reason, to do so.

The scientific arguments i would use are

1. the observer affect - especially with experiments such as the famous Delayed Choice Double Slit Experiment;
2. the Uncertaincy Principle especially in relation to the Observer Effect which suggests that the act of observation is fundamental to the laws of physics of how matter would act and lastly
3. Bells Theorem of Inequality which strongly feeds off the other two to suggest that reality is non local, although it appears to be local at our macro human experience.

I think that critically the observer effect is key. There is no reason in a ‘natural’ universe why matter should change “its behaviour” because of how much a scientist knows about its position.

It is very remniscent of computer programming in these ‘real life’ simulation games.

For example, if you are in one of these ‘virtual reality’ games and standing by the seaside. You might be watching the waves come in and some paper blow along the sand and a log drift with the tide. If you turned around and there might be a mountain with branches blowing in the wind, and water falling down in as river etc etc. In the virtual world, what happens to the ocean behind you ? What happens to the paper on the sand ? What happens to the log in the ocean ? It is still ‘real’ in the sense that the programming allows for a mathematical probability (law) of what is likely to happen but it remains a probability until you (the user) turn back around and ‘force’ it to be ‘real’ again. That is, for efficiency sake, there are two laws, or programming, one for an oberver and one when ‘material’ is unobserved. And the programming (law of nature) is based around what is observed and what is not observed. That is exactly how we see our real (to us) laws of nature. I am not saying something silly like we are in a computer simulation, but i am saying that if you hold to the thinking that the world ‘is created’ then what we would expect (with our limited knowledge) is actually what we see in our laws of nature.

Now our computer programming is only about 40 years old. Where will it be in 4 million years time ?

If as atheists claim, life is simply a set of neural programmed connections from a processing centre (the brain) in an environment (the universe) with access to a memory system (our memories) then man in a million years should easily be able to re-create this - if atheists are correct. But then you also have to be open to the possibility that it has already been created.

My highlighting of the Chriustian nature of science was trying to present original science as the idea of yes, a material world bound by laws, but also something intelligent behind those laws. this was always the Christian position and still is today.

Once we are open to this probability then we look to see if this intelligence, which uphold our continual existance, has a message for us. From the acceptance of Christianity we then proceed to understand this ‘intelligence’ as a loving, forgiving God who calls us to be what is truely important - not only intelligent like Him but also loving like him. From this there are a whole lot of questions about why this and why that and how can God do this etc etc but these are Theological questions that Christians (and jews etc) have tried to answer for thousands of years.

But if we do not accept the philosophy of the early scientists, but as i said, a 19th century atheist philosophy, then we don’t progress off the first rung of the ladder.

What i would concentrate on is the observer effect and how that scientifically does affect the behaviour of matter.

I would argue also something like this.

If the matter is dependable on the laws of physics and
matter is directly related to conscious observation the
consciousness and the laws of physic are inextricably bound and if
the laws of physics has been with us from the start
then consciousness too, or the realisation of consciousness has also always been with us.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Well i would say a few things. Firstly you are entiitled to your opinion, of course. And you must follow what is the most sensible with regards to how you see the world.

One philosophical question i would ask is this - will man, sometime in the future, with tens of thousands of years of intelligence behind him, be able to create a rational self sustaining universe with life ? Considering that he has at his disposal : his inteligence; already existing material and laws; a working model to copy from; and the results of a gigantic amount of triasl and error runs ?

Yes maybe … I’m not omniscient (I can’t predict the future). But I’ve heard some physicists say this probably will be possible.

What i basically would argue for, in the secondary nature of matter is the fact that matter pops in and out of existance as a normal part of ‘nature’.

Do you know what the first law of thermodynamics is, or the law of conservation of mass/matter? I’ll explain. Mass (or energy) cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, and changed into different types of particles.

I assume you’re referring to open systems, but even where energy escapes it doesn’t disappear. There is ongoing research looking for multiverses, where scientists are looking for surplus gravitons to see if they disappear into other dimensions; but that’s theoretical right now.

That it follows a probability reality rather than a definite positional reality, that matter seems to ‘act differently’ on observation that cannot be accounted for in a ‘mechanical disturbance’ way, and finally that all matter seems to be connected (by something) in a non material way, and this non material way does not act in a ‘cause and effect’ way but gives the appearance, for some reason, to do so.

The scientific arguments i would use are

1. the observer affect - especially with experiments such as the famous Delayed Choice Double Slit Experiment;
2. the Uncertaincy Principle especially in relation to the Observer Effect which suggests that the act of observation is fundamental to the laws of physics of how matter would act and lastly
3. Bells Theorem of Inequality which strongly feeds off the other two to suggest that reality is non local, although it appears to be local at our macro human experience.

I think that critically the observer effect is key. There is no reason in a ‘natural’ universe why matter should change “its behaviour” because of how much a scientist knows about its position.

It is very remniscent of computer programming in these ‘real life’ simulation games.

For example, if you are in one of these ‘virtual reality’ games and standing by the seaside. You might be watching the waves come in and some p[aper blow along the sand and a log drift with the tide. If you turned around and there might be a mountain with branches blowing in the wind, and water falling down in as river etc etc. In the virtual world, what happens to the ocean behind you ? What happens to the paper on the sand ? What happens to the log in the ocean ? It is still ‘real’ in the sense that the programming allows for a mathematical probability (law) of what is likely to happen but it remains a probability until you (the user) turn back around and ‘force’ it to be ‘real’ again. That is, for efficiency sake, there are two laws, or programming, one for an oberver and one when ‘material’ is unobserved. And the programming (law of nature) is based around what is observed and what is not observed. That is exactly how we see our real (to us) laws of nature. I am not saying something silly like we are in a computer simulation, but i am saying that if you hold to the thinking that the world ‘is created’ then what we would expect (with our limited knowledge) is actually what we see in our laws of nature.

Now our computer programming is only about 40 years old. Where will it be in 4 million years time ?

First the observer effect (in the uncertainty principal) is generally caused by the instruments used, which alter the state of what they’re measuring. In order to detect an electron, a photon must first interact with it, which changes the path of the electron. A simpler analogy is to consider a voltmeter. When you connect it to a circuit to check its voltage it alters the voltage (i.e. it alters the current by presenting an additional load to the circuit).

So the fluctuations in quantum physics aren’t like your hypothetical observer (i.e. god) who has to deal with the variable of our free will. Maybe you meant to refer to quantum entanglement; but still – I don’t see any validity in your reasoning.

If as atheists claim, life is simply a set of neural programmed connections from a processing centre (the brain) in an environment (the universe) with access to a memory system (our memories) then man in a million years should easily be able to re-create this - if atheists are correct. But then you also have to be open to the possibility that it has already been created.

I think much less than a million years.

My highlighting of the Chriustian nature of science was trying to present original science as the idea of yes, a material world bound by laws, but also something intelligent behind those laws. this was always the Christian position and still is today.

With all due respect, this is simply the same old (and logically fallacious) religious argument from incredulity.

Once we are open to this probability then we look to see if this intelligence, which uphold our continual existance, has a message for us. From the acceptance of Christianity we then proceed to understand this ‘intelligence’ as a loving, forgiving God who calls us to be what is truely important - not only intelligent like Him but also loving like him. From this there are a whole lot of questions about why this and why that and how can God do this etc etc but these are Theological questions that Christians (and jews etc) have tried to answer for thousands of years.

That’s ridiculous. If science were to accept a god hypothesis, that’s the equivalent of saying we’re too stupid, therefore god. You can’t proceed on a premise unsupported by any evidence. If you do and ignore the likelihood that everything has a natural cause; you create an unnecessary ceiling for discovery.

continued …
[/quote]

 

[yankee_doodle]

But if we do not accept the philosophy of the early scientists, but as i said, a 19th century atheist philosophy, then we don’t progress off the first rung of the ladder.

What i would concentrate on is the observer effect and how that scientifically does affect the behaviour of matter.

I would argue also something like this.

If the matter is dependable on the laws of physics and
matter is directly related to conscious observation the
consciousness and the laws of physic are inextricably bound and if
the laws of physics has been with us from the start
then consciousness too, or the realisation of consciousness has also always been with us.

So, according to you (I’m trying to summarize the structure of your logical argument)

Physics —> matter
Consciousness (i.e. our awareness) ----> matter
Consciousness —> laws of physics

Hence, since physics has always existed, consciousness has also always existed.

The problem is an obvious one. In the third statement, you infer a relationship between consciousness and physics, yet you depict the relationship as interdependent – or at least you’re conclusion requires an interdependent relationship (when in reality while our consciousness couldn’t have existed without physics first existing, physics has never had any dependence on our consciousness).

To infer an interdependent relationship because our awareness of physics couldn’t have happened without conscious observation reduces to the absurd. It’s accepted as fact that physics precedes our ability of conscious observation (and but for physics, conscious observation by human agents would be impossible) … therefore your hypothesis is wrong.

 

[abucs]

Yankee, i disagree with a few of your comments there, especially on the key concept of the observer affect being caused by instrumental interference. As i mentioned earlier the delayed choice double split experiment shows this best but there are others.

The Laws of thermodynamics are emergent laws that are observed on the macro scale. I think if you look at emergent laws and then think that they tell us how the universe actually works then this is a big mistake - but understandable.

The laws of the universe work on probabilities. Laws that are emergent are seen when these probabilities even out.

For example some emergent law might be based on the flip of a coin (say the conservation of energy). and if there are literally billions of components involved (such as say electrons, protons etc) that are subject to this coin flipping then on average we are going to get a 50 / 50 split and the emerging law holds.

It is possible that we might get a billion heads in a row. we never really observe this though as you would expect and so the emergent law holds - in this case a law based on a 50 / 50 split.

But the actual reality behind that law is that it is still a probability that seems based on a mathematical distribution that we don’t know where it comes from. The physical laws and apparent scientific principles we observe on the macro scale are not the best ways of describing the reality of what is actually happenning. What is astounding is that the laws that do run our universe produce emergent laws that then allow us to exist in a seemingly ‘rational’ environment. I think to concentrate on emerging laws instead of fundamental laws is the 19th century philosophy of looking at science that has to be abandoned. It works up to a point. the same way a monkey gets closer to the moon by climbing a tree. But in order to get to the moon the monkey has to come back down the tree (and evolve into Mr Armstrong ).

I’m right in the middle of assignments right now.
Give me until about Wednesday and i’ll get back to you more fully.

Please have a look at the above observer effect experiment so you can tell me where i’m going wrong.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

yankee, your idea that the entire Galileo affair surrounded scriptural interpretation is part of your Fairy Tales that you believe about history.

Galileo’s main opponents were academics and professor’s. The trial of Galileo centred on scientific proof of the earth going around the sun.

The simple truth is that the 68 year old Galileo could not prove it.

Galileo, as were the creators of just about all our science, was thoroughly Christian, not from some latter cult of atheists.

Two of his three children were nuns and his uncle was a Bishop. He was the personal friend of 2 Popes and was following the very Catholic idea of the Earth going around the Sun that was promoted originally by the Catholic monk Copernicus in the Vatican gardens 100 years before Galileo’s trial. The Pope of the time of the 68 year old Galileo affair was in his youth also a believer in the Sun centred model and worked with Galileo and other Catholic scientists.

The discussions of the affair involved Galileo arguing the tidal waves proved the earth moved and his opponent scientists claiming that tides were due to the moons position - they were right. The main arguement was why no paralax was observed in the sky if the Earth moved around the sun.

jefferson.kctcs.edu/faculty/graney/CMGRESEARCH/PhysicsAstro/PIPGalileoforWeb.pdf

Today we know the answer for this but Galileo then didn’t.

The idea that Galileo’s opponents were waving bibles (quoting what exactly ???) is a Fairy Tale that you have Yankee. and as an atheist you have many of them.

with Galileo losing the debate, the old man was told to go back to his house, stop studying astronomy and stop publishing. Galileo didn’t bother listening to any of this. And what did the big bad church do to Galileo when he ignored them ? They didn’t do anything to him at all. The Church in the decades directly afterwards went on to convert Cathedrals across Europe to observatories and this was the golden age of astronomy. The Jesuits went out all over the world and taught this new science in all of the foreign courts such as China and Japan.

Nobody bothered with the Galileo affair at all until the 19th century when atheist philosophers resurrected the story and created a Fairy Tale of science Vs religion that members of the atheist cult still believe to this day.

Christians developed western science to describe and explain God’s creation. That was the philosophical basis for creating science. Since God is not a creation of himself, science cannot be used to prove the creator except by inference. The creators of science all knew this to be true. The 19th century atheist philosophers (who were not scientists) with their belief that nature is everything didn’t share this founding philosophy of science.

Their followers today want everything proved by science because in their own minds the material is all that exists. That philosophy is wrong IMHO - and has nothing to do with science.

A computer electrician that knows the working of computers might be able to infer something about the mind of the person who designed the computer by studying parts and the inner workings but he could not tell you anything definite about that creator because the creator of the computer is not made up of and is not under the same design as the computer components itself.

Likewise science was created to tell us about God’s creation - read Issac Newton, it cannot by its very nature give a definite description of God.

This was the founding principle of science. It may not be your 19th century philosophy. But the main problem is that many atheists cannot separate science and their 19th century athiestic philosophy. Christians don’t criticise western science, we created it. But we do strongly criticise your atheistic philosophy that you have attached to science and that underpins your thinking.

It was the Church that condemned Galileo. “[A]cademics and professor’s” [sic] didn’t operate an Inquisition. The OP’s question is a good one; the Church claimed that Scripture was against Galileo, when in fact it, and not he, had mistaken its sense. As the late Stanley Jaki (O.S.B.) shows, and is not afraid to admit. To try to off-load the responsibility for the acts of churchmen on to any but them, deserves no respect. Yet Catholics do it all the time. Which is pointless, because it merely arouses disgust in those who know the facts. It is suicidal. Far better atheist honesty, than Christian suppression of facts. Galileo was in fact punished in 1633, but he was permitted to have his daughter, a nun, perform it as his proxy, in view of his advancing ill-health. BTW - what about the matter of Giordano Bruno ? He was burned alive in 1600 for his ideas, some of them with a bearing on astronomy. If the Church was so well-inclined to Galileo, why was his book on the Roman Index until about 1823 ?​

To say that Christians created Western science is less than the truth, and ignores Christian anti-scientific hysteria.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Yankee, i disagree with a few of your comments there, especially on the key concept of the observer affect being caused by instrumental interference. As i mentioned earlier the delayed choice double split experiment shows this best but there are others.

The Laws of thermodynamics are emergent laws that are observed on the macro scale. I think if you look at emergent laws and then think that they tell us how the universe actually works then this is a big mistake - but understandable.

OK, but again what you’re talking about is the uncertainty principal as it applies to observing entangled particles. And again your initial analogy doesn’t jive with quantum entanglement.