The beginning

[Kszchroink]

Kings 7:23:  And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

this suggests that the value of pi is 3, because its diameter is 10 and its circumference is 30. is a cubit such a large object that this molten sea is bent as per general relativity (which lead to the eventual development of the Big Bang theory; also i'm just humouring you since a cubit is not nearly big enough), or is this statement just not meant to be taken literally?

likewise how can the rest of the bible be taken literally if this is not true? is there some index put out by the Roman Catholics of which statements are to be taken literally and which are to be taken metaphorically?

diameter cubits are different from circumference cubits

[Dodger]

this discussion really became out of my league, so i really didnt manage to read teh whole topic after page 1.... but what i don't understand is: how can an explosion which destroys mostly everything that is destroyable on this earth actually create the same thing and infinetively more? i don't really believe in god... but i aint an Atheist either... im kind of a humanist with some overnatural thoughts... and i can't believe how someone that we havn't seen ANY proof of exists can create this whole world of amazing things?... AND what i really don't understand is how the person that actually came and said: "hey dude tehre was a guy named god that flooded the whole earth" could make people believe him...

[panda_bear_smoking]

this discussion really became out of my league, so i really didnt manage to read teh whole topic after page 1.... but what i don't understand is: how can an explosion which destroys mostly everything that is destroyable on this earth actually create the same thing and infinetively more?

mass–energy equivalence is the concept that any mass has an associated energy and vice versa. In special relativity this relationship is expressed using the mass–energy equivalence formula

    E = mc^2

wiki ^

[Dodger]

omg i lost u at the quote -.-

[Svirin Kerath]

But I challenge that, because it's the same argument used to dissuade people from pursuing truth. "We cannot/will never understand it, because we are incapable of it, so why bother? Just accept it."

Then lets reconfigure our whole mathematical system until we can prove its pure stability, which is impossible. I never said we are incapable, we just don't YET. We don't understand a lot of feck but we still use it and it can work or it doesn't.

Pure stability? "Pure" means perfect, so i don't know why you expect so much, but what's wrong with math? The only real screwy thing is dividing by zero. And if we discover something that means we have to totally rewrite the books on math (just as we've done so on many subjects in science), then we will.

Heh, you act like it's our fault, but really, if we are incapable of understanding god, that is because he made us that way.

It would be our "fault" with a God or not, though its not really a fault.

It's considered a fault to be ignorant of god, is it not? To what degree are people responsible for their own ignorance? If we depend on revelation to know about him, and he doesn't reveal something to us, then how can it be

our "fault with a God or not

?

To jump to any such conclusion about what we are capable of understanding is simply a fallacy, because it assumes we've learned all that we possibly can, when really we are just beginning to learn.

I never said we are incapable as a human beings, but with all we know now we are. Get it?

"Foolish" is the term you used, which isn't exactly a positive one, foolish to "assume that we can understand god." Which means it's unreasonable to assume that it's possible, and unless we evolve into a different species in the future, or our minds completely change, that's the same as saying it is never reasonable to think it's possible.

[Smegma]

Pure stability? "Pure" means perfect, so i don't know why you expect so much, but what's wrong with math? The only real screwy thing is dividing by zero. And if we discover something that means we have to totally rewrite the books on math (just as we've done so on many subjects in science), then we will.

No, thats not the only problem, there are many things mathematicians look on. There are many systems of math, and dividing by zero is not the only screwy thing.

It's considered a fault to be ignorant of god, is it not? To what degree are people responsible for their own ignorance? If we depend on revelation to know about him, and he doesn't reveal something to us, then how can it be

Nope. It is revealed, but just like everything else we don't know much about the world. You've said this yourself, its JUST the beginning.

"Foolish" is the term you used, which isn't exactly a positive one, foolish to "assume that we can understand god." Which means it's unreasonable to assume that it's possible, and unless we evolve into a different species in the future, or our minds completely change, that's the same as saying it is never reasonable to think it's possible.

It was FOOLISH to compare him to such a simple allegory. Its not foolish to think we'll never understand him. It is foolish to think we can now and actually completely disproof it with current knowledge.

[mxyzptlk]

Pure stability? "Pure" means perfect, so i don't know why you expect so much, but what's wrong with math? The only real screwy thing is dividing by zero. And if we discover something that means we have to totally rewrite the books on math (just as we've done so on many subjects in science), then we will.

No, thats not the only problem, there are many things mathematicians look on. There are many systems of math, and dividing by zero is not the only screwy thing.

It's considered a fault to be ignorant of god, is it not? To what degree are people responsible for their own ignorance? If we depend on revelation to know about him, and he doesn't reveal something to us, then how can it be

Nope. It is revealed, but just like everything else we don't know much about the world. You've said this yourself, its JUST the beginning.

"Foolish" is the term you used, which isn't exactly a positive one, foolish to "assume that we can understand god." Which means it's unreasonable to assume that it's possible, and unless we evolve into a different species in the future, or our minds completely change, that's the same as saying it is never reasonable to think it's possible.

It was FOOLISH to compare him to such a simple allegory. Its not foolish to think we'll never understand him. It is foolish to think we can now and actually completely disproof it with current knowledge.

And why can't we disprove god? So many miracle that were performed in biblical times can happen today with modern technology. Are we gods? No! We just have technological means that we didn't back then. Water into wine? Not quite, but with flavourings, we could get close enough to fool someone back then. Burning bush visions? Videos projected into the smoke.
There are many more, but I don't feel like enumerating them all here.

There are also many inconsistencies in the bible, some of which have already been said in this thread. One that I can remember off the top of my head is Moses parting the red sea. This seems like an impossible task without a miracle, but perhaps the spelling was skewed in translation. There is another sea nearby, named the reed sea that seasonally dries out. This could be seen as a parting of the reed sea.

[Smegma]

And why can't we disprove god? So many miracle that were performed in biblical times can happen today with modern technology. Are we gods? No! We just have technological means that we didn't back then. Water into wine? Not quite, but with flavourings, we could get close enough to fool someone back then. Burning bush visions? Videos projected into the smoke.
There are many more, but I don't feel like enumerating them all here.

There are also many inconsistencies in the bible, some of which have already been said in this thread. One that I can remember off the top of my head is Moses parting the red sea. This seems like an impossible task without a miracle, but perhaps the spelling was skewed in translation. There is another sea nearby, named the reed sea that seasonally dries out. This could be seen as a parting of the reed sea.

Never said you couldn't, but as of now you can't as it would follow in my arguments.

Saying jesus had video cameras and chemistry know how to perform a color change is just as ridiculous as the bible you are debunking.

[Mangled*]

My honest opinion free of duress: Religions are fantasies. They give people what they desire like hope of eternal afterlife and the catch is that you have to die to find out. So when you die and you find out it's wrong, it's too late.. you can't complain because you're dead.

Religions work in a similar way to horoscopes. Horoscopes are purposely vague and could apply to pretty much anyone. Anyone who believes horoscopes and makes decisions by them is a total moron. How can something in a magazine distributed to tens of thousands of people specifically apply to you? Vagueness allows you to make it your own, interpret it in your own way and apply it to your own situation.

The Bible / Koran or whatever you read, works in exactly the same way. I know a lot more about Christianity, so I will use that as an example. The bible is full of stories which are usually interpreted as metaphors purely because the reader chooses to. Anybody who took every word of the bible literally would have serious problems in this time because it's completely proven by fossils and geological studies that the Earth is a lot more than 6000 years old.

So the Bible lays down a few laws... God made the universe in 7 days etc... Anything that can be proven wrong by science becomes a metaphor with a secondary meaning. I like to call this adaptive religion... Adaptive because it continually tries to evade science where possible. The further science is from religion, the safer religion is. Meaning gets continually manipulated and altered, becoming more and more vague. This contrasts greatly with science where meaning gets more and more exact. Science is the quest for knowledge. It is not out to 'get' religion... but since religion is a prominent aspect in most peoples lives along with eating, drinking, reproducing, respiring then science wants to know more about it. And the more we learn about religion, the less true it seems to be.

Atheism isn't about hating religion. It's not about not believing in God for the sake of it... What it is is belief based upon what we know. Science paves the way to the future, it carves every aspect of our lives. You are sitting on a chair that was built humans, not God. You are reading this on a computer built by humans, not God. God didn't build you, your parents had sex and your fathers sperm found its way to your mothers egg.

Anyway, back to the vagueness... Prayers. Prayers are a tool of religion, you can pray for something to happen and it is up to God to decide. It can't by a blind coincidence. Right?

Bad example: If I pray for a dice to land on 6 and then roll it... if it lands on 6 that means God made it land on 6? Well no, the odds for anything start at 50% they either go up or down depending on the situation. 1/6 chance is pretty likely. When it comes to praying that someone won't die of a serious illness it's probably about as likely as 1/6 or better unless the situation is very bleak indeed. At the end of the day none of that matters because me getting on my knees and putting my hands together and talking to myself isn't going to change anything.

Vagueness. It's vague if God answers prayers or not. There's no proof and one of the outcomes of what you're praying for is a possibility anyway. Miracles are when you get the luck of the roll. Imagine a 50000 sided dice... I want to roll a 6. If I pray for a 6 and then roll a 6 is that a miracle? No. It's statistically improbable but not impossible. And people tend not to pray for improbable things anyway because they don't think to.

So my main point is adaptive religion... or maybe it's evasive religion... adaptive seems less offensive so I'll go with that one. It's what religion is all about... the less specific something is, the more likely you can apply it to your own situation.

[Smegma]

Religions work in a similar way to horoscopes. Horoscopes are purposely vague and could apply to pretty much anyone. Anyone who believes horoscopes and makes decisions by them is a total moron. How can something in a magazine distributed to tens of thousands of people specifically apply to you? Vagueness allows you to make it your own, interpret it in your own way and apply it to your own situation.

Bad example, seeing as astrology was sprung from mathematics. Now, depending on if you think it was a sincere venture or one to merely prosper (even if you feel the reasons were justified), doesn't make them any better than religious heads leading masses of people to beliefs.

Anyway, back to the vagueness... Prayers. Prayers are a tool of religion, you can pray for something to happen and it is up to God to decide. It can't by a blind coincidence. Right?

No religion is alike, and most proclaimed atheists just bash Christianity. Always stating that they know the most about, most likely just seeing bits and pieces and collecting the contradictions and bringing it up each time.

Atheism isn't about hating religion. It's not about not believing in God for the sake of it... What it is is belief based upon what we know.

Or what you choose to know. Newer edges of science hold great uncertainty, even theories do (blah blah been discussed so many). Taking which side to believe, and I use the word literally, is just like religion. I may understand concepts, but unless I understand proofs, whats the point. When it comes down to it, I would find it hard to think that all your beliefs are derived from your objective view of each side and their respected, if hopefully rigorous, "proofs" or what they have of them. More importantly, you should understand science can be subjective and still be correct, though not always the most simplified.

Well no, the odds for anything start at 50% they either go up or down depending on the situation. 1/6 chance is pretty likely.

Actually the odds can start at 100% if you want it, and anywhere in between.

[Mangled*]

Bad example, seeing as astrology was sprung from mathematics. Now, depending on if you think it was a sincere venture or one to merely prosper (even if you feel the reasons were justified), doesn't make them any better than religious heads leading masses of people to beliefs.

I believe you are confusing Astronomy with Astrology. Horoscopes have nothing to do with Astronomy other than using the starsign system. Astronomy is the study of space.

No religion is alike, and most proclaimed atheists just bash Christianity. Always stating that they know the most about, most likely just seeing bits and pieces and collecting the contradictions and bringing it up each time.

I guess we bash Christianity since it is one of the more outspoken against Atheism. Not to mention that the majority of Atheists live in the Western world where Christianity is dominant and not in the middle East where we'd probably be shot for questioning Islam, being the prominent religion there. I also know alot more about Christianity since a lot of my extended family are Christians.

Or what you choose to know. Newer edges of science hold great uncertainty, even theories do (blah blah been discussed so many). Taking which side to believe, and I use the word literally, is just like religion. I may understand concepts, but unless I understand proofs, whats the point. When it comes down to it, I would find it hard to think that all your beliefs are derived from your objective view of each side and their respected, if hopefully rigorous, "proofs" or what they have of them. More importantly, you should understand science can be subjective and still be correct, though not always the most simplified.

Yes, theories are not proof. But they are a means of eventually reaching proof. If you don't theorize then you don't have anything to work with in the first place. Theories are the basis of experimentation. You come up with a theory of something and then test it rigorously.

Actually the odds can start at 100% if you want it, and anywhere in between.

I think you missed the point there. That was not about statistics, it was about prayer and how indeterminate its success is.

[Smegma]

I believe you are confusing Astronomy with Astrology. Horoscopes have nothing to do with Astronomy other than using the starsign system. Astronomy is the study of space.

I know the difference, Astrology WAS started in mathematics. In fact, mathematics was deeply routed in religion from its beginnings.

I guess we bash Christianity since it is one of the more outspoken against Atheism. Not to mention that the majority of Atheists live in the Western world where Christianity is dominant and not in the middle East where we'd probably be shot for questioning Islam, being the prominent religion there. I also know alot more about Christianity since a lot of my extended family are Christians.

So you don't know what you know, you know what they know.

Yes, theories are not proof. But they are a means of eventually reaching proof. If you don't theorize then you don't have anything to work with in the first place. Theories are the basis of experimentation. You come up with a theory of something and then test it rigorously.

I was using a more precise definition of "rigorous". Depending on the science, the theories aren't tested rigorously. Many would argue proof in science is never reached.

I think you missed the point there. That was not about statistics, it was about prayer and how indeterminate its success is.

The odds can start out higher than 50% in that case too. You were talking about statistics, just that of prayer.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Kings 7:23:  And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

this suggests that the value of pi is 3, because its diameter is 10 and its circumference is 30. is a cubit such a large object that this molten sea is bent as per general relativity (which lead to the eventual development of the Big Bang theory; also i'm just humouring you since a cubit is not nearly big enough), or is this statement just not meant to be taken literally?

likewise how can the rest of the bible be taken literally if this is not true? is there some index put out by the Roman Catholics of which statements are to be taken literally and which are to be taken metaphorically?

You're just being difficult.  When was the last time you heard someone give an exact dimension for anything?  If I told you that the Washington Monument was 555 feet tall, you wouldn't be screaming, "LIAR!" at me, would you?  It's like how we say that the earth has a circumference of 25000 miles and a diameter of 8000 miles.  What? Pi is only 3.125?

The Bible isn't a scientific journal, and it's not going to carry out every calculation to the tenth decimal place.  It's simply a retelling of events that occurred, and approximation is acceptable in an informal description.

Date Posted: December 03, 2007, 08:08:43 pm

Vagueness. It's vague if God answers prayers or not.

It doesn't have to be.  If you pray for a miraculous occurrence, such as healing from cancer (sans chemotherapy, etc.), and it happens, there's some evidence that prayer is effective.  Obviously if you use it in trivial situations, like your dice example, any conclusions will be trivial as well.

Date Posted: December 03, 2007, 08:11:41 pm

There are also many inconsistencies in the bible, some of which have already been said in this thread. One that I can remember off the top of my head is Moses parting the red sea. This seems like an impossible task without a miracle, but perhaps the spelling was skewed in translation. There is another sea nearby, named the reed sea that seasonally dries out. This could be seen as a parting of the reed sea.

Well, since the Bible treats it as a miracle, it's not really an inconsistency, is it? Besides, chariot wheels HAVE been found in the Red Sea, and there's a sand bar across one part of it that could have been walked on if the water level was reduced only a little.

[frogboy]

You're just being difficult.  When was the last time you heard someone give an exact dimension for anything?  If I told you that the Washington Monument was 555 feet tall, you wouldn't be screaming, "LIAR!" at me, would you?  It's like how we say that the earth has a circumference of 25000 miles and a diameter of 8000 miles.  What? Pi is only 3.125?

The Bible isn't a scientific journal, and it's not going to carry out every calculation to the tenth decimal place.  It's simply a retelling of events that occurred, and approximation is acceptable in an informal description.

That still means you're interpreting it. If you read it literally it says you've got a 30 cubit round sea.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

That still means you're interpreting it. If you read it literally it says you've got a 30 cubit round sea.

You know the saying, "2 + 2 = 5, for large values of 2"?  That's a true statement.  Taken literally, it's false, but in science (which I assume is the perspective you're arguing from), it's a true statement.  Science itself allows for truth in approximation.

Anyway, here's a response that I gave to someone else arguing from a similar viewpoint:

Partially true.  You can't take EVERYTHING literally, since that would mean that everyone should have their own personal Sword of the Spirit and Shield of Faith (Ephesians 6).

Context is huge in the Bible.  For example, Jesus doesn't advocate self-mutilation when he says "If your eye causes you to sin, gauge it out," because he follows it up with "it's better that you should lose a part of your body than for your entire body to be thrown into hell." (Matthew 5 I think)  The point of this passage is to seek spiritual purity.  If you would go to heaven, but the only thing keeping you back is your eye, get rid of it.

Yes, the Bible should be treated as true and accurate, but that doesn't mean that every line is literal.  If someone says "I drove into work today and..." you don't stop them with "WHOA WHOA WHOA.  Hold it.  You drove INTO work? You mean you actually drove into the BUILDING? What were you thinking???"

As with everything, the Bible contains some allegories, some expressions, some contextual information, and so on.  As the reader, it's your job to understand which parts are which.

And don't tell me "Well everything should be obvious."  You're not stupid.  If your boss says "We're laying off 10% of our staff," no one asks "What percentage is staying?"  The answer, 90%, isn't explicitly given, but it's not hard to figure out either.  The Bible is the same way.  Also, it's not a matter of "I don't understand it, so it must be metaphorical."  It's more along the lines of "It is completely illogical for each of the seven billion people in the world to own a physical Sword of the Spirit, and since the Bible is a book of logic and reason, it must be a metaphor."

[frogboy]

So basically you pick and choose the statements to take metaphorically and which to take literally.
And 2+2=5 is irrelevant anyway, because it's intended as a joke.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

So basically you pick and choose the statements to take metaphorically and which to take literally.
And 2+2=5 is irrelevant anyway, because it's intended as a joke.

No, it isn't.  Let's say you had a scale that only measured integer units of weight.  One pound, two pounds, etc.   Now let's say you put a 2.1 pound weight on it.  The scale reads 2.  Now you put another 2.1 weight on it.  The scale reads 4.  2+2=4 (2.1 + 2.1 = 4.2, rounds down).  So far, so good.  Now let's say you remove both of those and put a 2.4 pound weight on the scale.  The scale reads 2.  Add an identical weight, and the scale reads 5.  2+2=5 (2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8, rounds up).  Wait, what? 2 + 2 = 5?? Oh right, it does for large values of 2.  That's not a joke, but a scientific principle dealing with the nature of approximation.

The thing to remember is that numbers do not have to be exact to be accurate.  Do you really expect the Bible to say "the circumference was 31.4159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937 5105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117 0679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594 0812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493 0381964428810975665933446128475648233786783165271 2019091456485669234603486104543266482133936072602 4914127372458700660631558817488152092096282925409 1715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146951 941511609... cubits"?  Should we say that it's false just because it doesn't carry the circumference out to billions of decimal places?

I hope by now you realize just how ridiculous your accusation was.

[frogboy]

...it's a joke, not a scientific principle. And either way it's irrelevant because you already claimed that the Bible isn't a scientific journal. If the circumference was rounded down by such a significant number, why bother even including it?

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

...it's a joke, not a scientific principle. And either way it's irrelevant because you already claimed that the Bible isn't a scientific journal. If the circumference was rounded down by such a significant number, why bother even including it?

8 inches is such a significant number?

And before I get a shout of outrage at my perceived error, let me clear up something.  The 31.4... cubits was an exaggerated example of a "true" verse.  However, the diameter would only have to be 8 inches shorter to get a proper circumference of 30 cubits.

[Svirin Kerath]

No, thats not the only problem, there are many things mathematicians look on. There are many systems of math, and dividing by zero is not the only screwy thing.

Depends how you define 'screwy.' But that's merely a matter of perception now.

Nope. It is revealed, but just like everything else we don't know much about the world. You've said this yourself, its JUST the beginning.

That's entirely different. In other things, information isn't revealed to us, we have to split atoms and dive hundreds of feet into the water and reach terminal velocity to bring back moon rocks. We can actively find the information, and learning information helps us learn more information. We don't have to sit around waiting for someone to decide to tell it to us, something which may or may not be directly related to another piece of information.

It was FOOLISH to compare him to such a simple allegory. Its not foolish to think we'll never understand him. It is foolish to think we can now and actually completely disproof it with current knowledge.

Assuming we can understand God fully would be foolish.

That's what you said. In saying that, you assume that we can't.

I never said god could be disproved, but I said that that lack of disprovability (if you'll forgive my use of a made-up word) made it scientifically unreliable. Of course, on a basis of faith, that doesn't really matter.

On Metaphors

That is all entirely perception, and so there cannot be any standard whatsoever.

For instance: In Luke's Gospel, there is a census, by Caesar's decree, and so all must return to their homeland to register for it. This is why Joseph goes to Nazareth in the first place.

But that's impossible. Caesar's census was directed towards Rome's immediately conjoined city states, and Israel was most certainly not included among their numbers.

Maybe it's a metaphor for god calling Joseph back to Nazareth? But that's unlikely, as god speaks to Joseph in dreams elsewhere, and besides, that would be comparing god to Caesar, which is ridiculous and actually kind of amusing, historical context considered.

What's more likely, and what scholars seem to agree on, is that since Luke's intended audience mostly consisted of Gentiles, or non-Jews, he wanted to include events elsewhere in the world that they could understand and relate to. He is also includes the probably poor and otherwise unremarkable shepherds into the story of the Nativity for the same reason.

To simplify, Luke added something that was otherwise a distant, religiously arbitrary, and unrelated event to a story that didn't really need it, to suit his purposes.

And that was one of the latest books of the Bible.

I'd also like to point out that the early Bible stories use very literal language- in Hebrew. With all the newfangled New Americans and King Jameses, a lot of original meaning, but also clarity, has been lost.

Some argue that God's "7 day creation" before man was introduced could be a metaphor for 7 million years, or seven billion, or even just a lot of time (7 was also a metaphor or symbol for infinity).

But the Jewish word used was 'yom,' which is literally a 24 hour day. That's how it's used everywhere else throughout the Bible. It also goes by first day, second day, third day, one at a time, not "seven," so it could be summarily interpreted as infinity.

Either all instances of yom are metaphors for expansive amounts of time, or the Genisis 7 yom creation is literally 7 Earth days. There is no metaphor.

Something to consider.

Also, on the subject of translation in Genisis, something fascinating.

The word "Elohim," is often mistranslated as "god." But that seems unlikely because Elohim is a plural word. And according to the original text, the "Elohim created heaven and earth" (forget the precise verse).

Elohim comes from the root "to be powerful," and is more literally translated as "the great ones, the prominent ones, the majesties, the judges, the mighty ones," etc. A singular "majestic/mighty/prominent" one would be an elohah.

Logically, wouldn't god be called an elohah?