Don't you love Jesus?

[Gurm]

Ok Umf, you don't like humanity-related stuff so here's one for you. I'll have to refer you out to an outside observer, an impartial source as it were.

Gerald Schroeder, PhD Physics. He wrote a book entitled "Genesis and the Big Bang" in which he explains that the events of the creation, as laid out in the first book of the Torah... actually are cosmologically accurate. The math is... heady. Go have fun with that.

[Umfriend]

Thx Gurm! Guess I got some research to do. So uhm, did you read it and if so, what has Genesis told us about the universe that we did we not know prior to it being written but could have known had we had the knowledge we have today back then?

Edit: OK< not having read the actual book yet but skimmed through some reviews, I think it is fair to say this fails to meet the challenge. The reason being that it does not show what is requested but is "merely" an attempt to reconcile science with Genesis.

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm

I do hope you can see why it does not provide what I asked for. Please note that Schroeder, allegedly, does not show any knowledge given by Genesis that could not have been known then but is known now. Rather, he tries to show how assertions from Genesis can be reconciled with current science. The reconciliation itself is disputed BTW.

[Jammrock]

OK, I am still not clear on what this is supposed to mean. I'll try and clarify why I am confused.

How about this ... I'm not saying logic dictates that there must be a supreme being, or god, only that logic says there is a possibility of one. Like I said, nothing regarding a supreme being can be proven or disproven when you're sitting on a tiny pebble in a giant cosmos. Only theorized and conjectured.

This all started one fine day when Gurm stated that he leans towards judaism based on logic.

If you believe in "god" (in quotes because each religion seems to have their own name for said supreme being), then you can use logic to determine which religion seems the best, or right, to you.

My point is that logic does not dictate that [a] god[s] [must] exist.

True, from yours, and many others, perspective. No two people have the same idea of what the universe is; therefore, no two people will have the same criteria of what does and does not constitute reality beyond the our empirical perceptions. Thus we have threads with 200 posts and a half a dozen people debating about life and the universe with half a dozen unique perspectives. Are any perspectives inherently right or wrong? Nope. Unless one of you are a god and not telling us ...... <insert Ghostbusters monolgue here>

So to maybe end our debate. I am not saying that logic dictates that there must be a god. Maybe Gurm and others are, but not me. Only that I see a logic/philosophical discourse, or path, that says there is the possibility of a god ... on a logic/theological/philisophical level, not scientific. Story time...

Den gang jeg var i Danmark ... er ... When I was in Denmark serving my mission I had a very unique experience. The mission office got a new couple (older couples can serve missions, too). The husband was a retired astophysics professor from the University of Indiana with 30+-years of experience studying the the cosmos - red giant stars was his specialty. To put in perspective how smart this guy was, he moonlighted (i.e. worked part-time) as an astrophysics professor at the Niels-Bohr Institute in Copenhagen (Kuubenhavn). Now here is where people would find the paradox: here is this experienced, intelligent astrophysicist ... serving a religious mission.

I talked to him on several occasions and asked him about the cosmos and religion. To quickly summarize it, he was a firm believer in the Big Bang and in God. He saw no scientific evidence, according to our knowledge of the universe, that showed anything counter to the theory of the Big Bang; however, he saw nothing in the Big Bang, and science in general, that convinced him that there was not, or could not be a god, and nothing in religion that swayed his opinions in science. He basically went on to say that he holds the two seperate in his life. When he wants to learn about the physical world or the cosmos he uses science. When he wants to learn about things spiritual or theological he uses religion. Thus in his mind, and in mine as well, the two fulfill two distinct (unique) purposes.

Religion holds no sway on my science. Science holds no sway on my religion. I may find some interesting coincidences between the two, like the discussion in the book "Genesis and the Big Bang" (haven't read the book, but know the idea very well), or in the discourse I posted here. But ultimately, I keep the two as seperate as possible.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Jammrock

[GNEP]

I can see exactly where you are coming from Jammy - I was with a girl for a couple of years at Uni who (a) was a brilliant physicist coming out with a first in her Masters (b) had her feet on the ground - she's now a patent attourney and has gone expat to Singapore and (c) basically believed in the whole creation-in-seven-days thing (not a huge exaggeration). Had some of my best discussions about religion with her, ranging all over the place, and was if anything rather jealous of the degree of (to me) "doublethink" that she is capable of. In fact I have nothing but respect for people who have that sort of belief in their lives. In many ways I am rather jealous, because for whatever reason, I believe there is nothing (NB not the same as not believing in anything). And it is perfectly possible to religious and scientific, but to an extent the two inevitably exist as parallel streams of consciousoness.

(and (d) she was damned good looking )

[KRSESQ]

Discussions of this type will go on forever until we finally meet up with some extraterrestrials and are able to ask them their opinion on the subject. Unfortunately such extraterrestrials will likely be millions of years evolved beyond us, so any discourse will be impossible.

If you accept as a truism Clarke's axiom that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, then the logical corollary must be that any sufficiently evolved intelligence is indistinguishable from God.

Unfortunately our science will likely always be inadequate to prove the existance of such a "supreme intelligence" (read: God) empirically, especially if they have evolved beyond the confines of our physical universe, where the physical laws we take comfort in likely do not apply.

The question then becomes, are you or are you not willing to accept that such a possibility exists, and what is the probability?

Kevin

[KRSESQ]

In reference to the original post, I find such representations of Jesus ridiculous. Who in their right mind would try to play sports dressed like that?

Kevin

[Umfriend]

OK Jammrock, I'll ahve to think about that. I basically think (now) that this is something that is intrinsically inarguable: Given that I can not prove god does not exist, there must be a possibility he does. Kind of far fewer sentences to say what your logical discourse did I guess.

Not sure how it then ligically arrives at a "highly probable" but I'll think about whether that is something I would be able and willing to argue about.

I am convinced that the logic discourse itself is dubious at best but again, it seems immaterial to me right now.

Just to be sure, when I stated that Gurm said logic made him to lean towards judaism I meant that he claimed that logic lead him to "believe". He chose judaism, I know not why.

I gues I am done until the challenge is met. I am actually surprised at this lot. It is clear to me no muslims are here because they'd have been all over me with at least one thing LOL

[KRSESQ]

The main textbook my philosophy teacher used was A Natural Theology For Our Time by Charles Hartshorne. If you're able to wade through the metaphysical arguments better than I then you may come out with something worthwhile.

There are any number of other works which take a similar approach.

Kevin

[Umfriend]

For me? I am an Atheist. Not looking for a defence of theism or deism. Thx.

[KRSESQ]

Not offering it as a defence, just as a source of better understanding.

After all, isn't that really what we're after here?

Kevin

[Umfriend]

Not offering it as a defence, just as a source of better understanding.

After all, isn't that really what we're after here?

Kevin

Not me.

[Nowhere]

here is a question for allof you...

do you think that an athiest has no Faith, or is faith only for those who belive in god?

One can believe also in humanity...

Or flying spaghetti monster, or pink unicorns

[KRSESQ]

@ Umf:

Sorry. I was obviously mistaken.

So, why are we discussing this again?

Kevin

[KRSESQ]

Let's not get started on Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.

Mark me, no good will come of this.

Kevin

[Nowhere]

Define logic. Define logical. There is no logic, because all logic is based upon assumption somewhere along the line, which makes it illogical and flawed.

Assumptions might be flawed. But the logic itself...basically, trying hard, you can get it out of the definition of empty set...