Jump to content

Addai

Junior Member
  • Posts

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Addai

  1. how do you figuratively throw two nations or a religion into a lake of fire? It's the same kind of abstraction and illustration the way Jesus is "the lamb of God" but is not actually a sheep. People are damned by following the tenants of the evil anti Christ religion, and rejecting God, the prompting of the Holy Spirit whatever. In terms of nations, the people of the nation are damned when they follow their great anti-Christ dictator rather than listening to "The Two Witnesses" etc.
  2. I could image the false prophet could be something like the Mahdi in Islam. But I could also see how it could be a religion in general when those bible verses are seen more figuratively.
  3. I take it judging by the reactions of the others on the board, you may be alluding to the possibility of doctrinal/theological development in Judaism coming from Zoroastrianism? If so I don't really have a problem with that..... I know the concept is very threatening to some but not to me.
  4. Yes I've heard of that! I do know certain Churches take that point of view, I've heard it as the official position of a number of Eastern Orthodox bishops and I thought Catholics were also on a similar page.
  5. Thanks alpha I got some notions of that from some shows like Numbers and Connections, as well as from previous social science education (factorial models) but if you have a link or illustration or example that would be cool.
  6. Alright. I do wonder about the infinity problem that Kaku speaks of concerning singularity. Mathematics is not my strong suit, but I still wonder if problems like that are a result that the equations are not exact enough. (They are built more for utility, than ultimate precision).
  7. Well you seemed to be very optimistic of the idea that we could solve problems like singularity. And I think there are various areas of science that show us that things are more complex and intricate then what we expect, than what we can write equations for and so on (especially given things like the "principle of parsimony", the phenomenon of "measurement error" etc.) (I can expand on this if you don't get what I'm getting at.)
  8. I agree with your sentiment but not so much with the conclusions. There is a principle that for the life of me I can't remember its name. I think its one of biology. But it has to do with understanding systems. I thought I read somewhere in biology there is a scale that grades lifeforms. From virus to large mammals all have a numeric rating on where they fit into that scale. A virus may be a 1, a bacteria a 2, small mammals 6 and so on... Anyway according to that idea, it is hard to understand the complexity of systems. You really need to be looking at something that is 2 levels below your own level to have a good grasp of the system. It's a bit like the law of causes and affect. And then you get some of the new findings. Like what we learn with electron microscopes where we learn that even smallest of life forms end up having so much more complexity to them compared to what we really originally thought. Anyway that is where the problem is. The best we can do is try to come up with close approximations for things of the universe. But there is always going to be some inexactitude that is going to lead to ineffability. I personally like the old Jewish legend of the Golem when thinking of such things. We are created in God's image and possess his creativity, but we can only ape his technique.
  9. Well again it would be "begging the question". To not say it, would prompt most people to ask "Why do you think it happened suddenly?" No? Is it that Bible alone made him draw his conclusions? Yes in some ways it did. When he read the Bible he noticed some verses that made some cosmological statements. He quotes some passages that mention things like "The heavens being stretched" Which he believes related to the movement of Galaxies (our universe is constantly expanding). At the same time he read other books. He ran across a Indian/Hindu scientist (probably an Astrophysist) who mentioned that "the Bible was remarkable compared to other Holy books" especially his native Sutras, that it significantly had "more passages relating to verifiable cosmology then other works". Does it seem to you that he lacked any argument that could be drawn from facts avaible to him and for this reason he explained through a miracle? Well I guess you haven't been following the Singularity side discussion with Alpha. Science really doesn't give you a way to explain most of this stuff. The best you can do is "Nature of the Gaps" solution and say, "hopefully in the future we will discover more data that will help us understand how all this stuff came about".
  10. 1) As a fiscal and social conservative I think its necessary. 2) on this exact issue Its probably counter productive. I think Obama has had the press wrapped around his finger and gotten away with a lot things that other folks could not get away with. I also think it was extremely bogus the way they passed the Healthcare Law. It was not done the way legislation is suppose to be passed Constitutionally speaking,and that the law itself really stinks for many reasons. And I cannot get over the absolute double standard and naked favoritism how most of the media has covered the issues over the last few years, and the one sided way they have vetted the political candidates the last 5 years. That being said I think pundits like Carl Rove, Bill O'reilly are right on advising against the shut down. But I got to say, "when the shoe is on the other foot" the other side is able to get away with doing these things with the blessing of the general media. (i.e.- The government was shutdown 8 times under Reagan, Obama voted against raising the debt limit in 2006 etc.)
  11. Alpha I wish I could post links here, but will recommend a youtube video. The poster gave it an unfortunate polemical sounding title "Science v's God its the collapse of Physics as we know it" But the video features Michio Kaku and some other big physicists (Don't know who they are). Anyway Michio Kaku and this other guy make statements that trying to reconcile General Relativity with Quantum theory is not working out. "Science is having a nervous breakdown" Michio at one point states (i.e. getting infinity values when working the equations etc). And basically that they are at a loss of where to go next..... I don't have a problem with that. But it does have value when dealing with Evidentialists and some of their rhetoric. i.e. claiming that only creationists "have faith" when it comes to forming their beliefs and outlook on life. Clearly there is definitely an analog of Faith on the other side of the fence.
  12. Singularities aren't 'beyond the laws of nature'. Singularities are a challenge because they are an extreme situation that requires a quantum theory gravity, which we do not have. Ostensibly every physical thing obeys physical laws, it just may be that we are ignorant of the laws in question. Thanks for the info. What you said though would be significant though in the evolutionist/ creationist discussion. Like the "God of the Gaps" objection that atheists raise. Ross points out that the other side has their own "Gaps" problem. They basically propose a "Nature of the Gaps" equivalent when they reach the point where their theory no longer works.
  13. The term is more a descriptor of why he thinks that appearance of life was spontaneous/sudden. The problem is there would always be a "begging the question" problem if he did not say this concerning "Why do propose such a thing" so he just states it to address that aspect.
  14. I agree that forcing God upon the Theory of Evolution appears strange. But that doesn't require anybody wishing to engage into scientific debating to evoke miracles, I think. I don't think you quite get it. First of all, all of this fits into epistemology, that everyone engages in officially or indirectly/ unofficially. So there is no "forcing", it's a matter of "Do you believe that this happened?" and secondly "Is there verifiable evidence in the world that would support that?". And even atheist scientists themselves can make nods in the directions of things like Singularities (that there is something beyond the laws of nature that activated the process, that there is a "First Cause" that sets the Big Bang in motion). In Ross' view, however he believes we can give a name and identity to that Singularity (the God of the Bible).
  15. His testimony is interesting. He says his faith came from study. As a teenager maybe even in very early adulthood he was an intellectual. Kind of unofficial agnostic. His family were "good people" as far as observing the judeo christian ethics but had no church background whatsoever. But intellectual study of different fields made him a theist then after that he studied the world religions and found that the Bible was the one Holy Book that held up under scrutiny. There are few people that have such a testimony. Miraculously" point 4: Is that perhaps a cop-out? Can science lay out its own limits? But I don't like to overuse my little brain... Not in the least. Previously old earth creationists tried to harmonize Creationism with Evolution. So the standard idea is "God did it all but he did it through evolution." Ross on the other hand took the bold step to say "Do you see all those fossils.... Do you see how they appear suddenly in the rock layers? Do you see how you don't see all those 'transitional life forms" that you always talk about? Well guess what? The reason why see it that way is that is the way it actually happened." There are some limitations with this perspective (Dawkins actually points to one, some creatures bodies don't lend themselves well to fossilization) but overall I think its the strongest position to have as far as evidence goes.
  16. Hi Thomas when you have the time I would recommend you watch the video (if you really are interested in this stuff). They apparently don't like links in this part of the board but you can find the video at youtube, under the title "Scientific Evidence For the Christian Faith", Hugh Ross. Dr. Ross presents the following list of predictions that his model makes around minute 41 of the video. Biblical Predictions (On the origin of Life. He basis this on the Hebrew words in the first chapter of Genesis) 1) That it happened early in Earth history 2) That it happened under hostile conditions 3) That life was complex, diverse, abundant (from the start) 4) That its beginnings happened miraculously and instantaneously 5) That life was marine only at the beginning In terms of how well those things can be refuted yes its possible but "the deck is stacked" in his favor. (I'm pretty sure he formalized his theories after years of study and knowing where the data was already pointing). His view come to think of it do go against a lot of big evolutionary theorists like Carl Sagan. In particular it usually assumed that life came later in Earth history, that it happened under favorable conditions, that life was simple and not diverse , one species to start with, and that its beginnings happened gradually (it took time to form amino acids, then other components, then longer for them to be combined then somehow animated by lighting or some other electricity)
  17. To the OP or the topic in general. I've always been a bit puzzled by the activity around this kind of thing (folks spending a lot of effort to pin point the exact time of the rapture or the end of the world) I think its my old Lutheran sensabilities kicking in (the pastors and others I knew growing up saw this as a bit of a waste of time). Christ himself said that nobody would know the exact time of the End of the world, and I would put even the rapture into that category. About all we can do on the subject is look at the "weather signs" as far as wars, famines, and other catastrophes go. And of course even the rapture itself wasn't an official theological term/concept until Darby came along... (When you put that into the longterm view of Church history that can be an issue, in terms of catholicity/orthodoxy etc.)
  18. Hi Thomas. I'm currently reading his "More than a theory". Which explores your question in length. I don't think I can recommend the book, but the DVD may be better. Ross in the past was good for being able to go into the details and using them to illustrate his points. That actually was what I enjoyed the most about him but at this point he's covered to much ground amond the various disciplines so he tends to paint in broad brush strokes and leaves the details in the footnotes. But if you find that you like him, the DVD may be worth it (you gain more access to all the footnoted research that is only glossed over in the actual book). I would recommend you take a look at this video, its 56 minutes before the question and answer part (Which I don't think is very good. Questions are too generic) You can find this by Googling "Scientific Evidence for the Christian Faith - Hue Ross, PhD" But back to question... Besides having a theistic assumptions, Ross is more multidisciplinary than most. Many theories on things like the origon of life question focus solely on the biology or some other end of it. That is very significant because some of the assumptions that are made can actually be disproven if you take a look at other areas like the geological record. If you watch the video he actually gives a great example of that. In terms of the differences with mainstream science. I think the differences are more with other Creationist perspectives than with mainstream science. (Ross gets a lot of hate mail and articles from young earth creationists that he's a heretic, false teacher etc.). Ross himself has also been supportive of mainstream science in the classroom. He for instance does not want textbooks thrown out, in place of new ones. He simply wants that intelligent design be taught as one viable option with no need to spend money on extra materials just use materials that they and other provide for free. As he says most of what is being taught "is good science".
  19. to the OP (JDAVIS) cool post and I agree. Personally I'm an Hugh Ross, Old Earth Creationist myself. Why am I here? Well besides obvious ones like passing the time and satifsying curiosity, the most compelling one is really personal growth, especially in the area of ministry, the ability to express yourself and so on. In life I was very affected by things like the Joeharri window, the notion of "Finding your voice" as a writer, and various other kinds of Biblical notions like Christs parable of the talents, and even some sermons preaching on some Biblical passages like God asking Moses "What is in your hand?" (How people can find their calling by using whatever God has given them in the present here and now). From my experience you grow more with interaction. Part of it is simply using those talents and gifts that God has given you and getting better at it in the process. But then the other part is the Joeharri window end of being exposed to different points of view and how that can help you. Anyway I found that sort of thing very compelling. And I find myself wanting to grow more to do more things ministerially than I do now. Especially since one can sometimes be in very humble and limited circumstances, but the internet itself is a wide open field that is always there waiting. I do generally agree that in doing such things we should strive to not be obnoxious etc. In the past, at times I realize I was gulty of such things. But that like much of life is a bit of a learning process as well (i..e- appreciating the folly of trying to lead horses to drink from streams they are dead set against. Believing that you can get people in a Full Nelson hold of reason etc.)
  20. To the OP. I think it can be a science. Hugh Ross appraoches it from that way, where he has specific models that can be tested, verified or discounted. Unfortunately I think it probably end up being more in the end of pseudo science. I'm talking more that young earth creationists often make their cases etc. based on the exceptions of the rule rather than the rule itself. (This is my Old Earth Creationist bias talking). But anyway I think that undermines their case. (They have a limited range of how to handle things and read the data compared to old earthers).
  21. To the OP I subscribe to the theology that sees the Mark more as allegorical than literal. That's not to say there couldnot be something physical to it, like an I.D. badge or subdermal computer chip. But the thrust of idea is about spiritual reality. The Mark is the Satanic counterfeit of scriptural notion of verses like Deut 11:19, Proverbs 6:21, and maybe a few others. Can those verses be taken literally? Most definitely that is where the practice of phylacteries comes from.
  22. Hi alpha. I was talking more in generalities than specifics. Some folks would use the numbers to imply things. Not that you were guilty of doing such things, but more in terms of "food for thought" for other times when such issue are raised. (I've seen atheists quote figures to give stereotypical depictions etc.). but again, no worries. and take care.
  23. Where there is truth to the 'faith vs science' understanding is in the numbers though. The number of believers among scientists (say PhDs) who, say, believe in a literal resurrection of Jesus etc.,are very few as compared to the wider population. In fact, the difference is quite startling. Further there is something of an anti religious bias in the scientific community. Why hat is true though is another question. True enough. But I would point out that does substantially change the conversation in the area of discussion and debate. If were talking just about numbers then I could bring up logical fallacies like argumentum ad populum. Which some folks think only theists use.... And also as you alluded to their is the nature of universities themselves. On the issue of politics univesities have been far from neutral on politics (had a thread months ago on the following link). And I would naturally have to assume that sort of thing carries over to other areas since people usually are not too compartmentalized and those issues tend to go together. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/ So anyway I'm not impressed by the demographics. When journalists, and academics take that side then many people will side with them simply because it looks like the reasonable side based on appearance.
  24. Hi Thomas, good to hear from ya and even that your posting from Germany. (I've got some recent Germanic heritage in my family) I agree with your sentiments but disagree with some of the details and conclusions. On the Conflict thesis, that detail is important because some atheists do follow it literally at times or at least it seems to be a theme in certain atheist works (i.e. Pillars of the Earth, TV show). I've seen variations of this poster on atheist web sites which seems to literally imply the Conflict Thesis. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread829321/pg1 And of course if a person really studies history and science they know that this isn't a fair depiction of history. As the axiom of statistical analysis goes "Correlation does not equal causation". In this case the correlation is more about the barbarian invasions of the Christian west and Islam taking over the intellectual centers of Alexandria and those in Syria &Turkey (theological schools of Edessa, Nisbis etc.) In terms of the Bronski book I don't think that quote is a fair representation, because most of what I recall about it runs opposite of it. Much of the book speaks to the subjective way experiements are constructed. And how research tends to be a self confirming process (The only questions that get answered are the ones posed by the researcher). As a undergraduate when I first read it, it was enlightening because there is an image in our culture of science being this pure process that lets you "find the truth" and he pretty much shoots holes in such romantic notions.
  25. to the original OP (blessedPeter) I agree with pretty much everything you said. Much of the Science vs. Religion paradigm we have comes from the debunked "Conflict Thesis" which still lives on as a popular myth and trope. That theory ignores much of history (where medieval monks etc. worked as early scientists, the medieval Church acted as a brain trust etc.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis I also would recommend the old classic "Science and Human Values". http://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Values-Jacob-Bronowski/dp/0571241905
×
×
  • Create New...