Originally posted by: ThaPerculator
Just like all of those dinosaur bones...
But wouldnt it be to further test the believers?
But wouldnt it be to further test the believers?
UglyCasanova
Lifer
- Mar 25, 2001
- 19,275
- 1,361
- 126
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: ThaPerculator
Just like all of those dinosaur bones...
But wouldnt it be to further test the believers?
It's the devil placing them to trick everyone, and only the believers aren't fooled.
Originally posted by: oniq
Originally posted by: So
I hate to say it, but I really hope not, any life will mean that the greenies can stymie any development of mars for human use.
Whats wrong with using Mars for development?
Some rational people have a problem with being a terrestrial imposition, and that feeling is amplified when considered extraterrestrially.
Where in the bible does it say "God didn't create any life on any other planet besides the earth"?
I'm not a Christian, but the idea that finding life on other planets somehow nullifies the religion is stupid.
it goes along the earlier teachings of catholicism where 'we' were supposed to be the center of the universe. the inquisition of Galileo and further demonstrations of this myth made the church establish a new position. Besides, in the Bible it does say that Satan was given dominion over earth and forced to dwell upon it. That other planets can sustain God-borne life go against this very concept unless God has allowed them to exist without evil.
It says nothing of the sort anywhere in the bible, but it also doesn't say he did create life elsewhere. You are thus free to draw your own conclusions.
I think Richard Feynman said it best when asked if he "likes the ostensibly probabilistic nature of quantum reality" (that's paraphrased). He couldn't provide an answer, because to imply that he has personal feelings imposed on that which simply is has no effective meaning. I'm something of a logical positivist in this regard, and as a result I take no religious view from the reality presented to me by inductive reasoning.
If that makes sense it is in spite of the fact that I'm without my afternoon espresso.
Exactly. Finding life on Mars would in no way prove the Bible wrong. Genesis provides a very short and confusing history of the earth's early days. The only people such a finding would "mess up" are those that have beliefs that are not supported by the Bible.
Jeez, people.
The Bible was NOT meant to be a scientific resource. It's only purpose is to tell a story...to broadcast a message.
Why do people take the Bible so literally, esp. the Old Testament???
:roll:
The Bible was NOT meant to be a scientific resource. It's only purpose is to tell a story...to broadcast a message.
Why do people take the Bible so literally, esp. the Old Testament???
:roll:
1) Catholocism and christianity still exist, despite the fact that it's been proven the universe isn't at the center of the universe.
2) "..unless God has allowed them to exist without evil."
Is there any reason at all that couldn't happen?
3) Maybe "earth" as referred to in "...Satan was given dominion over earth..." means, "not heaven", i.e., the physical universe.
This is your view, but it's certainly not the view of those who subscribe to the idea of it representing absolute truth. Literalists and obfuscationists (as I shall call them) alike feel it represents a description of reality, and so as a result they seek affirmation of this description in observations. So many observations that were antithetical to the doctrine resulted in most literalists abandoning their commitment and instead assimilating the idea of an interpretation that was congruent with observations. I believe this answers your question.
I have a personal philosophy on all of these matters, but I try to remain committed to expressing only the views of the apparent dichotomy: Those who subscribe to a theological doctrine for their foundational description of reality, and those who subscribe to the physical.
My intention was to imply that regardless of your ambitions your view of reality is colored by your perception of it. I would take issue with any assertion that anyone is capable of presenting a truly objective view of reality. I think we can pretty much agree on that in the end, irrespective of religious (and I use the term loosely) views.
You're absolutely right, and I try to minimize this as much as possible by ensuring that this perception is as broad as possible. Any philosophical view I might hold is not without understanding its antithesis; however, I accept our inductive approximations of reality independent of my personal philosophy. For example, unlike Feynman, I admit to having a negative visceral reaction to the probabilistic nature of quantum reality, but I nevertheless accept the closest approximate view (a quantitative view which we use productively).
Genesis could very well represent the absolute truth however our understanding of it is flawed. The problem seems to be that people get their information from one source (preacher) who is "educated" on the matter. Add to that the fact that it was passed down orally and you have a whole new can of worms. Descartes would you mind explaining what you feel Genesis describes if I started a new thread? I am not religous and I have my dictionary ready to go.
I can absolutely agree to that, and I've always felt the idea of "bible study" was a paradox. This is one facet of evangelical protestantism that I can actually appreciate: personal piety, deformalistic study of their doctrine, and often the lack of any influential intermediary.
I don't have any problem expressing my views, but I think it would elicit more admonishment than anything else. It's difficult enough to express over such a limited medium confined to text. I prefer discussions over coffee, and that offer exists for anyone who's ever in town
No, it's not my view. It's how it is.
Think of it this way. All ancient cultures had creation stories and other tales of how things happened in the physical world (Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Native Americans, Jews, Aztec, Mayans, etc.) They all told stories and created "reasons" to explain things they did not understand. All early cultures share that aspect.
Why, out of all of the early cultures, is the Jewish version (and spawning from that, Christianity and Islam) the only credible one? It's illogical.
There have also been many scientific theories on different subjects where only one prevailed. Also there are many similarities in creation myth. Would you not assume that the purest version would remain where it began and the story would gain and lose parts as people covered the earth?
This isn't about what you think is logical. The discussion is on the fact that people believe in theological doctrine as representing absolute truth. Whether or not you could absolutely negate this doctrine doesn't change the fact that people still believe.
As youv'e pointed out, the evolution of religiosity seems relentless enough to continue for aeons. I don't think it's a worthwhile discussion to simply say they're wrong, illogical, etc. This isn't a valuable discussion. People do believe, and they will continue believe. People are so committed to their worldview that they will strengthen their view when presented evidence to the contrary. I believe the value in such a discussion is in considering both magisteriums (science and religion) independent of one another, and disregard any attempt to have one provide meaning for the other.
Scientific theories are constantly being tested, and competing theories will always beget a reigning theory that most closely approximates our observations. Revision is absolutely fundamental to the scientific method. The difference between this and creation myth is that the myths change entirely in a social context; nothing independent of social influence amplifies these myths. Observations amplify justification for theories in science, and as a result you'll often find the creation "scientists" use these amplifications in their justification of creationism. Unfortunately, they often use them inappropiately. The most widely known example would be Darwinism. Google around for saltationism, Darwin, etc. if you want to know more.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter