dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Apr 19, 2021 23:23:35 GMT
So, you don't understand quantum mechanics, and don't want to. Willful ignorance it is, then. Vacuous, childish retorts it is, then. Thanks for the chat and welcome to the forum. I'll leave you with this: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics." -Neils Bohr I would be remiss if I didn't point out the irony of you posting a quote from a man whose work was foundational to the very science you so readily dismiss. What's even more amusing, is that Bohr never said this.
Here's an actual quote from him;
“Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.”
And if you think that our understanding of quantum mechanics has remained static since his death almost sixty years ago, you are mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 19, 2021 23:32:29 GMT
[post deleted after I realized who I was responding to] I always amazed at how you're always right and I'm always wrong. How do you manage perfection? I try not to presume. You should give it a go someday. At any rate, I was responding to what was said without noticing who said it. I do that a lot. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 20, 2021 8:24:36 GMT
Yep. Either way the supernatural exists. Bite your tongue! We don't call it the s-word; we call it unexplained until we revise natural laws to fit. "The supernatural is the natural not yet understood" - Elbert Hubbard
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 20, 2021 9:04:45 GMT
Bite your tongue! We don't call it the s-word; we call it unexplained until we revise natural laws to fit. "The supernatural is the natural not yet understood" - Elbert Hubbard I like it. Seems a good followup question would be: Is God natural?
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 20, 2021 9:06:36 GMT
"The supernatural is the natural not yet understood" - Elbert Hubbard I like it. Seems a good followup question would be: Is God natural? In most religions He clearly isn't. I do remember of an old poster on the Passion of Christ board that believed that God was not a creator deity and was part of this Universe just like us.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 20, 2021 9:20:27 GMT
I like it. Seems a good followup question would be: Is God natural? In most religions He clearly isn't. I do remember of an old poster on the Passion of Christ board that believed that God was not a creator deity and was part of this Universe just like us. Clearly? How so? I think there's a word for that. Pantheism?
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 20, 2021 9:48:17 GMT
In most religions He clearly isn't. I do remember of an old poster on the Passion of Christ board that believed that God was not a creator deity and was part of this Universe just like us. Clearly? How so? I think there's a word for that. Pantheism? In most religions, God is clearly a beyond the natural world, being it's creator and be able to manipulate those forces at will.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 20, 2021 15:10:02 GMT
Bite your tongue! We don't call it the s-word; we call it unexplained until we revise natural laws to fit. "The supernatural is the natural not yet understood" - Elbert Hubbard Dumbest quote of the week.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 20, 2021 15:45:35 GMT
"The supernatural is the natural not yet understood" - Elbert Hubbard Dumbest quote of the week. Not really. In fact when you look at history, you realize Hubbard is right. For example we thought lightning and volcanoes were caused by gods and turns out that they aren't and that we have solid natural explanations for those. We thought that the Sun and the Moon were gods and once again we have natural explanations for both. We used to believe that man and animals were created by God or gods in their current form and once again we have evidence that they were not and are the result of a natural process. So no. It doesn't sound dumb at all...
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 20, 2021 19:55:51 GMT
Yep. Either way the supernatural exists. What if the “supernatural” bears no relationship to the Bible or a God who will reward humans with eternal life or damnation, will you accept that? Sure. But that’s not what the evidence shows.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Apr 20, 2021 20:21:20 GMT
What if the “supernatural” bears no relationship to the Bible or a God who will reward humans with eternal life or damnation, will you accept that? Sure. But that’s not what the evidence shows. Would you show us this evidence you speak of ? And just so you know, the bible is not evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 20, 2021 21:18:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 20, 2021 22:10:31 GMT
Clearly? How so? I think there's a word for that. Pantheism? In most religions, God is clearly a beyond the natural world, being it's creator and be able to manipulate those forces at will. Just to be clear, are you saying the creator of the natural world is necessarily supernatural?
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 20, 2021 22:26:15 GMT
In most religions, God is clearly a beyond the natural world, being it's creator and be able to manipulate those forces at will. Just to be clear, are you saying the creator of the natural world is necessarily supernatural? No. I'm saying that in most religions believe that creator deity is supernatural.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 20, 2021 22:35:04 GMT
Right off the bat the argument fails. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.First off, we have no proof Jesus said any of what is in the Gospels as it is all from hearsay, secondary sources. Secondly, others have said similar things and prior to the time Jesus lived and none them were considered Gods. As Bart D. Ehrman pointed out, the trillemma ignores a fourth option: legend
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 20, 2021 22:35:53 GMT
Just to be clear, are you saying the creator of the natural world is necessarily supernatural? No. I'm saying that in most religions believe that creator deity is supernatural. But when I asked how it was clear to you that God isn’t natural in most religions, you listed “being the creator of the natural world” as if it’s self-explanatory.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 20, 2021 22:37:38 GMT
Right off the bat the argument fails. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.First off, we have no proof Jesus said any of what is in the Gospels as it is all from hearsay, secondary sources. Secondly, others have said similar things and prior to the time Jesus lived and none them were considered Gods. We have good reasons to believe the message in Jesus’ words were accurately recorded. 1) The NT documents were based on eye-witness accounts by persons who knew both Aramaic and Greek so they would know if they were translated correctly; 2) We have multiple accounts of many of the same discourses to cross-check their accuracy; 3) Luke claims to be giving an accurate account of the events (Lk. 1:1-4), and his account in Acts has been confirmed to be accurate in multiple details (see Colin Hemer, ibid.); 4) Many of the accounts were written within the memories of the eyewitnesses (c. A.D. 55-70); 5) Some of the New Testament writers were trained in keeping records (Matthew was a tax collector; Luke was a physician; Paul was highly educated ); 6) Many in the non-literary New Testament culture had well developed memories (see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, chaps. 11-13); 7) Jesus’ words and deeds were impact events that would have been etched on the memories of those who heard him . 8) Jesus promised he would guide the memories of his disciples in recalling what he said to them : “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you ” (John 14:26). And none of those other were considered Gods because they didn’t raise from the dead.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 20, 2021 22:55:24 GMT
Right off the bat the argument fails. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.First off, we have no proof Jesus said any of what is in the Gospels as it is all from hearsay, secondary sources. Secondly, others have said similar things and prior to the time Jesus lived and none them were considered Gods. As Bart D. Ehrman pointed out, the trillemma ignores a fourth option: legend “ Critic Bart Ehrman writes, “Sometimes Christian apologists say there are only three options to who Jesus was: a liar, a lunatic or the Lord. But there could be a fourth option—legend.”[10] Was the notion of Jesus’ deity simply an exaggeration of the early church? It seems not for a number of reasons: First, Jesus has more biographies written of him than any other person from the ancient world. Roman emperor Tiberius died in AD 37, and his earliest known biographies were written between AD 110-120 by Tacitus and Suetonius (~70 to 80 year gap). Likewise, Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C., and his earliest known biography is from AD 130 from Arrian (~450 year gap). Jesus has four biographies of his life all written within a generation of his death. Roman historian A.N. Sherwin-White argues that this was too quick for legend to accrue that would corrupt the main message of Jesus’ life.[11] By comparing Jesus’ biographies to other ancient secular history, we can measure the rate at which legend is added.[12] And Sherwin-White argues that one generation is too quickly for this to occur. Second, Luke-Acts were written before AD 62. Historians date Luke-Acts before AD 62, because these books make no mention of the persecution by Roman Emperor Nero (AD 64), make no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70), make no mention of the death of Paul, Peter, or James the Lord’s brother. The book of Acts is very concerned with persecution and the death of the early Christian leaders (Acts 8:1; 12:2). However, it fails to mention these major events. The best explanation for this is that these events hadn’t occurred yet. Third, the gospels are deeply concerned with history. In just one verse, Luke mentions 15 specific historical details that have been confirmed. He writes, “Now in the [1] fifteenth year of the reign of [2] Tiberius Caesar, when [3] Pontius Pilate was [4] governor of [5] Judea, and [6] Herod was [7] tetrarch of [8] Galilee, and his [9] brother [10] Philip was [11] tetrarch of the region of [12] Ituraea and Trachonitis, and [13] Lysanias was [14] tetrarch of [15] Abilene.” The Bible actually has an astonishing track record when it comes to historical reliability. Throughout the last 150 years, the modern science of archaeology has only confirmed—not denied—what we read in Scripture. World renowned scholar Gleason Archer authoritatively states, As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself—or else by objective archaeological information.[13] At the end of his Sarum Lectures, Roman historian A.N. Sherwin-White stated, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming… Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”[14] Fourth, ancient non-Christian historians believed that Jesus claimed to be God and the Jewish messiah. Pliny the Younger (an early second century Roman governor) writes that Jesus’ earliest followers sang hymns to Christ “as to a god.”[15] Josephus (a first century Roman historian) claimed that Jesus of Nazareth “was called the Christ.”[16] Lucian (a second century Greek satirist) writes that the early Christians “deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage.”[17] Fifth, the writers of the NT weren’t prone to lying. The disciples didn’t change the story, even when it would’ve benefited them. The disciples wrote that they themselves were unintelligent (Mk. 9:32; Lk. 18:34), uneducated (Acts 4:13), uncaring (Mk. 14:32), cowardly (Mt. 26:33-25), and doubtful (Mt. 28:17). In fact, Peter was even called “Satan” by Jesus in the biography that he helped author, the gospel of Mark (Mk. 8:33).[18] The disciples placed women at the empty tomb of Jesus, as the first eyewitnesses of the resurrection in a day when women were second class citizens—unable to testify in a court of law.[19] If they were fabricating the story (and they were willing to change the details), they would never have placed women at the empty tomb; they would’ve placed themselves at the empty tomb. The disciples wrote that Jesus was accused of being deranged (Mk. 3:21), deceitful (Jn. 7:12), drunk (Mt. 11:19), and demon-possessed (Mk. 3:22) by both his family and his enemies. They even recorded that many of Jesus’ followers deserted him (Jn. 6:66). It would’ve been far easier for the disciples to simply leave these details out of their accounts, but they were so committed to telling the truth that they didn’t tamper with the facts. The early Christians had a number of disputes and disagreements with one another. They disagreed about the importance of circumcision (Acts 15:2), obeying the Law (Gal. 5:3-4), speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 14), and the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the church (Eph. 2:11ff). And yet Jesus didn’t give any commands about these issues in the four gospels. Imagine how tempting it would’ve been to simply “add” a teaching or two from Jesus on one of these subjects. If the disciples were inventing the story about Jesus, it would’ve been easy to write that Jesus also taught on these issues. And yet the four gospels are strangely silent to these controversies. Sixth, the NT writers knew the difference between mythology and history. They believed that they were writing history. Peter writes, “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16). Here, Peter uses the Greek word muthos which literally means “myth.” Seventh, the NT writers didn’t have a good motive for inventing a divine Jesus. Religiously, Pagans and Jews were hostile to the message of Jesus being God. Politically, the Roman Empire viewed the deity of Christ as subversive to the state, and therefore, they routinely killed Christians who wouldn’t bow to the Roman Emperor in worship. While this message brought the early Christians hope, it also brought them a giant target on their foreheads from the first century political and religious culture. Therefore, there wasn’t a strong motive for them to invent such a message or to spread it.” www.evidenceunseen.com/theology/lord-liar-lunatic-or-legend/
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 21, 2021 0:20:41 GMT
There are millions of people who already reject natural scientific explanations for the existence of the universe. Jesus had hagiographies written about him, not biographies. A hagiography is a biography, and the opposite of "reject" isn't "respect." Stop. What natural scientific explanations?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 21, 2021 0:36:07 GMT
A hagiography is a biography, and the opposite of "reject" isn't "respect." Stop. What natural scientific explanations? So when Mohammad flew on his magic horse to Heaven...as is recorded in a holy book of miraculous deeds...do you respect that? And why do you dislike me and others here so much, why do you stick around? What natural scientific explanations for the existence of the universe? One at a time would be fine if you're struggling.
|
|