Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:06 pm

General Summation of the Thread

If this model is correct, to go beyond that local strand of Birkeland current filaments will require more observations.

The use of the term "eternity" to describe space, or "eternal" to describe physical matter, is just as much of a temptation for Steady State scientists as a "creation of matter out of nothing" event is for the Big Bang scientists. Both are beyond the bounds of proper observational interpretation, and both run into problems with basic known laws of physics.

Materialistic scientists tend to assume authority to make these determinations for others, but have departed from real empirical science in the process.

As a "religious" scientist or lay person would point out, matter is not eternal. Does that really conflict with physical science?

“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
They will perish, but You remain;
And they will all grow old like a garment;
Like a cloak You will fold them up,
And they will be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not fail."

and,

"Though the outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day."

Only what is spiritual is eternal. But since the materialistic scientists by definition forbid the existence of the afterlife, spirits, spiritual law, angels, and God, there will always be a conflict between materialistic scientism and the rest of us. But I believe it is clear that the real conflict is between materialistic science and empirical science.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:52 pm

The Question We Didn't Get To

But what about Galileo Galilee? Isn't that an example of the conflict between observational science and the Scriptures?

Actually, Galileo Galilee was in conflict with about 6 doctrines of the Greek philosopher Aristotle. He was also contradicting Ptolemy. I will provide the primary historical documents on a new thread.

Now if I demonstrate the veracity of the conflict between Galileo and Greek philosophy, then it will be yet another powerful illustration of the propensity of human beings to love theory in such a way that they even ignore and suppress disconfirming evidence. The psychology of the human vulnerability to love of theory is, I would suggest, in a separate category somewhere between "science" and "religion."
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby webolife » Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:43 pm

BB,
I've been preoccupied the last several days with some renovation projects and being locally snowed in hereabouts.
I have some final musings, if we are drawing this discussion to a close for now...

I jive with your dichotomy of materialistic vs empirical science. The first is philosophically driven by a rejection of spirit, the latter by the philosophical limitation of experimentability and repeatability of results. Each philosophy has its patriarchs and matriarchs in science history, and each has its pecular tendrils of mathematical formulation, the queen of both being statistical analysis. Folks spend their lifetimes formulating and reformulating models of math to attempt to fit every new disposition, whether it be the lala lands of QM and strings, or the fudgy math of Einstein. Irrationality is invoked as reason, and the imaginary is invoked as real, all in the name of balancing equations. ["And what is your purpose?" asks Neo -- the Oracle replies,"To unbalance them."] This is possibly a conundrum of Supreme design, and it is just as possibly the reason that we hold so tightly to our theories, ie. without them only the scary virtual world of the unbalanced equation remains and awaits us.
The alternative? Embrace the Real World, with all its impossibilities made possible and its invisibilities made visible before our eyes. Wonder at the immeasurable [not measureless] expanse scattered with island baubles of [finite] density. Discover its working, as a great interconnected machine, and imitate it in creative acts of technology for the betterment of the race. Embrace the cosmos for all it is in the eternal present.

As for whence it came and wither it goes, those are both matters of faith, and the sparks of every scientific pursuit.
As for the love of theory, that is science in a box.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby webolife » Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:51 pm

We'll have to continue with the dynamics of sight and biological antennae on a separate thread, I think.
For now, before I lose it, a musing about your "folded(?) proteins":
All proteins are folded. They specify designs to fulfill specific purposes, like so much nano-origamy inflated with the breath of the Unseen into living complexes of unspeakable ingenuity.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:17 pm

by webolife » Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:43 pm

BB,
I've been preoccupied the last several days with some renovation projects and being locally snowed in hereabouts.
I have some final musings, if we are drawing this discussion to a close for now...


It was well worth the wait webolife!
We had a big snow storm here too, then several intense wind storms which blew down the fence. We are going to try a fence that lets the wind blow through it this time. :idea: :idea: :idea: (:

I jive with your dichotomy of materialistic vs empirical science. The first is philosophically driven by a rejection of spirit, the latter by the philosophical limitation of experimentability and repeatability of results. Each philosophy has its patriarchs and matriarchs in science history, and each has its peculiar tendrils of mathematical formulation, the queen of both being statistical analysis. Folks spend their lifetimes formulating and reformulating models of math to attempt to fit every new disposition, whether it be the lala lands of QM and strings, or the fudgy math of Einstein. Irrationality is invoked as reason, and the imaginary is invoked as real, all in the name of balancing equations.


I think anyone who considers himself an empirical scientist, but relies on statistics, is engaged in very serious mission creep away from the purpose and methods of empirical science, into the nether world of the soft sciences. (:

But statistics can be useful. With statistics we can ask, "What are the chances of conditions lining up to make the Einstein Cross, or a folded protein, or a coherent universe that supports life and in which love and truth win?"

Given that the statistical likelihood for some essential realities is rather slim, then Materialist science simply adds multiverses and exotic matter, along with deep time and even eternities, and everything is properly statistically probable once more.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:18 pm

I think webolife is right: "Embrace the Real World, with all its impossibilities made possible and its invisibilities made visible before our eyes. Wonder at the immeasurable [not measureless] expanse scattered with island baubles of [finite] density. Discover its working, as a great interconnected machine, and imitate it in creative acts of technology for the betterment of the race. Embrace the cosmos for all it is in the eternal present."

It was what I really admired about empirical science in the first place. It has to mean saying, "I don't know" about a lot of phenomena in nature. It has to mean firmly saying that you may not have the whole picture, and there may be more data or variables you haven't considered. And this is also an important part of faith. Faith can mean holding on to a spiritual promise or truth, despite all of the physical appearances, emotions, and rationalizations that would militate against it. But it also means admitting that you can never have the whole picture. "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are My ways your ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts higher than your thoughts." "Lean not on your own understanding." In fact, the oldest book in the Word may be Job; and in the end, he never got the reason for, or the whole picture surrounding, his suffering. I still maintain a genuine empirical scientific approach means having a constant awareness of the limitations of your own knowledge and perspectives.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Sithri » Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:06 pm

Brigit Bara wrote:I think webolife is right: "Embrace the Real World, with all its impossibilities made possible and its invisibilities made visible before our eyes. Wonder at the immeasurable [not measureless] expanse scattered with island baubles of [finite] density. Discover its working, as a great interconnected machine, and imitate it in creative acts of technology for the betterment of the race. Embrace the cosmos for all it is in the eternal present."

It was what I really admired about empirical science in the first place. It has to mean saying, "I don't know" about a lot of phenomena in nature. It has to mean firmly saying that you may not have the whole picture, and there may be more data or variables you haven't considered. And this is also an important part of faith. Faith can mean holding on to a spiritual promise or truth, despite all of the physical appearances, emotions, and rationalizations that would militate against it. But it also means admitting that you can never have the whole picture. "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are My ways your ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts higher than your thoughts." "Lean not on your own understanding." In fact, the oldest book in the Word may be Job; and in the end, he never got the reason for, or the whole picture surrounding, his suffering. I still maintain a genuine empirical scientific approach means having a constant awareness of the limitations of your own knowledge and perspectives.


I like that idea of faith. I also like to define faith as a belief in regularities such that we do not doubt their inefficiency and hold it in good faith that it will occur again and again. For instance, cause and effect are universal regularities, but one day we might find something that doesn't sit within the realm of cause and effect. Thus that's a faith of a sort.
Sithri
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Previous

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest