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: 588
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: 588
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: 2537
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: 2537
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: 588
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: 588
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

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

Unread postby Electrodynamic » Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:04 pm

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.


Context matters.

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists, trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something, strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

I can accept that any given belief I may hold based on observation may seem to be true however acceptance (the action or process of being received as adequate or suitable) in no way implies complete trust of faith. Adequate or suitable does not imply I would be ready to jump headfirst down a rabbit hole however faith as a complete trust does.

Thus we should be absolutely clear what "faith" implies which is the inability to rationally question what it is we believe or not. For example the odds of dying in a jet aircraft are near one million to one and many have faith this is true. However once I saw my pilot and co-pilot slamming rye and coke in the bar before my flight in the 747 they were piloting. I mean I saw them in the bar then they greeted me at the doorway to the plane 15 minutes later so do you think I should have "faith" in their competence despite the fact that my "belief" in that moment contradicts my faith in the odds they will not crash that aircraft and kill me?.

As such I think we should be clear that faith has no place in science nor does it apply to the gravity of any given circumstance in reality. I mean no offense in any way, shape or form however to me faith seems like a way of saying we refuse to rationally think about the stuff we say we believe or not. It is an admission that we are not intelligent enough or skilled enough or somehow deficient in some way to determine what the truth of any given matter is. As such faith is a way of saying we should stop thinking and trust what others tell us... no I don't think so because it has never worked in the past and it will not work in the future.

We should be clear that "faith" is a control ie." the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events."
Electrodynamic
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

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

Unread postby webolife » Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:26 pm

This is perhaps getting further afield, but "faith" or "trust" has never flourished in the absence of thought. Fear thrives in the absence of rationality, but faith does not. Here is some more of my thinking on this:
Rational thought of course begins with a point of view, argues through the evidence using logic, inductive and deductive protocols, and arrives at a possible conclusion. Conclusions are merely "possible" because the whole of the evidence is yet unknown. However, get yourself a consensus for a period of time, and the paradigm will persist until some radical pioneer out-of-the-box thinker comes along and challenges your point of view. Meanwhile what you "trusted" was a rationally based theory makes its way through the media, into textbooks, and into collaborative scientific councils and treatises, and becomes regarded as the Word of Science. Any disbelievers in the Word of Science are labelled "anti-science", "deniers", and ridiculous. All of these labels betray a position of deeply held faith, yet somehow are said to define "current science"... Words are powerful agents of control, and can be used to stifle much well-directed and important research. Words of impending doom, failure of nature, and anthropophobia... political agenda.
Science itself is a system of "faith" in the rationality and predictability of Nature. Yet nearly every new discovery defies our meager predictions. If we believe nothing, there is no point to pursue science. I personally find this to be non-controversial, yet I find myself up against many a believer in scientism [aka scientist] who balks at the realization of the tentativity of the system, and the sheer exigence of faith.
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: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

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

Unread postby Electrodynamic » Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:55 pm

webolife
This is perhaps getting further afield, but "faith" or "trust" has never flourished in the absence of thought. Fear thrives in the absence of rationality, but faith does not.
Here is some more of my thinking on this:
Rational thought of course begins with a point of view, argues through the evidence using logic, inductive and deductive protocols, and arrives at a possible conclusion. Conclusions are merely "possible" because the whole of the evidence is yet unknown. However, get yourself a consensus for a period of time, and the paradigm will persist until some radical pioneer out-of-the-box thinker comes along and challenges your point of view. Meanwhile what you "trusted" was a rationally based theory makes its way through the media, into textbooks, and into collaborative scientific councils and treatises, and becomes regarded as the Word of Science. Any disbelievers in the Word of Science are labelled "anti-science", "deniers", and ridiculous. All of these labels betray a position of deeply held faith, yet somehow are said to define "current science"... Words are powerful agents of control, and can be used to stifle much well-directed and important research. Words of impending doom, failure of nature, and anthropophobia... political agenda.


Well said and your theme seemed to transition from a point of view leading to possible conclusions and a popular consensus with respect to said conclusions. However in my opinion you then incorrectly implied the consensus amounts to faith which leads to cult like behavior and denial. That is one perspective however most scientists and Engineers I know are fairly open minded and as skeptical of any scientific conclusions as anyone. It would seem to be the general population who do not fully understand science who incorrectly project there own insecurities and doubts on science in my opinion.

Science itself is a system of "faith" in the rationality and predictability of Nature. Yet nearly every new discovery defies our meager predictions. If we believe nothing, there is no point to pursue science. I personally find this to be non-controversial, yet I find myself up against many a believer in scientism [aka scientist] who balks at the realization of the tentativity of the system, and the sheer exigence of faith.


Science is defined as a methodology or system of study regarding observations, theories and experiments to substantiate any theories. So if I wrote down a recipe for a cake and followed it to bake a cake which everyone observed as a real cake would you call this a system of faith or a methodology?. Real science is in fact similar however many seem to have confused real science with theoretical science or physics which is of course "theoretical" and not to be taken literally. Thus the mistake is not science, a method, but a general lack of understanding of what science is in reality.

Many people also project their own personal issues with "scientists" who are just people with the methodology of science in general. As if to say I do not like this particular scientist or what he had to say or how he acted therefor... all science everywhere is a cult of denial. You see the purpose of real science is to remove people and their beliefs from the equation leaving only observations and measurements of real experiments and things we can prove. Is that so bad?... believing in things we can prove with evidence versus things we cannot?. What do you think would happen if banking, economics, business, education and health care required no evidence or proof to substantiate there claims?... chaos obviously.

Fear thrives in the absence of rationality, but faith does not.

I can understand how irrational or illogical things can produce fear in people and faith could lessen these fears. However "fear" is an illusion, an emotion relating to our mental state and not an actual solution to the real world problems which induced the fear. It's like saying the boat I'm on is sinking and I'm freaking out but rather than deal with it I'm going to smoke a reefer because it makes me feel good.

Faith and beliefs are wonderful however it's not a tangible good or service and we can't eat them so...
Electrodynamic
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

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

Unread postby webolife » Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:23 pm

Electrodynamic,
You seem to get the gist of what I am saying but let me clarify further:
The "consensus" is only a "faith" system if it it used thus: "According to the consensus of modern science..." and then what follows is stated as factual. Most honest science seekers try to avoid this level of thinking, however most articles written for the lay reader or casual internet browser are steeped in the premise that whatever the majority of or "best" scientists say is to be believed. I would venture as far as to claim that "Scientists say...(FACT)..." is a way of thinking for the average internet user. Unfortunately political debate is also saturated with this premise, eg. "The consensus of 2000 climate scientists is that climate change is being caused by people." This, despite the vehement insistence by many of those 2000 ICCC signers that they do not believe in AGW. Hence the "consensus" becomes a belief system by which to forward the latest political agenda fad. I refer to this kind of belief as Scientism. A scientific consensus may be best (most honestly) paraphrased, "Many scientists agree that... (CLAIM)...". Paradoxically, when stated this way, the consensus is a majority opinion, not a belief system.
On the other hand, I do also make this claim:
Because the process of (post)modern science is based on a premise of materialism, any suggestion of immaterial, spiritual, or otherwise "supernatural" causation is deemed by some outspoken lecturers at best fanciful or at worst ridiculous. This exclusionary materialism, which has been inserted legally into many of our public systems, not least of which is the educational system, can also be designated as Scientism, and by default is a belief system unto itself. It is one thing to acknowledge (as do I, a scientist and science teacher for now 43 years, and a majority of modern scientists as of 2009) the limitations of scientific process to the explanation of material causes and effects; but it is another thing to state as fact that THERE ARE NO OTHER causes or effects. This widely popularized notion is the core of Scientism, indeed one of the most prevalent religions of our time.
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: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

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

Unread postby Electrodynamic » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:08 am

webolife
I have a theory which generally holds true.
If one has to expend a great deal of energy and try there best through repetition to convince everyone what they say is true I have reservations. However if in a few words what they say rings true as self evident then it is what it is.

Because the process of (post)modern science is based on a premise of materialism, any suggestion of immaterial, spiritual, or otherwise "supernatural" causation is deemed by some outspoken lecturers at best fanciful or at worst ridiculous. This exclusionary materialism, which has been inserted legally into many of our public systems, not least of which is the educational system, can also be designated as Scientism, and by default is a belief system unto itself.


Ah... well played. However believing in a material world generally regarded as Atheism is not a belief but disbelief. Ergo the absence of belief cannot be defined as a belief because ... it isn't.

It is one thing to acknowledge (as do I, a scientist and science teacher for now 43 years, and a majority of modern scientists as of 2009) the limitations of scientific process to the explanation of material causes and effects; but it is another thing to state as fact that THERE ARE NO OTHER causes or effects. This widely popularized notion is the core of Scientism, indeed one of the most prevalent religions of our time.


To be honest I couldn't determine which kind of logical fallacy this is other than the fact that I do not presume there are no other causes or effects beyond materialism. It may relate to the "false cause fallacy" in presuming that just because I believe in material things I would discount all other causes which is of course a fallacy.

We are not so different however I think our thoughts diverge on the singular point that I do not presume to believe what I cannot prove. Scientists work will what they have to work with which is real stuff, reality, and to presume otherwise is to say they should work with stuff which is not present. You do understand don't you?, we cannot prove or work with something which is not present...obviously.

However to presume that we will never know or believe any other causes or effects is speculation at best. Scientists are not not the one's claiming we should believe what they say without a shed of proof to substantiate there claim contradicting all natural laws... that's solely the theists my friend.
Electrodynamic
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

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

Unread postby webolife » Tue Sep 24, 2019 6:57 pm

Again, I think we see eye to eye on most points. We both agree that the study of science is restricted to the explanation and modelling of material causes and effects.
But Atheism is a belief system. More to the point, it's not believing in a material world, or doing science based thereon that is at issue; rather it is the belief that only the material world is real, which you in inferred at one point, that becomes a faith system. If there is a broader [than material] "reality", I would furthermore propose that it's rules also apply to the material subset. And this is where science cannot venture. By imperfect analogy, an irrational number, eg. can never be a rational number. They are both real, yet I have debated on this forum with objectivists who insist that there are no irrationals in the universe, that they are simply math constructs. This seems a somewhat narrow worldview to me, and most certainly constitutes a faith system. Materialistic determinists have the same staunch disregard for the "supernatural", yet many hold in their repertoire such fantasies as the big bang, acceleration, dark energy, WIMPs, black holes, and the like. Their being fantastic does not prove that they are not real, of course; simply that much stock... er, faith... is put in such devices in order to satisfy a materialistic belief system.
I apologize for repeating myself a lot... I taught middle school for decades.
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: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

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

Unread postby Webbman » Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:35 am

atheism, to me, is like saying you don't believe in electricity.

modern science cant identify what either an electric or magnetic field is made of. So the very cornerstone of existence is made from some unknowable mystery material everyone calls a field and stops there so they can get around defining it.

Gravity.. another mystery material.

of course these arent mysteries at all. Your simply using an incorrect model. Science and spirit are one in the same. They are the truth.

The books arent as relevant as the principles and corrupted science yields about as much truth as a corrupted spirit.
We shall know them by their works
Webbman
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Unread postby Webbman » Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:35 am

double post
We shall know them by their works
Webbman
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest