Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2015, 04:20 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(03-11-2015 03:56 PM)Alla Wrote:   to grasshopper and Jason_delisle

Grasshopper: I answered this already. Perhaps you missed it. Genesis 1:3 says: "And God said let there be light. And there was light." How is that not God creating light?
I don't see word "created". I came into dark room. I said: "let it be light" and turned on the switch. Did I create light?

Now you're just playing word games. It's clear from the context that there was no light until God said let there be light -- and then there was. That is, by definition, God creating light -- whether or not the word "create" is specifically used. If he didn't create light, then he didn't create anything else either, because the entire creation account in chapter 1 of Genesis uses this same sort of language.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
03-11-2015, 04:30 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(03-11-2015 02:00 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  EvolutionKills,

There is a difference in having blind faith in things that you don't understand and having faith in God.

God is demonstrated to those who truly have Faith.

That is circular. Facepalm

Quote:You make the same mistake of some religious. All is of God. Healing a child with modern medical procedures and doctors is the work of God. Technological advancement is the the work of God, as man is too the work of God. That's similar to saying that the process of evolution is the work of God, as all existence is, you guessed it, the work of God.

If you just arbitrarily assign everything to your god, then sure. But you haven't demonstrated its existence.

Quote:Your silly. You can have faith in your parents sure. You can tell someone about it. But would they ever experience that Faith for themselves without too being their child? Faith leads to individual demonstratability and verification. Does this mean that some can be lead wrong and be convinced they are right by blind faith? Sure. But that isn't what I am talking about.

Good, because that made very little sense.

Quote:By the way; if you to. an make this distinction then why all the negativity. As if it is my fault people do stupid shit.

Could you try that again, but in English?

Quote:No, you speak or pride and greed, not true Faith and rightious living under God.

Woo woo word salad Bs. You sure are a whiny little thing aren't you. I really feel bad for you. What I speak isn't woo.

Pro tip: Yes, it is.

Quote:I will gladly face pain without end or death at this very moment is what I say is bs, or fluffed up for the masses.

Empty words. That's the 'May Lightning Strike Me Dead' fallacy.

Quote:Alright, let me explain again that sin is synonymous with greed and things that caused a negative effect on existence. Prove it exists? Politics, mass murders, child abuse just a couple of examples. Are you one of those people that thing there is no right and wrong? No morality? Oh, wait, you may be, you think everything happened from chance don't you? Like chaos, or survival of the fittest type stuff? Yeah, that doesn't lead to negative outcomes at all, ever...

There is no force of evil, there is only people doing evil things, or doing things that, unforeseen, result in evil.

Evolution causes untold suffering for countless creatures. It is what it is.

Quote:It's not a consept. I don't mean to be vague, and can go into detail on any particular you would like. I cannot fully grasp what utter complete pure Faith might lead to because of the infinite nature of the subject matter, and my limited perception of things that have yet to happen.

Pretty sure science relies on repeatable outcomes. My outcomes have been repeated.

Science relies on repeatable, demonstrable outcomes. Your internal experiences are not evidence as they cannot be experienced by others. You aren't practicing science.

Quote:No I said I have my proof daily. And that your proof can be attained by you alone. I never said that I could prove anything to you, or that God could be proven by a third party other than God.

Your point was that Faith was useless misdirection. I stated that it is quite useful in the right context. How did I prove your point? Never mind, really.

Huh?

Quote:Can you at least grasp that evolution can still work even though God made everything?

Evolution works fine without guidance, all that is required is imperfect replication and differential survival.
If your god is directing evolution, he is one cruel son of a bitch. Evidence: parasites, viruses, cancer.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-11-2015, 04:31 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(03-11-2015 04:20 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 03:56 PM)Alla Wrote:   to grasshopper and Jason_delisle

Grasshopper: I answered this already. Perhaps you missed it. Genesis 1:3 says: "And God said let there be light. And there was light." How is that not God creating light?
I don't see word "created". I came into dark room. I said: "let it be light" and turned on the switch. Did I create light?

Now you're just playing word games. It's clear from the context that there was no light until God said let there be light -- and then there was. That is, by definition, God creating light -- whether or not the word "create" is specifically used. If he didn't create light, then he didn't create anything else either, because the entire creation account in chapter 1 of Genesis uses this same sort of language.
So basically if that is the case the God did not create anything. He just said it should exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2015, 04:36 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(03-11-2015 10:10 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  This is just a general question to anyone who wants to answer. Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about someone who claims to have had a vision of some kind where God actually spoke to them and was so convinced in his experience that despite knowing there could be a reasonable explanation in the realms of Psychology and Physiology he believed it to be true.

I know this is a run on sentence... but eh.

That person lacks critical thinking skills, at the very least.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-11-2015, 04:39 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(03-11-2015 10:57 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 10:33 AM)unfogged Wrote:  I think they are foolish to believe it, especially if they understand how it could be explained without needing a god. The natural explanation is plausible and the most they should believe is that they had an unexplained experience.

I'd be a lot more impressed with claims of visions if they ever provided information that could be tested and which the person could not have known. People claim to have had contact with gods or aliens or whatever and come away with "we all need to love each other" or "god is in control" or other very vague claims. The sentiments are often admirable, but there's no reason to suspect that they require divine origin.
Lets say that this person had no history of psychological disorders and no evidence of anything physical (drugs, brain injury, unintentional inhalation of chemicals, ect) Would there then be a mutual understanding the person's claim would appear to be delusional but due to the lack of any evidence to prove or disprove such an experience it would be labeled as "I cannot confirm or deny the legitimacy of the claim"?

I am only bringing this up after putting some thought into the testimony of the apostle Paul who claimed to have had a vision from Jesus. Assuming that the account as described in the bible is accurate (and I completely understand that it may not but just for the discussion let's assume the account was accurate), what could be some possible explanations for such a claim? How can someone who persecuted and killed Christians have all of a sudden make a complete 180 and become so convinced by his claim that he then dedicated his life to the Christian cause and eventually die from it?

Now I am not a doctor or a psychological expert by any means but could an experience like that have occurred as a result of blunt force head trauma from falling off a horse?

A claim unsupported by evidence does not make it to the decision table to be judged right or wrong; it is summarily dismissed.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
03-11-2015, 04:52 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(03-11-2015 03:52 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Would you be willing to describe your vision ? What if you asked yourself these questions and yet found no real answer to explain it's origin?
It's not personal, but I'd rather not give specific details. I've only told three people what I saw. It was not about a god, and it was not the happy shiny type. I can say I'm glad it wasn't real or predicted anything. It's one of the reasons horror movies don't scare me.

But I thought about it and realized it was literally all in my head. It did not come from a deity or spirit being. I realized it was created by my brain, that fed it back into my brain during a recognizable and repeatable occurrence.

I'm not sure how to answer the last part. I feel that having had this vision leads me to believe that anyone who can't figure it out and believes it to be real either has a severe mental illness or (as Chas said) lacks critical thinking skills. And again I came to that conclusion as a theist, before my Kabbalist days. Sorry I can't really help with the last question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2015, 04:56 PM
Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(03-11-2015 10:57 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Lets say that this person had no history of psychological disorders and no evidence of anything physical (drugs, brain injury, unintentional inhalation of chemicals, ect) Would there then be a mutual understanding the person's claim would appear to be delusional but due to the lack of any evidence to prove or disprove such an experience it would be labeled as "I cannot confirm or deny the legitimacy of the claim"?

I'm not sure who is in this mutual understanding but I can go along with the last part. If somebody makes a claim of having a vision I have no way to verify that it had a supernatural origin; I may not even be able to determine that it actually occurred. We know that natural causes can have this effect so they must remain a possibility even if we can rule out some of them. An unknown or undetectable natural cause is still at least a possibility unless there is a way to rule out all possible natural causes, including unknown and undetectable ones. Whether or not I would call it a delusion would depend on how the person reacted to it and how much belief they put into a specific cause without good evidence. A vision by itself isn't a delusion; believing you know something you don't is a delusion.

Quote:I am only bringing this up after putting some thought into the testimony of the apostle Paul who claimed to have had a vision from Jesus. Assuming that the account as described in the bible is accurate (and I completely understand that it may not but just for the discussion let's assume the account was accurate), what could be some possible explanations for such a claim? How can someone who persecuted and killed Christians have all of a sudden make a complete 180 and become so convinced by his claim that he then dedicated his life to the Christian cause and eventually die from it? Now I am not a doctor or a psychological expert by any means but could an experience like that have occurred as a result of blunt force head trauma from falling off a horse?

People make life changes all the time, some small, some big. I'm not so willing to assume the account is accurate because Paul never really defines it well and the accounts are contradictory so judicious editing is at least as likely as the story being essentially true.

As far as possible causes if it is based on an actual incident, RocketSurgeon already provided some good info. I've heard claims that Paul may have been epileptic or even malarial and either can cause the person to experience an altered state. I don't claim either condition was the cause but I see many possible natural explanations so I see no reason to jump to the supernatural.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2015, 04:57 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(03-11-2015 12:49 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Well tbi could be the likely cause to explain Paul's temporary blindness.

Oh, good catch! Even I didn't make the connection between the article and the story, with the blindness.

I've been trying to get this project finished, and have been only half present, so my attention span has been somewhat divided.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2015, 04:57 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
(03-11-2015 04:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 10:57 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Lets say that this person had no history of psychological disorders and no evidence of anything physical (drugs, brain injury, unintentional inhalation of chemicals, ect) Would there then be a mutual understanding the person's claim would appear to be delusional but due to the lack of any evidence to prove or disprove such an experience it would be labeled as "I cannot confirm or deny the legitimacy of the claim"?

I am only bringing this up after putting some thought into the testimony of the apostle Paul who claimed to have had a vision from Jesus. Assuming that the account as described in the bible is accurate (and I completely understand that it may not but just for the discussion let's assume the account was accurate), what could be some possible explanations for such a claim? How can someone who persecuted and killed Christians have all of a sudden make a complete 180 and become so convinced by his claim that he then dedicated his life to the Christian cause and eventually die from it?

Now I am not a doctor or a psychological expert by any means but could an experience like that have occurred as a result of blunt force head trauma from falling off a horse?

A claim unsupported by evidence does not make it to the decision table to be judged right or wrong; it is summarily dismissed.
Agreed. I understand that this is entirely hypothetical "what ifs" that really don't have any real value.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2015, 05:15 PM
RE: Bible's view of the cosmos: flat earth, moving sun. People actually buy into this?
Alla - What I think you're trying to say (if I may presume to make your argument for you) is that the Hebrew word translated in Genesis as "create" had a slightly different use in the time it was written. Bara' could be used to make (as in to shape or create), but had the additional connotation of "to assign purpose to something". A former member here, a theist, was working on a treatise on the subject on his blog, which link I cannot find at the moment (sorry! Does anyone have the link to Zoebion's Genesis blog?). Under that definition, then, God did not so much create the light ex nihilo, but rather spoke what the purpose of each of the things would be-- in other words, set the physical laws by which those things would operate. He says that this definition makes Genesis simply a poetic way of telling us that God shaped the universal laws by which the Big Bang and subsequent events occurred, including the formation of particles that could emit photons in certain states, such as when the gas clouds collapsed under gravity to the point of becoming luminous... and there was light.

I don't know how much I buy that, but it does seem something like what you're trying to express.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: