GOD EXISTS

From my perspective the arguments presented here by the bible belters have similar validity and credence as those in the public domain from organisations like ISIS and such.

You play word and numeric games that at core are based solely on your own particular sacred texts, with nothing to confirm it from any other source. ISIS uses their sacred texts to justify atrocities, but there are plenty of biblical quotes that would also justify similar barbaric actions like stonings and beheadings.

I have learned much from this discussion, least of which is that I am an agnostic (by strict definition). In that I really don't know the secrets of the multiverse, but am sure that mankind can never really comprehend what if anything is behind it.

I do also know that I'll never consider that Christianity is any closer to such an understanding than any other money making theological business like Islam or Buddhism.

As an individual all I can do is to try to be kind to others, reward goodness, and to fight what I perceive to be wrong (Much of which is often perpetrated by religions).

cthia wrote:This was only posted as a hmm topic of interest, and this part of the post was pasted 'in hopes' of piquing your interest enough to continue reading the full course, where the meat and potatoes are, Bible Numerics. An interesting topic, meant only for your edification.

If the objective here was to show more proof (if any proof were needed) how utterly deluded and non-scientific creationist thought is, congratulations! You succeeded!

If you wanted me to go "Oh, that's interesting maybe there's something to this", it failed. Because, and this may be new to you, it is always possible to find correlations and then construct meaning out of nothing. If you're trying to construct a case that the 7-day week is, in some way, a fundamental construct that is encoded in our biology (and not just an artefact of trying to build a calendar based around seasons and lunar cycles), then your case better be thorough. It better not fudge data. It better not be easily proven false by wikipedia.

It was an interesting enough topic for Sir Isaac Newton to spend much time on it, when he could have been gathering more apples.

And our good friend argumentam ad autoritam rears its head again. So what if Newton thought he could do useful work on this? What does this mean? What does it signify?

I tell you what it doesn't mean: It doesn't mean that Newton was actually on to something.

But yeah, cthia. You go right ahead. Keep spending those hundreds of thousands of dollars and days and weeks of your time proving that the unproveable exists. If nothing else, at least you're going to stimulate the economy.

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:This was only posted as a hmm topic of interest, and this part of the post was pasted 'in hopes' of piquing your interest enough to continue reading the full course, where the meat and potatoes are, Bible Numerics. An interesting topic, meant only for your edification.

If the objective here was to show more proof (if any proof were needed) how utterly deluded and non-scientific creationist thought is, congratulations! You succeeded!

If you wanted me to go "Oh, that's interesting maybe there's something to this", it failed. Because, and this may be new to you, it is always possible to find correlations and then construct meaning out of nothing. If you're trying to construct a case that the 7-day week is, in some way, a fundamental construct that is encoded in our biology (and not just an artefact of trying to build a calendar based around seasons and lunar cycles), then your case better be thorough. It better not fudge data. It better not be easily proven false by wikipedia.

It was an interesting enough topic for Sir Isaac Newton to spend much time on it, when he could have been gathering more apples.

And our good friend argumentam ad autoritam rears its head again. So what if Newton thought he could do useful work on this? What does this mean? What does it signify?

I tell you what it doesn't mean: It doesn't mean that Newton was actually on to something.

But yeah, cthia. You go right ahead. Keep spending those hundreds of thousands of dollars and days and weeks of your time proving that the unproveable exists. If nothing else, at least you're going to stimulate the economy.

Oh, I don't mind stimulating the economy. I make it a point to. I consider it a Christian obligation. But besides that, it should be - and is - a moral obligation. Every year I donate at least $100K to homelessness along with my time. I have been paying the tuition of two students showing promise or eagerness every year since I was twenty-five. Together with my family, we put 10 students through college the entire way and each is provided transportation. 50K each, per year given to each of them directly and NOT through some organization. So you see, stimulating the economy is NOT a problem for me, or my family.

However, I hope it shows that I also try to stimulate thinking in funding higher education. Stimulating thinking -- an effort that is always fraught with friction. Friction -- that ever present copper-plated Cordelia Ransom of a variable of reality that always rears its ugly head in calculations and conversations.

After all, a mind really is a terrible thing to waste, especially on petty conversations.

Daryl wrote:From my perspective the arguments presented here by the bible belters have similar validity and credence as those in the public domain from organisations like ISIS and such.

You play word and numeric games that at core are based solely on your own particular sacred texts, with nothing to confirm it from any other source. ISIS uses their sacred texts to justify atrocities, but there are plenty of biblical quotes that would also justify similar barbaric actions like stonings and beheadings.

I have learned much from this discussion, least of which is that I am an agnostic (by strict definition). In that I really don't know the secrets of the multiverse, but am sure that mankind can never really comprehend what if anything is behind it.

I do also know that I'll never consider that Christianity is any closer to such an understanding than any other money making theological business like Islam or Buddhism.

As an individual all I can do is to try to be kind to others, reward goodness, and to fight what I perceive to be wrong (Much of which is often perpetrated by religions).

If Christian understanding is as close or as far from whatever truth exists, Daryl, why does your core moral code reflect the central Christian tenet? Islam does have some moral beliefs similar to Christianity, yet it has an imperative to impose its moral and legal code on everyone. Christianity does not. Many Christians do wish to impose their code on everyone. Islam on the other hand requires Muslims to subject the world to Islam and sharia.

You believe there exists a moral equivalency here? I'll grant that as an agnostic you don't accept any greater divine inspiration responsible for either. Yet, to govern yourself by a moral code as you admit to doing is to assert a preference for a specific moral code. By accepting a moral code to govern your life, do you not place greater worth on the morality you accept? If you do place greater worth on some codes over others, do not those codes that differ most from yours reflect less worth in so far as they are useful to govern your life? That differing utility to your life speaks to some greater understanding in those moral codes most similar to yours as far as you understand and value what is important. in life.

All this is to say, don't cop out. There are ways to evaluate the differences between on set of beliefs and others. To take the easy way out and claim that all religious value structures are equal because they are based on religion. They are not.

I have found that people usually believe
what they wish to believe.

My opinion is:
if you find what a person believes,
then you have usually found what he wishes to believe.

HTM

cthia wrote:Please forgive my curiosity. Do.


For all non-believers and uncertainties, if given a choice...

Do you want it to be true that God Exists?

Why?

cthia wrote:This was only posted as a hmm topic of interest, and this part of the post was pasted 'in hopes' of piquing your interest enough to continue reading the full course, where the meat and potatoes are, Bible Numerics. An interesting topic, meant only for your edification.

Well congratulations, you've edified everyone on the fact that Bible Numerics blatantly lies and fakes its data to get the result they have predetermined they want to get. Just like creationism.

Mission accomplished!

Islam does *not* have an imperative to impose its
moral and legal code upon "People of the Book."
Islam says "There is no compulsion in religion."

The "Four Rightly Guided Caliphs" (Mohammed's immediate
successors) did *not* impose Sharia Law upon Jewish
and Christian communities, instead allowing them to
follow their own laws.
The Umarrid Dynasty followed their example.
So did the Abassids.
So did the Ottoman Sultans.

For fully a thousand (1,000) years it was safer and
better for Jews to live under Moslem control than
under Christian control. It was also safer and better
for those Christians who were called "Heretics."
For the next 200 years, it was about equal.

The self-styled "Islamic State" is doing what the
Ottomans did not and would not do, what the Abassids
and Umarrids did not do, what the Rightly Guided
Caliphs refused to do.

HTM

PeterZ wrote:{snip - htm}
Islam does have some moral beliefs similar to Christianity, yet it has an imperative to impose
its moral and legal code on everyone.
Christianity does not.
Many Christians do wish to impose their code on everyone.
Islam on the other hand requires Muslims to
subject the world to Islam and sharia.
{snip}

gcomeau wrote:

HB of CJ wrote:gcomeau; I think I am using the correct definition of Agnostic. If I am not, feel free to correct me. But remember ... I am 68 and pretty much old school. I will be curious what your definition of Agnostic is vs what I believe it to be. Enlighten me. HB

I take the definition from the guy who invented the term. (Huxley)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=agnostic


agnostic (n.)
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known"

(emphasis added)


Not simply "I don't know". CANNOT BE known. It is not a statement of personal ignorance, it is a statement of belief that this particular bit of information is impossible to acquire.


A vast horde of people now insist on using agnosticism as a synonym for ignorance, but ignorance is not an "-ism".

The problem with Huxley's definition is that it too requires faith. That is to assert that a thing CANNOT be known is to believe that this is true. Like theism and atheism the assertion has yet to be proven.

In the literal sense, we are all ignorant of the Truth, whether that Truth is God or His absence. We are persuaded to believe one way or the other by evidence each of us finds compelling. So, Huxley's definition is useful to describe one sort of agnostic. The sort that believe no evidence can be compelling enough.

The agnostic isn't the ignorant. We are all ignorant in the literal sense. The agnostic is the un-persuaded. Huxley's definition asserts the agnostic is the un-persuadable as a tautology not simply in practice. I find the utility of that definition limited. It describes at best a small subset of the un-persuaded who have the faith to commit to sitting on the fence in regards to this question rather than moving to one side or the other.

cthia wrote:

God's Pattern In Nature

Modern natural sciences started "to explode" when scientists realised from the Bible that God is a God of order and that THIS ORDER IS TO BE FOUND IN HIS CREATION. Logically, it follows that if God has put order into all of His creation, how much more would He have put order into His Word, the Bible.

That is impossible, because scientists do not use the Bible as a source for their research, nor a a source of scientific knowledge. Anyone who does is not a scientist, whatever he may claim.

cthia wrote:
For instance, it must be mentioned that renowned scientists, such as ISAAC NEWTON who contributed so much to modern physics and mathematics, spent many years of their personal research on the subject of "Numerics in the Bible". Newton must have felt that he was "onto something".

Newton also devoted large amounts of his time and brainpower to alchemy (NOT chemistry) searching for the legendary philosopher's stone and the elixir of life.

Many - indeed, most - of the scientists of his time dabbled into subjects which would later be proven ridiculous. I remember that one of the great astronomers (Kepler, I think) spent a lot of time making astrology tables (admittedly, it was so he could make a living by making astrology predictions for affluent people)

cthia wrote:
The following is an excerpt from Bullinger's book: BULLINGER, E. W., "NUMBER IN SCRIPTURE", The Lamp Press, London, 1952.

PHYSIOLOGY offers a vast field for illustration, but here again the grand impress is seen to be the number SEVEN. The days of man's years are "Three-score years and ten" (7 x 10). In SEVEN years the whole structure of his body changes: and we are all familiar with "the seven ages of man".

The various periods of GESTATION (pregnancy) also are commonly a multiple of SEVEN, either of days or weeks.

With INSECTS the ova are hatched from SEVEN half-days (such as the wasp, bee, etc.); while with others it is SEVEN whole days. The majority of insects require from 14 (2 x 7) to 42 (6 x 7) days; the same applies to the larva state.

With ANIMALS the period of gestation of:

⦁ The mouse is 21 (3 x 7) days.
⦁ The hare and rat, 28 (4 x 7) days.
⦁ The cat, 56 (8 x 7) days.
⦁ The dog, 63 (9 x 7) days.
⦁ The lion, 98 (14 x 7) days.
⦁ The sheep, 147 (21 x 7) days.

With BIRDS, the incubation of:

⦁ The common hen is 21 (3 x 7) days.
⦁ The duck, 28 (4 x 7) days.

With the HUMAN species it is 280 days (or 40 x 7).
Moreover, man appears to be made on what we may call the SEVEN-day principle. In various diseases the SEVENTH, FOURTEENTH, and TWENTY-FIRST are critical days; and in others, SEVEN or 14 half-days. Man's pulse beats on the SEVEN-day principle... for six days out of the seven it beats faster in the morning than in the evening, while on the seventh day it beats slower. Thus the number SEVEN IS STAMPED UPON PHYSIOLOGY, and he is thus admonished, as man, to rest one day in seven. He cannot violate this law with impunity, for it is interwoven with his very being."

There are a bunch of problems with this.

First, the size of the measuring unit (seven days) is too small to be an useful measurement. In this case, you are measuring gestation times and rounding off the discrepancies. Now, if the measure was larger (say, 50 days) then a one-day or two-day discrepancy (a 2% to 4% deviation) could be safely forgiven, and the argument would have some merit as long as all gestation times could be expressed as multiples of the measure, with equally small discrepancies.

However, since the measure is only seven days, a two-day discrepancy builds up to a 28.5% discrepancy, which is frankly too much. And in the case of the longer gestation times, where the variation can be of several weeks, the final discrepancy goes higher than 200%.

Second, the part about heartbeats sound to me like a classic case of reversing cause-and-effect. Were the heartbeat measurements taken in a controlled environment, without outside influences? Or were them taken in a normal, everyday environment (you know, the usual environment we working stiffs face every day) where the person is subject to working stresses for the first six days, and a resting break for the seventh? (this schedule is, by the way, not mandated by heartbeat, but by normal working schedule). To me, it looks that they they measured heartbeats (hey, it's faster on workdays, and slower on rest days!) and decided that the heartbeat rate was the Cause of the workday schedule, rather than its Effect.

If you want a real experiment, do the following: pick a largish group of people, divide into several groups (max of 7), subject them to time disorientation (so they lose track of the day of the week) and then subject then to the stresses of a normal working life. One group will be told it's Monday, another that it's Tuesday, and so on. Also, make sure that they have no access to any clues as to the real weekday. Measure heartbeats all the time. Compare. Draw conclusions. (probably needs to be refined a bit, but this would work)

That's the scientific method, and I'd believe those results, instead of an old moldy book published in 1952 (not exactly at the forefront of modern thought, that one)

cthia wrote:
During the time of the French revolution under Robespierre, a TEN-DAY WEEK was introduced, instead of the GOD ORDAINED SEVEN-DAY WEEK. Humans and animals could not cope with having only one rest day in ten. Men started to get ill and cattle collapsed in the fields. Soon, they had to go back to the seven-day week. It was clearly shown that God's pattern should not be violated.
Cells in the human body are constantly dying and being replaced. This works on a seven-year cycle, whereby over a period of seven years every cell in the body is replaced.

On the subject of the French Rev, let's do some numbers.

Normal week: seven days, with five workdays and two rest days.
French week: ten days, with nine workdays and one rest days.

Crunch them numbers, and you'll come up with this result: switching to the French week, your total rest time is reduced by almost exactly two-thirds (65%, for the pedants among us ) Ever heard the old saying "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"? People need to rest, or they start going apeshit (and this is especially true on today's stressful world).

Now, about the human cell replacement. This is another logical error, namely asserting that a single positive example proves a postulate, while ignoring all the negative examples. Like saying, "Skin regeneration is a continuous, cyclical process. People's skin is completely regenerated in seven years. Therefore, all of a human's cyclical processes run on a seven-year timetable."

I definitely do not take a dump once every seven years. I am not full of shit .

cthia wrote:
Many other incredible patterns are present throughout nature, Fibbonacci numbers being one of the more well-known. There is such an incredible design shown in nature that we could list things all day long, but we trust you get the main point. CLEARLY THROUGHOUT NATURE, WE CAN SEE GOD'S STAMP ON ALL OF CREATION.

The one great question now is, may we not expect to find the same phenomena in that greatest of all God's works, His Word?

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" (HEBREWS 11:3).

... to continue reading...
http://www.cai.org/faq/bible-mathematics

Of course there are patterns in nature. That does not mean that there's a purpose behind the pattern, nor that there is a designer behind its creation. It's like saying that because a pattern exists, a creator must be involved.

Fibonacci, for example. It's not that nature follows Fibonacci's pattern, but rather that the Fibonacci sequence accurately describes a pattern observed in nature. Subtle distinction, there.

And finally, if you take a long sequence of perfectly random numbers, you will be able to find patterns in them. It's just the nature of math that, with a sophisticated enough formula, you can extract a pattern from anything. A non-random text like the Bible just means that the formula needs not be too sophisticated, and that patterns will abound.

You really want to know how we differ?
You really don't know already?

Since you asked:
We Jews believe that "The Lord Our G-d, The Lord is One!"
His internal structure is unknowable to Humans.
To claim to know it, is Vanity and Arrogance.

The Exodus story says that G-d sometimes did things
"with a strong hand and an outstretched arm."
Does that mean that the Hand and the Arm were
separate Persons? No! Obviously not!
Neither does "the Spirit of G-d" doing something or
being somewhere, make it a different Person from
"G-d,-The-Father" or from all of Him.

"The Trinity" means nothing to us Jews.

G-d and man are two different things,
never to be considered the same.
It is blasphemy to consider a man could be G-d.

Jesus was a man, indubitably a man,
and therefore was not and could not be G-d.

I hope that you find your Questions Answered.
I regret if the Answer upsets or offends you,
but you did ask, and I cannot deny my beliefs.

Howard Wilkins

cthia wrote:
The Holy Spirit being God's own Spirit.
Remember, God is
a makeup of The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost.
The Trinity.
JESUS was GOD in the flesh.