The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).
Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.
The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Moderator: Moderators
- Diogenes
- Guru
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 862 times
- Been thanked: 1265 times
The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #1___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #771[Replying to otseng in post #770]
Cosmologists propose things like multiverses in a similar way ... an attempt to explain nature via a mathematical formulism ... so it is non-natural in the same sense as calculus but may turn out to be a useful tool if it were confirmed to have any validity. Dark matter and dark energy are also inferred from observations, but we can't explain either of them yet as far as what they actually are, or even if they are valid inferences from the observations. They are hypothetical entities awaiting more study, but I think the general idea is that will have a natural explanation eventually.
These things are not supernatural in the same sense as gods, demons, spirits and that sort of thing. If someone tried to build a mathermatical framework for a god being how would they go about it? Gods are defined by humans as far as their characteristics, so a mathematical model to try and describe something like this would be futile. They are proposed as supernatural beings from the beginning and not subject to attempts to explain them with mathematical or physical models.
How can something like string theory be called non-natural? It is an attempt at a mathematical framework to explain nature, and has yet to get over that hump, but it would be in the same category as something like calculus, or differential equations. Calculus is non-natural in the sense that it isn't something that can be touched and handled physically, but it has a useful purpose in solving all kinds of problems (just like quantum mechanics, general relativity, etc.). It is a mathematical tool.Sure, you might be skeptical, but the point is cosmologists are proposing non-natural explanations.
Cosmologists propose things like multiverses in a similar way ... an attempt to explain nature via a mathematical formulism ... so it is non-natural in the same sense as calculus but may turn out to be a useful tool if it were confirmed to have any validity. Dark matter and dark energy are also inferred from observations, but we can't explain either of them yet as far as what they actually are, or even if they are valid inferences from the observations. They are hypothetical entities awaiting more study, but I think the general idea is that will have a natural explanation eventually.
These things are not supernatural in the same sense as gods, demons, spirits and that sort of thing. If someone tried to build a mathermatical framework for a god being how would they go about it? Gods are defined by humans as far as their characteristics, so a mathematical model to try and describe something like this would be futile. They are proposed as supernatural beings from the beginning and not subject to attempts to explain them with mathematical or physical models.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- Diogenes
- Guru
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 862 times
- Been thanked: 1265 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #772Given that the test of the Shroud conclusively proved the artifact is from about 1300 CE, it seems pointless to continue the argument. It's a fake. The Church fought and wrangled and wanted fewer tests by fewer laboratories, but finally agreed to 3 labs. A cardinal announced the results:
Official announcement
In a well-attended press conference on October 13, Cardinal Ballestrero announced the official results, i.e. that radio-carbon testing dated the shroud to a date of 1260–1390 AD, with 95% confidence. The official and complete report on the experiment was published in Nature.[1] The uncalibrated dates from the individual laboratories, with 1-sigma errors (68% confidence), were as follows:
Tucson: 646 ± 31 years;
Oxford: 750 ± 30 years;
Zürich: 676 ± 24 years old;
the unweighted mean was "691 ±31 years", which corresponds to calibrated ages of "1273–1288 AD" with 68% confidence, and "1262–1312, 1353–1384 AD cal" with 95% confidence.
As reported in Nature, Anthos Bray of the Instituto di Metrologia 'G. Colonetti', Turin, "confirmed that the results of the three laboratories were mutually compatible, and that, on the evidence submitted, none of the mean results was questionable."
If you want to copy this to your preferred subtopic, proceed. But I'm not interested in reviewing the reports by the usual highly biased sources promoting their unscientific 'Christian perspective,' any more than I will consult the various creation blogs for information on evolution.
___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20499
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 335 times
- Contact:
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #773Are other dimensions considered to be natural?
"Current versions of string theory require 10 dimensions total, while an even more hypothetical über-string theory known as M-theory requires 11."
https://www.space.com/more-universe-dim ... heory.html
As Diogenese quoted for a definition of naturalism:Cosmologists propose things like multiverses in a similar way
If a multiverse proposes other universes besides ours, how is that considered to be natural?
So, in the meantime, non-natural explanations are acceptable?They are hypothetical entities awaiting more study, but I think the general idea is that will have a natural explanation eventually.
Never said other universes are the same as gods or demons. All I'm saying is they all qualify as non-natural explanations.These things are not supernatural in the same sense as gods, demons, spirits and that sort of thing.
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20499
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 335 times
- Contact:
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #774Interesting that nobody is willing to debate on the TS, except for Joey. I've offered a testable artifact and even a way to falsify Christianity. But, nobody except Joey accepts that challenge? Again, if it's a fake, it should be easy to demonstrate how a forger created it. Really, the only evidence to argue against the authenticity of the shroud is C-14 dating, as if a single data point proves that it's fake. But, yes, eventually I will be devoting a large section to discussing the C-14 dating.
This is a bad excuse. Can you point to any of the sources that I've used that are "highly biased sources promoting their unscientific 'Christian perspective'"? If so, I'm willing to retract that evidence.But I'm not interested in reviewing the reports by the usual highly biased sources promoting their unscientific 'Christian perspective,' any more than I will consult the various creation blogs for information on evolution.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #775[Replying to otseng in post #773]
String theory needs this formalism for the math to work, but who knows if extra dimensions that us humans can't experience actually exist or not. I don't know enough about string theory to know if there is claim that the 10 or 11 dimensions are actual spatial dimensions (even if most of them are vanishingly small but needed for mathematical consistency), but if such dimensions do exist at the scales of the incredibly tiny I'd think they would have to be counted as "natural." String theory is still a work in progress, and its 10-11 dimensions may turn out to be nothing but a flash in the pan.Are other dimensions considered to be natural?
It wouldn't unless there actually are other universes. It was only a measly 100 years ago or so that humans first discovered that other galaxies existed. Hubble and others thought the "fuzzy stars" that had been observed for centuries were nebula and the belief was that there was only one "universe" that consisted of all the stars that could be seen. It was completely unknown that our own galaxy was not the entire universe, but just a miniscule part of it, and that billions of other galaxies existed at distances so far beyond anything imagined at the time that it was hard to believe. But that turned out to be the case. We just don't know enough yet to claim our universe is the only one, or whether it is just the present condition in a sequence of big bangs and big crunches, or some other idea.If a multiverse proposes other universes besides ours, how is that considered to be natural?
I would call them potential explanations, hypotheses, etc. that have some basis in mathematics, observation, etc. to justify spending time and effort on, with their goal being a natural explanation at the end of the day. String theory, multiverses, etc. are mathematical models attempting to explain the natural world, not explanations that are non-natural, or of the non-natural.So, in the meantime, non-natural explanations are acceptable?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #776[Replying to otseng in post #774]
You've made such a deep dive into TS it would require some real interest in the subject, and effort to catch up on knowledge to date, to get into the fray. But when the C-14 stuff comes along I may jump in as that subject is much more within my bailiwick.Interesting that nobody is willing to debate on the TS, except for Joey. I've offered a testable artifact and even a way to falsify Christianity. But, nobody except Joey accepts that challenge? Again, if it's a fake, it should be easy to demonstrate how a forger created it. Really, the only evidence to argue against the authenticity of the shroud is C-14 dating, as if a single data point proves that it's fake. But, yes, eventually I will be devoting a large section to discussing the C-14 dating.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6607 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #777Why not? If there are 10 or 11 dimensions we can only speak from the one(s) that we occupy. If there were beings in other dimensions the same thing would apply. If they consider our existence as in the supernatural but we consider our existence in the natural, which is correct? The way I see it everything that has existence is part of the natural. The supernatural is just a placeholder for natural things that we have not yet identified.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20499
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 335 times
- Contact:
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #778There is no size in our dimensions that relate to another dimension. So "vanishingly small" is not relevant when discussing other dimensions. It's either other dimensions exist or not. To claim that other dimensions is also natural is a special pleading fallacy. I might as well say heaven is in another dimension and is therefore also natural.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:10 pm I don't know enough about string theory to know if there is claim that the 10 or 11 dimensions are actual spatial dimensions (even if most of them are vanishingly small but needed for mathematical consistency), but if such dimensions do exist at the scales of the incredibly tiny I'd think they would have to be counted as "natural."
The issue is not if other universes exist, but cosmologists have proposed an explanation that is non-natural. Other universes is not equivalent to understanding more about our own universe. There is no causal relationship between universes. Each are independent of each other and they even might have totally different laws of physics.It wouldn't unless there actually are other universes.
Yes, they are attempts to explain our world, but they need to resort to things outside our natural world to do it.I would call them potential explanations, hypotheses, etc. that have some basis in mathematics, observation, etc. to justify spending time and effort on, with their goal being a natural explanation at the end of the day. String theory, multiverses, etc. are mathematical models attempting to explain the natural world, not explanations that are non-natural, or of the non-natural.So, in the meantime, non-natural explanations are acceptable?
By saying "with their goal being a natural explanation at the end of the day" strongly implies these explanations are not natural.
Again, there is special pleading involved here if you say all these explanations are natural. How would you define "natural"?
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20499
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 335 times
- Contact:
Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally
Post #780I'll ask the same question I posed above... how do you define "natural"?brunumb wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 12:02 am Why not? If there are 10 or 11 dimensions we can only speak from the one(s) that we occupy. If there were beings in other dimensions the same thing would apply. If they consider our existence as in the supernatural but we consider our existence in the natural, which is correct? The way I see it everything that has existence is part of the natural. The supernatural is just a placeholder for natural things that we have not yet identified.