The Tigris and Euphrates rivers often flooded violently and unpredictably in ancient times. It was in that area that the book of Genesis as well as the epic of Gilgamesh were written.
Is Bible inerrant
- Thread starter yip1997
- Start date
The Tigris and Euphrates rivers often flooded violently and unpredictably in ancient times. It was in that area that the book of Genesis as well as the epic of Gilgamesh were written.
Quote from stu:
Stu:
"Anything possible cannot be ruled out..." puts Alice and the White Rabbit as Creators of the Universe alongside God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster with a whole Host of others. You'll have to explain to me how there is any element of minimal logic in that, to support the Supernatural as credible ,as you suggest it is, before I can pursue that line any further.
Hans:
We can't rule out either Alice or the Spaghetti Monster as being impossible but we can rule them out as being in any way credible. I could concoct an argument for either Alice or SM being the Creator but would be unable to support my argument with any evidence or with logic that couldn't soon be overturned.
And nota bene that I'm ascribing no specifics to my Supernatural Cause other than that it's supernatural and the cause. It might even be a non-conscious process that occurs outside the limits of our natural Universe.
Why should the Supernatural be credible? Why not? At least as a possibility given that the Universe exists and no natural explanation all these cosmologists have been working on for lo these many years makes ultimate sense. Even Steven Hawking was talking God when he got down to the first nanosecond of the Big Bang.
Stu:
The Always There Supernatural to Universe - explains nothing, but simply begs the question.
The Universe is observable, knowable and provable. Why try and insert an unobservable, unknowable, indefinable concept of Supernatural in between Always There and Universe? If things can always be there, then why not the Universe Always there-. Why try and insert an extra unobservable, unknowable, indefinable concept of Supernatural?
It's only accomplishment is the attempt to force a gap for Spaghetti Monsters, Zeus and something called God to find a place to sit.
Hans:
Nope, I'm not pushing for Zeus or the Spaghetti Monster - not yet anyway.
In my last post I indicated some of the problems I have with the Always There Universe. If the Universe is Eternal then it's supernatural because it's inexplicable by way of natural laws. Time is an indispensable component of the natural law complex; Time, especially the flowing time we know, doesn't work in an Eternal context.
Stu
The Universe is the definition of ALL that exists right?
Everything about it, however astonishing, extraordinary or unusual, conforms to the nature of the Universe.
All that exists in the Universe is of the Nature of the Universe. Everything about it is Natural to it. There can be nothing Supernatural to the Universe because from its definition, there can be nothing that exists that is not naturally part of, or to do with it. As soon as you observe the Supernatural it is no longer supernatural. It becomes natural. It is observed as part of the Universe and like everything else is Natural to it, not Supernatural.
Hans
Certainly all that exists in the Universe is of the Nature of the Universe and if by definition the Universe consists of all that exists then all that exists is of the Nature of the Universe.
But.. if we propose a bona fide Supernatural in spite of the preceding the only way it would work is if this Supernatural were an entity that doesn't "exist" as we understand existing and yet has identity. If said Supernatural were timeless it wouldn't exist as we understand existing because it wouldn't be from moment to moment as we ourselves and everything we can experience is. It could be that everything that exists does its existing in a timeless context that doesn't need to exist itself - a contextual eternity in which there are no events per se - that does all its "existing" at once, in a timeless manner. In this way All That Exists could do its existing in a context that would be differentiated from existence.
Stu
So in a similar way, were it the case that - Nothing to Universe- was found to be, there would be no "bizarre" about it. That would explain the very Nature of things, Extraordinary and astounding yes, but not supernatural.
Hans
If we were to find that Nothing-to-Universe were the case we would only be discovering a fact, not an explanation. It might be supernatural; it may have originated from a timeless source. Nothingness is timeless. Maybe Nothingness is Supernatural. Maybe Nothingness is The Supernatural; it certainly conforms to what I was suggesting in my paragraph above.
Stu
Something "outside" the Universe? Supernatural to it?
How? When the definition of the Universe is ALL that exists. As soon as something is observed to exist, however fantastic extraordinary or astounding it appears to be, it's Natural, always was, within the nature of the Universe by definition. Therefore there can in actuality be no Supernatural. Only concepts of it. And as concepts can describe anything of imagination whatsoever, they explain nothing.
Although concepts themselves are natural, their ensuants are contrived, up until becoming things knowable and confirmable then to be part of the Universe. As the Universe itself is knowable and confirmable.
Unlike yourself I do not find - Nothing to Universe - bizarre, in the way the word is being used in our discussion. That is to say, there is nothing conspicuously unconventional in terms of the Universe.
Everything about it, however astonishing, extraordinary or unusual, conforms to the nature of it.
I think it essentially important to appreciate that axiom when considering the Universe and indeed the World within it.
So were it the case that -Nothing to Universe- was found to be, there would be no "bizarre". That would be a normal explanation of the nature of things. Extraordinary and astounding yes, but never Supernatural.
You find "complete and utter causelessness" bizarre because you are not prepared to consider âNothing - a contingent of Natural? Why not?
If I understand you correctly , in your argument, an abstract Supernatural is arbitrarily produced and positioned outside a substantiated Natural Universe, because you cannot have Natural as an uncaused cause.
So you give supernatural an exceptional special pleading for contradicting itself , being an uncaused cause, and always there.
But WHY does an actual Universe,... which is not an abstract imagination, but is containing information substantiated and confirmed, not requiring special pleading, not needing exceptions for contradiction, ...not have the grounds for uncaused cause, when there is actually information for such a thing as part of the Nature of the Universe?
May I suggest you research virtual particles / particle pairs and quantum foam and perhaps consider those propositions. Not at all 'bizarre' in context , but would be wholly Natural events. Should any of these be further confirmed next year when the Cern Particle Accelerator Hadron Collider goes online, your incredulity at an uncaused Universe may diminish, may it not?
Hans
As I indicated in my prior post I'm aware of the something-from-nothing phenomenon of QM, but I'm suspicious of QM in general because, although I don't know a great deal about QM specifically, I know that incomplete theories can generate bizarre artefacts. Consider MWI - perfectly valid as a prediction from QM.
I have a problem with including Nothing in the Universe or with considering Nothing a part of Nature. It seems to me Nothingness is an absolute absence of the Universe or Nature. Maybe there's a yin-yang relationship between the two, maybe not. There's nothing in Nothingness therefore there's nothing to comprehend. Nothingness presents us with an insurmountable barrier to understanding. If anything I'm inclined to think of Nothingness as a possible Supernatural.
Gee, Stu - you got me to admit that nothing is supernatural.
Hans
Stu:
"Anything possible cannot be ruled out..." puts Alice and the White Rabbit as Creators of the Universe alongside God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster with a whole Host of others. You'll have to explain to me how there is any element of minimal logic in that, to support the Supernatural as credible ,as you suggest it is, before I can pursue that line any further.
Hans:
We can't rule out either Alice or the Spaghetti Monster as being impossible but we can rule them out as being in any way credible. I could concoct an argument for either Alice or SM being the Creator but would be unable to support my argument with any evidence or with logic that couldn't soon be overturned.
And nota bene that I'm ascribing no specifics to my Supernatural Cause other than that it's supernatural and the cause. It might even be a non-conscious process that occurs outside the limits of our natural Universe.
Why should the Supernatural be credible? Why not? At least as a possibility given that the Universe exists and no natural explanation all these cosmologists have been working on for lo these many years makes ultimate sense. Even Steven Hawking was talking God when he got down to the first nanosecond of the Big Bang.
Stu:
The Always There Supernatural to Universe - explains nothing, but simply begs the question.
The Universe is observable, knowable and provable. Why try and insert an unobservable, unknowable, indefinable concept of Supernatural in between Always There and Universe? If things can always be there, then why not the Universe Always there-. Why try and insert an extra unobservable, unknowable, indefinable concept of Supernatural?
It's only accomplishment is the attempt to force a gap for Spaghetti Monsters, Zeus and something called God to find a place to sit.
Hans:
Nope, I'm not pushing for Zeus or the Spaghetti Monster - not yet anyway.
In my last post I indicated some of the problems I have with the Always There Universe. If the Universe is Eternal then it's supernatural because it's inexplicable by way of natural laws. Time is an indispensable component of the natural law complex; Time, especially the flowing time we know, doesn't work in an Eternal context.
Stu
The Universe is the definition of ALL that exists right?
Everything about it, however astonishing, extraordinary or unusual, conforms to the nature of the Universe.
All that exists in the Universe is of the Nature of the Universe. Everything about it is Natural to it. There can be nothing Supernatural to the Universe because from its definition, there can be nothing that exists that is not naturally part of, or to do with it. As soon as you observe the Supernatural it is no longer supernatural. It becomes natural. It is observed as part of the Universe and like everything else is Natural to it, not Supernatural.
Hans
Certainly all that exists in the Universe is of the Nature of the Universe and if by definition the Universe consists of all that exists then all that exists is of the Nature of the Universe.
But.. if we propose a bona fide Supernatural in spite of the preceding the only way it would work is if this Supernatural were an entity that doesn't "exist" as we understand existing and yet has identity. If said Supernatural were timeless it wouldn't exist as we understand existing because it wouldn't be from moment to moment as we ourselves and everything we can experience is. It could be that everything that exists does its existing in a timeless context that doesn't need to exist itself - a contextual eternity in which there are no events per se - that does all its "existing" at once, in a timeless manner. In this way All That Exists could do its existing in a context that would be differentiated from existence.
Stu
So in a similar way, were it the case that - Nothing to Universe- was found to be, there would be no "bizarre" about it. That would explain the very Nature of things, Extraordinary and astounding yes, but not supernatural.
Hans
If we were to find that Nothing-to-Universe were the case we would only be discovering a fact, not an explanation. It might be supernatural; it may have originated from a timeless source. Nothingness is timeless. Maybe Nothingness is Supernatural. Maybe Nothingness is The Supernatural; it certainly conforms to what I was suggesting in my paragraph above.
Stu
Something "outside" the Universe? Supernatural to it?
How? When the definition of the Universe is ALL that exists. As soon as something is observed to exist, however fantastic extraordinary or astounding it appears to be, it's Natural, always was, within the nature of the Universe by definition. Therefore there can in actuality be no Supernatural. Only concepts of it. And as concepts can describe anything of imagination whatsoever, they explain nothing.
Although concepts themselves are natural, their ensuants are contrived, up until becoming things knowable and confirmable then to be part of the Universe. As the Universe itself is knowable and confirmable.
Unlike yourself I do not find - Nothing to Universe - bizarre, in the way the word is being used in our discussion. That is to say, there is nothing conspicuously unconventional in terms of the Universe.
Everything about it, however astonishing, extraordinary or unusual, conforms to the nature of it.
I think it essentially important to appreciate that axiom when considering the Universe and indeed the World within it.
So were it the case that -Nothing to Universe- was found to be, there would be no "bizarre". That would be a normal explanation of the nature of things. Extraordinary and astounding yes, but never Supernatural.
You find "complete and utter causelessness" bizarre because you are not prepared to consider âNothing - a contingent of Natural? Why not?
If I understand you correctly , in your argument, an abstract Supernatural is arbitrarily produced and positioned outside a substantiated Natural Universe, because you cannot have Natural as an uncaused cause.
So you give supernatural an exceptional special pleading for contradicting itself , being an uncaused cause, and always there.
But WHY does an actual Universe,... which is not an abstract imagination, but is containing information substantiated and confirmed, not requiring special pleading, not needing exceptions for contradiction, ...not have the grounds for uncaused cause, when there is actually information for such a thing as part of the Nature of the Universe?
May I suggest you research virtual particles / particle pairs and quantum foam and perhaps consider those propositions. Not at all 'bizarre' in context , but would be wholly Natural events. Should any of these be further confirmed next year when the Cern Particle Accelerator Hadron Collider goes online, your incredulity at an uncaused Universe may diminish, may it not?
Hans
As I indicated in my prior post I'm aware of the something-from-nothing phenomenon of QM, but I'm suspicious of QM in general because, although I don't know a great deal about QM specifically, I know that incomplete theories can generate bizarre artefacts. Consider MWI - perfectly valid as a prediction from QM.
I have a problem with including Nothing in the Universe or with considering Nothing a part of Nature. It seems to me Nothingness is an absolute absence of the Universe or Nature. Maybe there's a yin-yang relationship between the two, maybe not. There's nothing in Nothingness therefore there's nothing to comprehend. Nothingness presents us with an insurmountable barrier to understanding. If anything I'm inclined to think of Nothingness as a possible Supernatural.
Gee, Stu - you got me to admit that nothing is supernatural.
Hans
The bible states, clearly, that man was created in "his" image.
Whatever supernatural "thing" occured, (which is preposterous, given everything, all of it, by definition, must be natural)
it occured at the hand of a human looking "thing" or force.
This is f*ing ridiculous.
Surely, armadillo's, then, must have their own god and creator, seperate from life and nature, and indeed, human "creation".
Whatever supernatural "thing" occured, (which is preposterous, given everything, all of it, by definition, must be natural)
it occured at the hand of a human looking "thing" or force.
This is f*ing ridiculous.
Surely, armadillo's, then, must have their own god and creator, seperate from life and nature, and indeed, human "creation".
Rule them out as credible in any substantial way without ruling the Supernatural out, and you will be the first ever so to do.
No disrespect, but so far you have demonstrated you are able and unable to do the same with Alice as you are with the Supernatural .
Same reasons Alice, White Rabbit, and FSM wouldn't.
So all the world of progress made from explanation , proofs , evidence, information and knowledge gained through science, amounts to nought against no-progress, no-explanations , no-proofs , no-evidence no-information and no-knowledge in the Supernatural.
Nope, you are not pushing for then, just ruling them in.
Sorry Hans, you lost me there. Please explain why time would not work in an Eternal context. Time based on intervals between events. Eternal intervals - eternal events - eternal time. Where's the problem you have with that?
So what would make that not Natural, rather than unusual unexpected extraordinary or astonishing?
You donât think the branch of science called Quantum Theory would be a better road to explore in this area, rather than just putting it all down to something "Supernatural".?
Lightening was "Supernatural" until the same science method for knowledge and better understanding was applied.
Only discovering a fact!! ...as opposed to what ..-only not- discovering the Supernatural?
If it was supernatural you haven't found it. For as soon as you do, it was natural.
Maybe.. maybe is The Supernatural.
Me too . But that's what science is.. always suspicious. I am more suspicious though of inserting in its place, strange excuses like 'the Supernatural' which have no substantive reasoning based on no facts. But at least even the most astonishing things in QT are traced back to some grounding connection to firm or proven information.
I appreciate what you say here. However, I donât see why you require the separation of Nothing from Nature. To me thatâs like separating Outer Space from the planet Earth. Both are of Nature as indeed Nothing would be.
Also it's far from convincing that âNothing- is insurmountable.. for instance you instantly surmount it with the Supernatural, - albeit a complete non-explanation of anything.
Don't you agree, the 'Nothing' we used in this, is an abstract term? It can be argued philosophically (mind you, anything can be argued philosophically) that there cannot be 'Nothing' , as, in any event, it has the property of itself.
In physics there is no meaning for Nothing, as there is stuff always going on at Quantum Mechanical or vacuum level . So in both these regards, Eternal Universe is argued as confirmable , which would corroborate a wholly Natural state.
A Duality it is then.
stu
This is probably the current leading causal theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory
Why would you, as a believer in an almighty God (who by definition is capable of rendering effect by application of will alone) require a "causal theory" for the Bible's Great Flood -- or for any other miracle?
The whole point of belief in God, is that rational thought may be abandoned in favor of "faith."
The ability to do miracles means that one has given himself to be taught correctly by the right Teacher.
It's important to understand that this world is made by faith. And same faith maintains it. Without this faith, it would utterly disappear back to the nothingness from which it came.
The faith that makes this world is fanatically unrelenting in it's intent to twist the truth beyond recognition. What you call "rational thought"...I call insanity, or "sin" for short.
Faith in sin cannot be seen for what it is...faith. Nevertheless, every atheist, and every level-headed scientist is a creature of faith, 100% unadulterated faith.
The existence of the world is called, instead, "natural" or "nature". And this hides the fact that it is made by faith and maintained by the faithful. The fact is, the world is some kind of twisted religion. Awesome are it's structures. Jaw dropping are it's mysteries. But every bit of it is the effect of a spell, cast in faith, that magic might cast out true light...leaving only gaseous orbs on fire to light it's hallowed halls. Down these dimly lit halls creep the faithful, blind and powerless, stricken with Alzheimer's disease regarding their origins.
Only when this faith is placed in the true God, is it seen for what it is...faith!
And the purpose of directing faith toward truth is for the subverting the faith placed in this world of falsehood that the world may disappear from one's experience forever...banished to the ashheaps of history.
Let us no longer whitewash faith in this world with politically correct sounding terms like "rational thought". The insanity that builds and maintains this world does not deserve such a self-respecting mask.
Jesus
The rational have a suggestion: Please clarify this gibberish!
