|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics, Religion & other Controversies » Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

Default Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

November 23rd, 2013, 04:04
Really? I already said that little is actually proven in science. Just google those topics if you want to see the evidence that shows those theories as "verified" by measurements.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#241

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 10,129

Default 

November 23rd, 2013, 07:24
Originally Posted by Damian View Post
How both (TBBT and ToE) have been "verified" aka proven to be true as Roq mentioned.
In science the term "verify" means to provide evidence in support of a hypothesis: See the third paragraph in the link on the scientific method given by Thrasher. In this sense both TOE and big bang are verified by large amounts of evidence, whereas talking snakes and global floods … are not. Technically speaking *no* theory that depends on empirical evidence can be considered 100% certain and if you read my previous posts with Dart from page 9 in this thread onwards, that explains why. In practice though TOE and big bang now have such a weight of supporting evidence that they are considered to be scientific facts.
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#242

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 978

Default 

November 23rd, 2013, 07:58
Originally Posted by Roq View Post
In practice though TOE and big bang now have such a weight of supporting evidence that they are considered to be scientific facts.
Let's not go too far in your righteous zeal guys? I'm a proponent of TBBT and ToE but neither of them can or should be considered a "scientific fact". Science doesn't deal (despite what you suggest) with "facts". It deals with "proofs". The classification of scientific information includes proven, evolving and borderline science. It also includes a description of fallacious information. TBBT and ToE are evolving sciences but that's perfectly all right. Science is comfortable with "evolving". I wonder why you aren't?

"Does science never absolutely prove anything?"
http://www.nars.org/Voice_of_Science…20Anything.pdf
zahratustra is offline

zahratustra

SasqWatch

#243

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,417

Default 

November 23rd, 2013, 09:01
Lets start with the big bang.

Evidence for the Big Bang
Spoiler


The problems with the big bang theory or evidence against:
Spoiler


I'd go with against simply because you only have 4 evidences where we have 30 evidences against.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#244

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 422

Default 

November 23rd, 2013, 09:28
As I have wrote above Damian I'm perfectly comfortable with TBBT being a theory or an evolving science. Even in its imperfect state TBBT makes more sense to me than a proposition that some guy created Universe in 7 days and than set up some weird set of rules to govern it.
zahratustra is offline

zahratustra

SasqWatch

#245

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,417

Default 

November 23rd, 2013, 09:46
Originally Posted by zahratustra View Post
As I have wrote above Damian I'm perfectly comfortable with TBBT being a theory or an evolving science. Even in its imperfect state TBBT makes more sense to me than a proposition that some guy created Universe in 7 days and than set up some weird set of rules to govern it.
I am perfectly fine with that. As long as you dont try to tell me I am wrong because i have been proven wrong by TBBT. Because as far as TBBT is concerned it has more problems than creation as told by the bible.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#246

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 422

Default 

November 23rd, 2013, 09:53
Originally Posted by Damian View Post
I am perfectly fine with that. As long as you dont try to tell me I am wrong because i have been proven wrong by TBBT.
I never have Damian
zahratustra is offline

zahratustra

SasqWatch

#247

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,417

Default 

November 23rd, 2013, 11:48
Originally Posted by zahratustra View Post
Let's not go too far in your righteous zeal guys? I'm a proponent of TBBT and ToE but neither of them can or should be considered a "scientific fact". Science doesn't deal (despite what you suggest) with "facts". It deals with "proofs". The classification of scientific information includes proven, evolving and borderline science. It also includes a description of fallacious information. TBBT and ToE are evolving sciences but that's perfectly all right. Science is comfortable with "evolving". I wonder why you aren't?

"Does science never absolutely prove anything?"
http://www.nars.org/Voice_of_Science…20Anything.pdf
You say that science doesn't deal with "facts" and then you go on to talk about "proofs". Shows how much you know about the scientific method. As I have made clear throughout this thread (and earlier in the post you comment on!), you should read it before commenting, technically there are no facts *or* proofs in science and can never be, it's just that many scientists, not being that pernickety, tend to refer to the best established theories such as relativity, evolution and big bang as facts, because they are thought to be as close to the truth as we are ever likely to get… It's important not to get too hung up on language, because words are used in different ways in different contexts.

Strictly speaking there is no such thing as an empirical fact - we can never say for certain that unicorns don't exist or that grass is green or anything else that relies on empirical information. But in normal discussions where these technical nuances aren't important it's common to call these things facts - otherwise you might as well drop the word from the English language.
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#248

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 978

Default 

November 23rd, 2013, 12:22
Originally Posted by Damian View Post
I am perfectly fine with that. As long as you dont try to tell me I am wrong because i have been proven wrong by TBBT. Because as far as TBBT is concerned it has more problems than creation as told by the bible.
You can rest assured that whatever theory it is you have concocted, it can never be "proven" wrong by anyone, provided it is logically consistent. In the unlikely circumstance that Big bang turns out to be wrong, it will be replaced by a deeper theory with more predictive power. The biblical creation story, which makes no empirical predictions that would deepen our understanding of cosmology, has no more relevance to science than Grimm's fairy tales.
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#249

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 978

Default 

November 23rd, 2013, 16:08
Originally Posted by Roq View Post
You say that science doesn't deal with "facts" and then you go on to talk about "proofs". Shows how much you know about the scientific method. As I have made clear throughout this thread (and earlier in the post you comment on!), you should read it before commenting, technically there are no facts *or* proofs in science and can never be, it's just that many scientists, not being that pernickety, tend to refer to the best established theories such as relativity, evolution and big bang as facts, because they are thought to be as close to the truth as we are ever likely to get…
DTE wrote it before but I will write it again: it's hubris and blind arrogance to think that we are close to any kind of "truth". Reminds me professor Philipp von Jolly who told Max Planck in 1874 that there was little point in pursuing an interest in physics. Jolly is credited with the words "In this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes."

Originally Posted by Roq View Post
It's important not to get too hung up on language, because words are used in different ways in different contexts.
Normally I would say that it's true. But, in your case, I think that you are are using "loose" language so you can try to wiggle out when cornered.
zahratustra is offline

zahratustra

SasqWatch

#250

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,417

Default 

November 23rd, 2013, 16:53
Originally Posted by zahratustra View Post
DTE wrote it before but I will write it again: it's hubris and blind arrogance to think that we are close to any kind of "truth". Reminds me professor Philipp von Jolly who told Max Planck in 1874 that there was little point in pursuing an interest in physics. Jolly is credited with the words "In this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes."
This is a complete non sequitur. No one, least of all me, is arguing that we know everything about science or that there will be no changes, new theories or further refinements to existing theories. There most certainly will be, that's the great strength of science, that it is progressive and reacts to new evidence.

It isn't me who is claiming some sanctified body of knowledge that is immutable in the face of evidence. That is what religion does and biblical literalism, which sanctifies every word of the bible as being the unchanging and unchallengeable word of god can never be open to new evidence or new ideas.

But, none of this means that science hasn't made any progress. Of the major theories most scientists will agree that evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, big bang (along with many other theories) are very unlikely to be entirely refuted as being simply wrong. Rather they have been and will likely continue to be progressively refined as new evidence and new theories become available.

As an example: General relativity itself is already a major refinement and extension of Newton's theory of gravity. But… we already know that GR doesn't itself tell the whole story, because it's not compatible with Quantum Mechanics at very small scales. So likely there will be a new theory of quantum gravity that will alter our understanding of gravity in just as radical a way as Einstein added to Newton. But what is highly unlikely is that we will find that Newton's or Einstein's equations no longer work at the scales for which they are appropriate… Similarly, with evolution etc.: Realistically evolution is supported by so much data that the chances of it being plain wrong are minimal, it's just not going to happen, but that's not to say that the theory of evolution won't evolve further.
Last edited by Roq; November 23rd, 2013 at 17:09.
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#251

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 978

Default 

November 24th, 2013, 03:36
Originally Posted by Roq View Post
You can rest assured that whatever theory it is you have concocted, it can never be "proven" wrong by anyone, provided it is logically consistent. In the unlikely circumstance that Big bang turns out to be wrong, it will be replaced by a deeper theory with more predictive power. The biblical creation story, which makes no empirical predictions that would deepen our understanding of cosmology, has no more relevance to science than Grimm's fairy tales.
First book to say the world was round.

First book to say that the world was held by nothing just floated in space.

Says God stretched the heavens.(has more cosmological relevance than you think).

Just for example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSl565Pzy3I

About 1:30 onwards.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#252

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 422

Default 

November 24th, 2013, 11:49
Originally Posted by Damian View Post
First book to say the world was round.

First book to say that the world was held by nothing just floated in space.

Says God stretched the heavens.(has more cosmological relevance than you think).

Just for example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSl565Pzy3I

About 1:30 onwards.
Presumably you are referring to Isaiah: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

That claims that the earth is a circular flat disk, with a canopy over the top, but it certainly *doesn't* claim that the earth is spherical. Elsewhere in the bible it's pretty clear that the authors envisage a square flat earth: Where do think the phrase "The four corners of the earth" comes from? and what are those "pillars" for, if not holding the earth up? Also people are constantly going up mountains in the bible and seeing/being given "all the kingdoms of the earth", hardly possible if the earth is spherical is it?

Actually, it would be quite impressive If one of the bible authors was familiar with the heliocentric theory at the time Isaiah was written, even though that theory was probably already known in Greek thought at the time and may have already been know to Egyptian astronomers much earlier. But, if Isaiah's author *had* known that then he (gotta be a he hasn't it?) might qualify as being somewhat educated. Pity isn't it?
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#253

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 978

Default 

November 24th, 2013, 13:36
Originally Posted by Roq View Post
Presumably you are referring to Isaiah: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

That claims that the earth is a circular flat disk, with a canopy over the top, but it certainly *doesn't* claim that the earth is spherical.
Actually the word for circle there in hebrew means round and sphere.

The operative word here is ח֣וּג , which can mean both “circle” and “sphere” among other things. Basically, it’s a catch-all word to use for “abstract round stuff”. It can even mean just “boundary”.


Elsewhere in the bible it's pretty clear that the authors envisage a square flat earth: Where do think the phrase "The four corners of the earth" comes from? and what are those "pillars" for, if not holding the earth up? Also people are constantly going up mountains in the bible and seeing/being given "all the kingdoms of the earth", hardly possible if the earth is spherical is it?
North South East and West? The word used there for corners in hebrew means extremes.
From kanaph; an edge or extremity; specifically (of a bird or army) a wing, (of a garment or bed-clothing) a flap, (of the earth) a quarter, (of a building) a pinnacle — + bird, border, corner, end, feather(-ed), X flying, + (one an-)other, overspreading, X quarters, skirt, X sort, uttermost part, wing((-ed)).
As for pillars
The earth has its foundations on which it is laid, and its pillars by which it is supported; but these are no other than the power and providence of God; otherwise the earth is hung upon nothing, in the open circumambient air: and that God can and does do this may well be thought, and to do all the above things in providence and grace, related in the preceding verses; in the support, and for the proof of which, this is observed. Figuratively, the pillars of the earth may design the princes of the world, the supreme rulers of it, and civil magistrates, who are sometimes called cornerstones, and the shields of the earth (Zech. 10:4, Ps 47:9) and so pillars, because they are the means of cementing, supporting, and protecting the people of the earth, and of preserving their peace and property. Likewise good men may be meant in a figurative sense, who, as they are the salt of the earth, are the pillars of it, for whose sake it was made, and is supported, and continued in being; the church is the pillar and ground of truth; and every good man is a pillar in the house of God, and especially ministers of the Gospel (see Rev. 3:12, 1Tim. 3:15, Gal 2:9, Pr 9:1).
Last edited by Damian; November 24th, 2013 at 13:48.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#254

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 422

Default 

November 24th, 2013, 16:44
Well if those words are ambiguos, then you can't tell what the author was talking about and so it doesn't qualify as any kind of accurate description of anything!? But, it's pretty clear from the context in the sentence what the authors intent really was - he's describing the earth and heavens as if the earth was a round bed in a tent, with the tent's roof being the canopy of the heavens. No doubt that would have been a familiar analogy to him. Quite poetic, perhaps, but hardly accurate. The best we could then say of the prophetic powers of the bible with respect to the modern world is that one of the authors came up with a description that somewhat resembles a Hollywood water bed.
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#255

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 978

Default 

November 24th, 2013, 17:31
You cant say that for sure. Its perspective. IF you look down on earth you would see the circle, or round object. So i suppose that doesnt really prove or disprove anything. However atleast it prove the bible author didnt thing it was a square shaped mass like you were implying. What about the other quotes?
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#256

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 422

Default 

November 24th, 2013, 18:53
There are four corners so likely a square flat earth is intended in those passages. You have to look at language in context, otherwise it makes no sense, and that perspective is the one that the bible's translators had. If God divinely inspired every book in the bible to mean something else to the narrow band of goat herders that were his audience, why didn't he similary inspire it's translators? Has god been dead for 2000+ years?

It's obvious to anyone who looks at the bible from an objective viewpoint that it's authors were human and very much men of the time and place that they were writing. It's no different in that respect to any other set of creation myths, except that it got catapulted onto the international stage by a series of unfortunate historical accidents.
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#257

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 978

Default 

November 24th, 2013, 20:44
The word for corners means extremes as i pointed out before.

And FYI the translators never have been said to be inspired.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#258

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 422

Default 

November 24th, 2013, 21:12
Originally Posted by Damian View Post
The word for corners means extremes as i pointed out before.

And FYI the translators never have been said to be inspired.
Four corners, four extremes, what's the difference, there are still four of them; sphere's don't have any corners or extremes. What your other sentence means is anyone's guess, it sounds like an appeal to authority - but what authority? Who is it exactly who decides that something is divinely inspired or not? The pope?
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#259

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 978

Default 

November 25th, 2013, 03:51
Originally Posted by Roq View Post
Four corners, four extremes, what's the difference, there are still four of them; sphere's don't have any corners or extremes. What your other sentence means is anyone's guess, it sounds like an appeal to authority - but what authority? Who is it exactly who decides that something is divinely inspired or not? The pope?
4 extremes can mean North South East And West. As for who decides what is divinely inspired or not. The translators never said they were divinely inspired.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#260

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 422
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics, Religion & other Controversies » Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 23:13.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch