The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Gravity and its part in my downfall.

Gravity and its part in my downfall.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All
It is the decade of discoveries.

With more powerful and accurate instruments we are finding the answers to life, the universe and everything (so far not 42) First we found the Higg's boson (filling a gap in the predictions of the standard model) in the Large Hadron collider which accelerates protons close to the speed of light, and now we have detected gravity waves from two black holes colliding that distorted space time by about 1000th of the width of a proton over several thousand kilometres.

For nerds like myself this is better than my footy team winning the final, but I guess for everyone else I am interested in what you think.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 13 February 2016 6:26:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

Instruments can only tell about the structure of the physical universe.
They give no clue as to who you are, what you are, what life is, what others are and what this universe is all about.

No objective means can answer any of the questions that really matter - only you can find the answers within.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 14 February 2016 1:36:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

What's this 'we'? I'm assuming that in saying this you are indicating that you are a member of the scientific community. Is that correct?

Dear Yuyutsu,

You should spend your time reading about the stars instead of trying to read the stars. There's not much future in being an astrologist any more.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 14 February 2016 7:25:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Y,

I know who I am, what I do and why. I also have a fair idea of what people want and why they do what they do. Much of this knowledge is based on science. However, this topic is not about self discovery, and I would prefer not to divert the thread into trivia.

The recent breakthroughs have confirmed that Einstein's general theory of relativity accurately predicts space time on a large scale within limits, and quantum theory does a fantastic job on the small scale.

However, as neither theories predictions cover the other, neither theory is complete. What the world has been looking for for decades is the unified field theory or quantum gravity.

What these discoveries do is clearly show that the equations at the core of relativity and quantum mechanics must be able to be derived from the new theory just as Newtonian physics is a limited subset of relativity.

While this may not affect anyone for decades or centuries, it is possible that gravity based radios and quantum computers will change our lives even more than basic computers have so far.

Mr O,

I am an electrical engineer which is the closest I can get to applied physics and still earn a decent salary.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 14 February 2016 8:26:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu>> No objective means can answer any of the questions that really matter - only you can find the answers within.<<

A bit away from the thread Yuyutsu, but my “biggie” has always been why we have a consciousness that had not been imparted to the other creatures of this earth that we share most of our DNA with. From our earliest years we wake every day knowing that we are mortal, an attribute not given to fish, fowl, or beast.
Posted by sonofgloin, Sunday, 14 February 2016 10:33:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Albert Einstein proposed a static universe until Vesto Slipher’s observations put that to bed.

Even though we have detected gravity waves from two black holes colliding it does not progress our understanding one iota

Einstein’s TOR and the prediction of the ripples in the fabric of space-time had been equated but not proof sanctioned for decades. We really have progressed no further than before this qualification from the colliding black holes.

I am pleased that you see a leap forward in this discovery, but when we discuss the fabric of the universe, it is understanding “dark matter” that will progress us in a single bound. Dark matter is what it is all about and we know it is there because the maths only works with the inclusion of its gravity.
Posted by sonofgloin, Sunday, 14 February 2016 11:01:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi there SHADOW MINISTER...

What ? My friend I have no idea what you're talking about, with gravity, and all this other material you've kindly shared with us? My knowledge of gravity can be explained thus; the more weight I put on in my retirement, the more difficult it is for me to walk around. This is the whole extent of my knowledge on gravity, is this an adequate summation ?
Posted by o sung wu, Sunday, 14 February 2016 11:57:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After Hertz discovered or confirmed electromagnetic waves he was asked about the effects of the discovery...

"It's of no use whatsoever[...] this is just an experiment that proves Maxwell was right— we just have these mysterious electromagnetic waves that we cannot see with the naked eye. But they are there."

Asked about the ramifications of his discoveries, Hertz replied,

"Nothing, I guess."

Did anyone watch TV last night? Listen to radio? Use a mobile phone? Use their home wifi?

Far from being a curiosity, Hertz discoveries changed the world.
It even allows those who consider themselves morally superior to advertise their 'goodness' by pooh-poohing these discoveries without actually understanding how profound and important they are or realising they are using the very results of those discoveries to advertise their 'virtue'.

There is every reason to think that these confirmations of gravity waves will be as or even more profound as Hertz discoveries. No one knows how, what will change, what new advances will come. But come they will.

When Hertz made his breakthrough their were 1 billion of the most important resource on the planet - the human brain - available to work out how to make the most of those discoveries.

Now that resources is 8 times greater. Think of the world in 1900 and compare it to the world of 2000. Those advances will be a mere footnote compared to advances we'll see in the next century.

I guess when the first genius constructed the wheel some dill sat there and opined that it didn't much help their understanding of their inner self. The more things change....
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 14 February 2016 2:28:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

There are a lot of engineers on the Forum. Too many in fact.

When I first started in engineering I spelled engineer as injunear. Then I did an Arts degree and starting writing it as engineer instead.

That's why I encourage engineers to do something more than their vocational degree.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 14 February 2016 4:32:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

I was only responding to your query:

"For nerds like myself this is better than my footy team winning the final, but I guess for everyone else I am interested in what you think."

That this decade is packed with scientific/cosmological discoveries is an obvious and undisputed fact, but the attitude toward this fact is not as obvious: many people for example, still prefer their footy team to win over finding a unified field theory or quantum gravity.

By making this query I assumed that you sought genuine, honest answers regarding others' attitudes towards scientific/cosmological discoveries rather than to be acknowledged by an "Amen" chorus.

Science can and will teach us more and more facts about the structure of the universe (and the technologies that come with it), one day perhaps including the discovery of a unified field theory and quantum gravity, yet it cannot produce anything more principally meaningful than the private meaning which footy fans assign to their team's victory.

Specifically, you claimed that "we are finding the answers to life", but while science can tell us all we want about the origins, anatomy and physiology of living organisms, it can tell us nothing about life itself.

Now you mention that gravity based radios and quantum computers will change our lives: I'm afraid that you are right. Such change will not be for the better and I am very concerned that whatever still remains of our privacy and autonomy would be taken away by these. Fortunately, I do not expect to still be around when it happens.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 14 February 2016 5:14:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sonofgloin,

Let met try answering your question:

<<why we have a consciousness that had not been imparted to the other creatures of this earth that we share most of our DNA with. From our earliest years we wake every day knowing that we are mortal, an attribute not given to fish, fowl, or beast>>

No consciousness is imparted on any creature, neither animal nor human - they all blindly follow their genes and the laws of physics.

Now unlike other animals, the human DNA allows for more memory and for abstract deductions based on contents of that memory, hence the concept of death. This has nothing to do with consciousness but is merely some electrical/molecular process in the brain and if we wanted (though I believe we shouldn't) then one day we might even be able to detect exactly what and where it is.

When we identify ourselves with a human body, or taking the analogy of a radio, if we tune our attention to a human brain, then we sense whatever it produces including that concept of mortality. If we instead tune our attention to an animal brain then there are no such concepts to sense there.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 14 February 2016 5:14:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, SM is going to chastise us for hijacking his thread........thanks for your views on the mechanics of as to why we have a unique consciousness. Although...... it does not take away from my premise that all other creatures do not.........why should they not, and why has evolution gifted” it just to us?
Posted by sonofgloin, Monday, 15 February 2016 6:19:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sonofgloin,

Yes, you may like to move our discussion to a new thread.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 15 February 2016 7:48:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

I share your sense of wonder. I appreciate what some humans have done in finding more about the universe we live in. Footy and Jesus are trivial compared to Newton, Darwin and Einstein.
Posted by david f, Monday, 15 February 2016 9:03:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

A small correction:

>> What these discoveries do is clearly show that the equations at the core of relativity and quantum mechanics must be able to be derived from the new theory just as Newtonian physics is a limited subset of relativity. <<

These discoveries confirm predictions of available theories and have nothing to do with the unresolved question of whether there is a unified theory from which Einstein’s theories and QM can be (mathematically) derived as special or limiting cases (your “limited subset”). S. Hawkins and L Mlodinow do not think this is necessarily so, which they illustrate in their book The Grand Design (Bantam 2010) by reference to an atlas of many maps mutually compatible, nevertheless none of which is sufficient to map everything on its own.
Posted by George, Monday, 15 February 2016 9:15:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

I totally disagree that Jesus was trivial compared to Newton, Darwin and Einstein.

Christianity shaped the world in which these scientists lived and subsequently developed their theories. They were heavily influenced by Christianity whether or not they were cognizant of the fact. If you wanted to the debate the cause and effect relationship between Jesus and these modern scientists then the answer would be that Jesus came first.

As far as football goes I have no issues there.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 15 February 2016 9:39:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" From our earliest years we wake every day knowing that we are mortal, an attribute not given to fish, fowl, or beast."

How do we know? At least elephants and some cetaceans appear to be aware of the mortality of others, so it is quite possible that they are aware of their own.
Posted by Cossomby, Monday, 15 February 2016 9:41:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gravity waves may come in useful some day.

When Michael Faraday, who discovered the dynamo method of generating an electric current was asked by British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli what use is electricity, he responded: “Electricity, sir, is like a baby. One day it may grow up, and then, sir, you may tax it.”

From a letter in The Australian this morning.
Posted by Cossomby, Monday, 15 February 2016 9:48:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mr Opinion,

I said nothing about Christianity. I referred to Jesus. A religion was made in his name, but there is no reason to think he intended to start a new religion. He lived and died a Jew. There is no reason to think that he wanted a separate religion.
Posted by david f, Monday, 15 February 2016 10:00:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Footy and Jesus are trivial compared to Newton, Darwin and Einstein.'

just showing your Christophobic ignorance yet again david f
Posted by runner, Monday, 15 February 2016 10:16:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A gravity wave billions of years away, and 1000th of the width of a proton, may not sound much but how do we know how dangerous it might be, magnified across space - what if it causes a tsunami across the entire universe ? Would it lift us all an inch, or a foot, or a hundred feet, off the ground, as it interfered with the Earth's gravity ? How do we know ? How long will it take to get here ? How do we prepare for it ? Just in case, I'm strapping myself to the floor.

I wish scientists would stop tinkering with natural forces: it's bad enough causing apples to fall (which otherwise wouldn't), and now to cause a wave billions of miles away which might eventually have all sorts of unwanted effects. Ladies' dresses will fly up. Birds' eggs will fly out of their nests. Dogs will be sucked into the air. Red wine will spill out of its glass. What's the point of all that ?

Stop funding all science NOW !

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 15 February 2016 10:20:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

I totally disagree with your argument that you can separate Christianity from Jesus in this case. My reason is that he was the person who created Christianity as a religious sect, drawing to him first the apostles, then the followers from amongst the variegated peoples of the Graeco-Roman East, and finally the peoples of western Europe after is death. Jesus was one of the greatest figures - if not the greatest in human history. I don't think we could say that about Newton, Darwin and Einstein. We can say that they are some of the greatest scientists, but not the greatest figures in human history.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 15 February 2016 10:25:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f and ttbn

Whether Jesus is trivial or not compared to another Jew, e.g. Einstein, it depends on what are your priorities. If it is physics then certainly he is. If it is about being a source of wisdom (whether or not you believe in his historicity) then certainly Jesus’ teachings were understood and DIRECTLY influenced many, many more people than Einstein’s relativity theories, and the triviality comparison would go the other way around.
Posted by George, Monday, 15 February 2016 10:32:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Opinion wrote: "Jesus was one of the greatest figures - if not the greatest in human history. I don't think we could say that about Newton, Darwin and Einstein. We can say that they are some of the greatest scientists, but not the greatest figures in human history."

Dear Mr Opinion,

You have misused the word, we. Your 'we' doesn't include me.

I can say that Newton, Darwin and Einstein are three of the greatest figures in human history and much more important than Jesus. Maybe you can't. It may take a long time, but religions come and go. Manichaeism lasted from the 3rd to the eighteenth century and extended from Spain to China. Eventually in the eighteenth century it was no more. Most people around currently have never even heard of Manichaeism. Christianity like Manichaeism will also disappear long before humanity does. Humanity may outgrow religious superstition or may develop new forms of religious superstition. The 'eternal truths' of religion are beliefs which cannot be supported by evidence. Meanwhile humanity will build on the discoveries of Newton, Darwin and Einstein when the Jesus mythology takes its place with the mythologies of the Greek, Roman, Norse and Egyptian pantheons. Christianity has had a great influence as has Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Islam, Judaism and other varieties of superstition. Eventually it will disappear as Manichaeism already has, but humanity will continue to build on the legacy of Newton, Darwin and Einstein until humanity is no more.
Posted by david f, Monday, 15 February 2016 10:50:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George wrote: “Whether Jesus is trivial or not compared to another Jew, e.g. Einstein, it depends on what are your priorities. If it is physics then certainly he is. If it is about being a source of wisdom (whether or not you believe in his historicity) then certainly Jesus’ teachings were understood and DIRECTLY influenced many, many more people than Einstein’s relativity theories, and the triviality comparison would go the other way around.”

Dear George,

Jesus’ Jewishness is important because it is part of the myth of the Messiah that he must be a descendant of David. If one accepts the myth then the Jewishness of Jesus is relevant.

Einstein’s Jewishness has no bearing on the validity of his work. Either his work can be verified by observation and experiment or it can’t.

However, I prefer Einstein to Jesus as a source of wisdom. According to scripture Jesus claimed that only through him could one enter the kingdom of heaven. That is pure arrogance. It doesn’t what kind of life you have led or how good a person you were only if you believe in a particular bit of mumbojumbo are you accepted. Unfortunately many people prefer authoritarian statements to humility.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html points to a number of Einstein quotes. Three of them follow.

Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.

The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.

Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at death.

I don’t believe Jesus was the least bit concerned with curiosity or intellectual growth. He was pushing faith. I think there’s too much faith in the world already.

A Newton quote:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/i/isaac_newton.html

If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.

The above quote is most refreshing compared to the arrogance of Jesus.

Of course there are many more statements made by Jesus, Einstein and Newton. However, from what I have read I prefer the wisdom of Einstein and Newton to that of Jesus.
Posted by david f, Monday, 15 February 2016 12:03:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

When I say 'we' I am only referring to myself and people with my background. I don't think you are a member of that 'we' because I don't think you have the save background as me. We (in this case you and I) can test that hypothesis just by comparing notes but I think I know enough about you to surmise that that would show that we do not belong to the same 'we' (me, you and others like me).

I'm sure there are lots of points we (ie. you and I and probably others like you and I) could use to test whether or not Jesus was the greatest figure in world history vis-a-vis Newton, Darwin and Einstein. I (i.e.. me but excluding others of the egocentric we) think one test is to ask if Jesus stood on the shoulders of others with respect to his achievements. My answer would be no. But I cannot say the same about Newton, Darwin and Einstein.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 15 February 2016 1:01:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting question - was Jesus the most influential figure in world history?

I stumble over the problem of Christianity claiming that Jesus was in fact God (God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost). If you believe in Christianity, then God has to be the most influential figure not because of setting up Christianity in his supposed incarnation as Jesus, but in creating the universe. The universe influences all of us whether or not we are Christians, so that has to be the more influential act.

If we rule Jesus out of the competition because he is God, then who would be the most influential human? In establishing Christianity, that might be Peter, or Constantine. On a world basis Mohammed might come into contention - he didn't claim to be God/Allah, just his messenger. Over the last 2000 years, we could accept the human founders of Christianity, over the last 1500, maybe Mohammed, if we're talking about influence over the largest number of people, and in the most impactful way. "Influence" after all can be good or bad, and the same "influence" might be good and bad, depending whether you on the giving or receiving side.

Taking another tack, maybe this is a false comparison: between those figures (or gods) who created religions and those who advanced our understanding of the world and our ability to manage it to our advantage. So maybe Einstein, Darwin at al should be compared to the person(s) who invented the wheel, planted the first seed, and built the first irrigation canal. Their influence was huge, across people of all religions. Surprised the engineers on this forum weren't already cheering for them!
Posted by Cossomby, Monday, 15 February 2016 1:27:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Cossomby,

For Christ's sake please don't get the engineers involved. They don't know anything about history, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, etc. All they know about is what they were trained to do. That is, making roads, machines, electric motors, etc. If you are going to start asking engineers about the origins of agriculture, urbanisation, culture, civilisation, etc., then you may as well ask a bunch of 10 year old primary school children as well in order to get a balanced view.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 15 February 2016 1:40:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, Mr Opinion, I've worked with some lovely engineers. Though they do have a tendency to think water, like light, always travels in straight lines, down pipes.
Posted by Cossomby, Monday, 15 February 2016 1:47:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minster,

Thank You for bringing up this topic for
discussion. I also found it exciting to
learn about the black holes. And look to
learning more in the future.

To me science differs from other types
of knowledge in that scientific progress
depends on new ideas expanding or replacing
old ones. Great works of art produced today
do not take the place of masterpieces
of the past. But the theories of modern
scientists have revised many ideas held by
earlier scientists. Repeated observations
and experiments lead scientists to update
existing theories and to propose new ones.

As new discoveries continue to be made
even many recent scientific theories will become
outdated, and will have to be replaced by
better theories that can explain more facts.
It's exciting that scientific knowledge is
always growing and improving.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 15 February 2016 2:10:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, that's gravity for you, Cossomby :)
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 15 February 2016 2:11:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Cossomby,

That's the first time I have ever heard a knucklehead called a lovely engineer.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 15 February 2016 2:19:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

If you find science interesting (which I also do to the point of seeing it as the compliment of Arts) then you might find this question interesting as well:

Why will science never be able to find the origin of the universe?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 15 February 2016 2:27:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Mr Opinion,

Perhaps because there wasn't one. We've had an infinite number of big bangs - expansion and contraction of the universe, each cycle taking, say, fifty billion years or so. So probably we've had an infinite numbers of Earths, and an infinite number of yous. And mes.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 15 February 2016 2:39:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Loudmouth,

Sorry, wrong answer.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 15 February 2016 2:49:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mr Opinion,

Jesus stood on the shoulders of others. He was a Jew, and took his sayings from the Jewish Bible.

A key example:

LEV 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Many New Testaments cite references to the Jewish Bible at the bottom of the pages.

Eliminate quotes from the Jewish Bible from the sayings of Jesus, and there isn't much left for him to say. He stood on the shoulders of others much more than Newton. However, in contrast, Newton was modest.

The Golden Rule was standard for most faiths. The mythology surrounding Jesus was derived from the pagan faiths of his time:

From Pagan & Christian Creeds, by Edward Carpenter

There were Temples without end dedicated to gods like Apollo or Dionysus among the Greeks, Hercules among the Romans, Mithra among the Persians, Adonis and Attis in Syria and Phrygia, Osiris and Isis and Horus in Egypt, Baal and Astarte among the Babylonians and Carthaginians, and so forth.

...

I cannot of course go at length into these different cults, but I may
say roughly that of all or nearly all the deities above-mentioned it was said and believed that:

(1) They were born on or very near our Christmas Day.

(2) They were born of a Virgin-Mother.

(3) And in a Cave or Underground Chamber.

(4) They led a life of toil for Mankind.

(5) And were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator,
Savior, Deliverer.

(6) They were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness.

(7) And descended into Hell or the Underworld.

(8) They rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world.

(9) They founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples were received by Baptism.

(10) And they were commemorated by Eucharistic meals.

Carpenter’s book is available on the net. Eliminate the pagan mythology and the references to the Jewish Bible from the New Testament, and there is little left of the Gospels.
Posted by david f, Monday, 15 February 2016 4:00:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mr Opinion,

Because of events that were set in motion
in the moment of the
cosmic explosion (the Big Bang). It was
literally the moment of Creation. The universe
flashed into being and they can't find out
what caused that to happen.

To atheistic scientists to not be able to
document this must be unsettling.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 15 February 2016 4:03:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f, You have hijacked this thread, and posted a heap of unrelated nonsense.
The three scientists you admire all believed in a Creator, and Newton wrote extensive theological works, as well as his primary works on mathematics, and gravity.

Jesus was a devout Jew so it is perfectly natural his teaching identified the best of Jewish writing and thought from the Jewish scriptures. Big deal!

You spouting your negative comparative nonsense does nothing to enhance the spirit of man, it might be sufficient to convince your closed mind by its obsession. All the things you mention are syncronistic inclusions by the Roman Catholic Church from its pagan civilization and not New Testament doctrine. We have heard it all before, as you cannot offer genuine research into the actual life of Christ
Posted by Josephus, Monday, 15 February 2016 8:28:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Josephus,

Of course I can't offer genuine research into the life of Christ. He is a semi-mythological figure - a subject of legend. One thing I can be sure of is that miracles never happened. They are just fairy tales. When you are dead - that's it. The end - finito - goodbye. Nobody comes back.

Einstein did not believe in a personal God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein tells about the religious views of Einstein. From that site:

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin tells about the religious views of Charles Darwin. A Darwin quote from that site:

"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine."

continued
Posted by david f, Monday, 15 February 2016 9:39:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton tells about the religious views of Isaac Newton. Unlike Einstein and Darwin he believed in God as a creator but had unorthodox religious views.

From that site:

Newton's conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[6][7] Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity;[8] in recent times he has been described as a heretic.

Einstein and Darwin did not believe in a Creator God. Newton apparently did. If Newton had other beliefs he could not have made them public in the time and place he lived and been safe.

Einstein and Darwin did not share your beliefs.
Posted by david f, Monday, 15 February 2016 9:43:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

>>Jesus claimed that only through him could one enter the kingdom of heaven. That is pure arrogance.<<

This is (part of) what many Christian theologians claim, namely that Jesus — in distinction to other founders (or foundation figures, if you like) of a religion — was either arrogant or spoke with a more than human authority. As we both know, you opt for the first, I for the second alternative.

>>from what I have read I prefer the wisdom of Einstein and Newton to that of Jesus.<<

This is certainly your prerogative, in spite of the fact that it was you who brought Jesus into a thread about theoretical physics. So Jesus, and what he was about, seems to be quite omnipresent, even when subconsciously.

The rest of your post to me does not contradict what I had said; never mind your favourite term mumbojumbo (to describe things - myths, narratives, concepts etc – that need to be interpreted, not taken literally).

Dear Mr Opinion (and Foxy),

>> Why will science never be able to find the origin of the universe?<<

Because this is not what science is about. The presently accepted Big Bang theory includes time, so to ask what was before it is like, in Hawkins’ words, to ask what is to the north of the North Pole. There are different, mostly still speculative, cosmological theories, with different understandings of time (or times) and origin (origins).

The biblical answer to your question calls “Creator” what we now call the ultimate cause and purpose (rather than origin) of being (rather than just the impersonal universe studied by science) or "being itself , c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17951#318961 corelating this to the burning bush revelation to Moses. However, for philosophically unsophisticated folks the term Creation (in time) was used in the Bible.
Posted by George, Monday, 15 February 2016 10:21:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Opinion,

Sorry God, I tried. You know best.
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 15 February 2016 10:58:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

It is my understanding that Jesus was not the founder of any religion. He wanted to communicate his insights to the Jewish community. Before Jesus Judaism was a missionary religion and even forcibly converted others to that religion. They forced Judaism on the Idumeans. Herod was an Idumean and is regarded as a loathsome figure by both Jews and Christians. Some Jews regard the Herodian dynasty as a punishment for their act in converting the Idumeans. Although Judaism accepts converts it is regarded as wrong to actively seek them - perhaps due to the experience with the Idumeans. Paul was the one who decided to circulate the message of Jesus to the gentiles. Although Christianity centres around the worship of Jesus one can make the case that Paul was actually the founder of the religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_(brother_of_Jesus) tells about James who continued to bring Jesus' message to the Jews after the crucifixion. According to Josephus he was killed by the Jewish authorities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites tells about the Jewish followers of Jesus who rejected the divinity of Jesus and Pauline Christianity.

The origin of the Ebionites is uncertain.
Posted by david f, Monday, 15 February 2016 11:02:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

>>It is my understanding that Jesus was not the founder of any religion.<<

Therefore I added “(or foundation figures, if you like)” to “founders”.
Posted by George, Monday, 15 February 2016 11:39:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Everyone, Josephus knows what he's talking about when it comes to the Jewish people. After all, he did write a history about them.

Dear Loudmouth, I forgive you for your transgression. You're still allowed in Heaven provided I get one of those free $40K Rolex watches.

Dear George, sorry wrong answer, try again. Come on everyone, this problem was solved back in the 1930s. You're all starting too behave like a bunch of engineers. And you don't want to have that on your CV.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 4:19:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see most have missed the point of Jesus life. The example of his life in care and compassion for community [kingdom of God] is overlooked. Unless one follows his example they are not going to enter into that community of care and compassion, his way is the only way. When david f gets his act together he might just start making such an impact in community instead of all his negativity.
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 6:10:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mr Opinion,

>>sorry wrong answer, try again … this problem was solved back in the 1930s<<

You should have said you were after an answer within how physics saw the universe back in the 1930s. Could you give us, who are not as versed in the history of science, your correct answer?
Posted by George, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 9:11:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Mr Opinion,

So God needs to know the time like the rest of those she has created in her own image (plus some with useless dangly bits) ? So what time zone is heaven in ? Do they have morning, noon and night up there ? Do they have gravity ? Does God move his/her bowels at 8.15 every morning ? That presumes he/she eats of course. Does the divine digestive system work like ours ? And therefore .....

It probably crossed Newton's mind, when he was inventing gravity, that there might be a Divine Anomaly - if Heaven had no mass to counter the Earth's, then why wasn't it sucked into the Earth ? Or the Moon, if that was much closer ? Did God employ some sort of anti-gravity device instead ? How did that work ? Are there laws of anti-gravity ? Is there gravity just within Heaven itself, so that angels, us-in-the-future-if-we're-good, etc. don't just float off towards the Earth (or the Moon), but all or sit stand uniformly upright ? Under what gravitational force ? Does heaven orbit the Earth or is it stationary, hovering over some earthly point, as in the stories about Jerusalem and Jacob's Ladder ?

So many important issues to ponder.....

Oh well, back to reality.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 9:48:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Josephus,

You wrote: “You spouting your negative comparative nonsense does nothing to enhance the spirit of man, it might be sufficient to convince your closed mind by its obsession. All the things you mention are syncronistic inclusions by the Roman Catholic Church from its pagan civilization and not New Testament doctrine.”

I favour reason, kindness and questioning of authority rather than being subservient to religious authority.

Using words such as negative, nonsense, obsession and closed mind does nothing to enhance your argument. It is merely unpleasant rhetoric. However, you show your bigotry when you mention the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church recognises that the New Testament was written almost 2,000 years ago, and society has greatly changed since then. The recent papal encyclical on climate change deals with a question that was not a problem in New Testament times. Some things accepted in the New Testament such as slavery are simply not acceptable any more
.
As far as paganism goes it is inherent in the life of Jesus as described in the New Testament.

Carpenter’s book points out about many pagan God figures in the time of Jesus:

(1) They were born on or very near our Christmas Day.

(2) They were born of a Virgin-Mother.

(3) And in a Cave or Underground Chamber.

(4) They led a life of toil for Mankind.

(5) And were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator,
Savior, Deliverer.

(6) They were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness.

(7) And descended into Hell or the Underworld.

(8) They rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world.

(9) They founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples were received by Baptism.

(10) And they were commemorated by Eucharistic meals.

The paganism in Christianity was not put there by the Catholic Church. It is in the New Testament. Jesus was given attributes of pagan god figures probably to make the new religion acceptable to pagans.

continued
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 10:11:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued

However, blaming the flaws of Christianity on Catholicism and referring to my views as negative, obsessive and nonsense show disregard for the teaching of Jesus. Some of the words attributed to him are worthwhile.

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 7.3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

You are most judgmental to your fellow Christians in Catholicism. You are most judgmental to me. That is not consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

Get rid of your anti-Catholic bigotry and any other bigotry. Get rid of your judgmental attitudes to those who disagree with you. Accept that we are all humans whatever views we hold. I know it is disturbing that there are those who disagree with you. Get over it.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 10:13:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Why will science never be able to find the origin of the universe?//

Because it's fallen down the back of the cosmic sofa and science's arms aren't long enough to fish it out.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 10:56:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George. No, work it out for yourself.

Dear Loudmouth. What are you talking about?

Dear Toni Lavis. That's the sort of answer one would expect from an engineer.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 12:03:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mr Opinion. Sorry, wrong job, try again.

May I ask what do you do for a living since you're so concerned about everybody else's job?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 12:20:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Toni Lavis. I'm an engineer.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 12:23:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(1) They were born on or very near our Christmas Day.
A. There's no record of the actual date of Jesus birth, the Roman Church chose a day already celebrated in the Roman world.

(2) They were born of a Virgin-Mother.
A. An emphasis of the Roman Church. The use of artificial insemination was practiced by the Essene community so as not to make one ceremonially unclean to enter Temple.
(3) And in a Cave or Underground Chamber.
A. Mary gave birth on her way to Bethlehem

(4) They led a life of toil for Mankind.
A. Nothing wrong with serving others.

(5) And were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator,
Savior, Deliverer.
A. Lots of persons posed as such but where are their works today?

(6) They were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness.
A. Any person posing as a usurper of Herod were put to death
Jesus was one of 300 crucified by Pilate for causing a disturbance at the Temple objecting to Temple tax imposed by Rome.

(7) And descended into Hell or the Underworld.
A. A Roman Catholic idea first appeared centuries after Jesus. Christ who said to the person crucified beside him, “Today you shall be with me in paradise.” Hardly call that hell.

(8) They rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world.
A. The kingdom of God is found now in the renewed spirit of man.

(9) They founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples were received by Baptism.
A. What is wrong with adherents to one's ideas?

(10) And they were commemorated by Eucharistic meals.
A. The concept is spiritual a commitment to live the life of Christ in.

(2) You are most judgmental to your fellow Christians in Catholicism. You are most judgmental to me. That is not consistent with the teachings of Jesus.
A. So it is your intention to judge all by your opinion and others are not to have an opinion otherwise they are condemned. Check our Jesus words did he condemn others ideas and behaviour
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 1:22:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Josephus,

The point is that Jesus is in the mould of the pagan gods and incorporates their legends. The Gospels are mainly myth. The Catholic Church did not invent the virgin birth, the resurrection and the miracles attributed to Jesus. The pagan gods do not exist today because of the persecution that pagans were subjected to after the Roman Empire became Christian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I

"The Christian persecution of Roman religion under Theodosius I began in 381, after the first couple of years of his reign in the Eastern Empire. In the 380s, Theodosius I reiterated Constantine's ban on former customs of Roman religion, prohibited haruspicy on pain of death, pioneered the criminalization of Magistrates who did not enforce laws against polytheism, broke up some pagan associations and tolerated attacks on Roman temples.

Between 389–392 he promulgated the "Theodosian decrees" (instituting a major change in his religious policies), which removed non-Nicene Christians from church office and abolished the last remaining expressions of Roman religion by making its holidays into workdays, banned blood sacrifices, closed Roman temples, and disbanded the Vestal Virgins. The practices of taking auspices and witchcraft were punished. Theodosius refused to restore the Altar of Victory in the Senate House, as asked by non-Christian senators.

In 392 he became sole Emperor (the last one to claim sole and effective rule over an Empire including the Western provinces). From this moment till the end of his reign in 395, while non-Christians continued to request toleration, he ordered, authorized, or at least failed to punish, the closure or destruction of many temples, holy sites, images and objects of piety throughout the Empire.

In 393 he issued a comprehensive law that prohibited any public non-Christian religious customs, and was particularly oppressive to Manicheans. He is likely to have disbanded the ancient Olympic Games, whose last record of celebration was in 393, though archeological evidence indicates that some games were still held after this date.”

Christians vandalised pagan temples when the Roman Empire became Christian. Later Protestants vandalised Catholic churches and their art during the Reformation. Christianity has a record of intolerance.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 3:40:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Josephus and david f,

I hope you guys aren't getting all of your information off Wikipedia because it sure looks that way. Do either of you have a background in ancient history or religious studies?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 3:49:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Christianity has a record of intolerance.'

Yep and secularist have a record of bigotry and selective twisting of history. No mention of Stalin, communism (forerunner) to socialist. Murdering millions of babies even now each year while they display their Christophobic natures. And then we have Pol Pot killing over a million but then again they don't fall into the secularist narrative. Well I suppose with Stalin as one of the secularist forfathers nothing surprises. With no moral base telling fibs along with the islamist is common place.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 4:09:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi David,

Well, what did the Manichaeans ever do for us ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 4:17:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mr Opinion,

Of course, you're right. Wikipedia is not always reliable and can be most unreliable. However, I have read a lot about religion and what I know points me to areas in Wikipedia. From there I can copy material and post it. I cannot readily copy material from other places.

Recently I have read Philip Jenkins' "Jesus Wars" which tells of the conflicts and councils in the fifth century which determined many ideas that Christians adopted and still have. At present I am reading "A History of Christianity" by Diarmaid MacCulloch. I do not have a degree in religious studies but am most interested in the area.

I think religion has done more harm than good although it has done much good. I think it is quite effective in setting groups of humans against each other.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 4:24:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Loudmouth,

The Manichaeans had their fling and disappeared. That's what they did for us. Other religions could do the same.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 4:27:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi David,

But they might have done a lot more for China. I have vague memories of stories about a string of Manichaean monasteries across central Asia and China, and the possibility that the monks might have had some influence on what became the Ming Dynasty (?1344-1643?). Or maybe I dreamt it.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 4:32:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have withdrawn from this discussion because its initiator, Shadow Minister, expressed their wish to keep it about science, especially physics.

Yet others, rather than discussing science, keep using this place to smear religion based on the despicable violence of criminal impostors who were not even religious.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 6:42:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David f,
I never stated the Roman Church invented virgin birth. No! they just defied Mary in line with the mother goddess of paganism. Mary was a typical Jewish girl not a Mother of God as they claim. The humanity of Jesus was not divine. Virgin insemination was used in ancient Egypt to produce priests in worship of the sun. The New Testament does not make Mary a deity or give emphasis to how Jesus was fathered. None of his close disciples give Mary any mention more than that she was Jesus mother nor does James his brother.
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 16 February 2016 7:10:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Loudmouth,

From Gernet’s “A History of Chinese Civilization”.

“However, it could be that the influence of Manicheism (sic) was perpetuated in China until the fourteenth century: the name of the Ming Dynasty (Ming = light) (1368-1644) may have been suggested to its founder by the persistent memory of Manichean traditions in the secret societies of the Mongol Age.”

There are many references to that religion in Gernet but no mention of a string of Manichaean monasteries. However, there was a string of monasteries along the Silk Road that had a great influence on history. It was the custom for Buddhist businessmen to retire to a monastery while they were still young and spend the rest of their life there. Merchants would travel along the Silk Road with their silk, sheep or whatever and stop in the monasteries over night. One of the businessman monks had an idea. They would give the merchants a document for his goods at a discounted value. He could leave the goods at the monastery and continue down the Silk Road without having to worry about being robbed or something happening to his goods. At some monastery further down the road he would present his document and they would give him goods equal to the value specified on the document. If he judged it right he could sell those goods in that area and make a profit. That was the origin of commercial paper. This idea was picked up in the Islamic world which was at the western part of the Silk Road. The Crusades were not all fighting. In the intermittent periods of peace there was trade between the Crusader states and the surrounding Muslim states. The Crusaders got the idea of commercial paper from the Muslims, and the idea came into European banking.

Dear runner,

Stalin was no secularist. He wanted to wipe out religion. Secularists want religion and government to be separate not wipe religion out. Religion should be no business of government. Some secularists have been religious and even have been ministers of religion.

continued
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 17 February 2016 1:41:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roger Williams, a Baptist minister in the English colonies in North America, was the first to use the phrase, separation of church and state. Williams was a secularist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams tells about him. From the site:

"Williams' own experience of persecution by Archbishop Laud and the Anglican establishment, as well as the Baptists' writings and the bloody wars of religion that raged in Europe in that era convinced Williams that a state church had no Scriptural basis. His criticism of the Massachusetts Bay system for mixing church and state immediately after his arrival demonstrates Williams had arrived at this conclusion before landing in Boston in 1631. Williams declared that the state could legitimately concern itself with matters of civil order only, but not of religious belief. He rejected any state attempt to enforce the "first Table" of the Ten Commandments, those initial commandments dealing with the relationship between God and individuals. Instead, Williams believed the state must confine itself to the commandments that dealt with the relations between people: murder, theft, adultery, lying, honoring parents, and so forth.

Williams considered any effort by the state either to dictate religion or to promote any particular religious idea or practice as forced worship. He declared, "Forced worship stinks in the nostrils of God." Williams also wrote that he saw no warrant in the New Testament to use the sword to promote religious belief. Indeed, Williams called Constantine a worse enemy to true Christianity than Nero, because the subsequent state support corrupted Christianity and led to the death of the Christian church. In the strongest language, Williams described the attempt to compel belief as "rape of the soul" and spoke of the "oceans of blood" shed as a result of trying to command conformity. While the moral principles in the Scriptures ought to inform the civil magistrates, Williams observed that well ordered, just, and civil governments existed even where Christianity was not present. Thus he knew that all governments had to maintain civil order and justice, and decided that none had a warrant to promote any religion."
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 17 February 2016 1:47:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Josephus,

I know you never stated the Roman Church invented virgin birth. The point is that the virgin birth, resurrection and miracles are all pagan nonsense. That nonsense is in the New Testament. The nonsense in Christianity was there from the beginning.

Women don’t have babies without a male sperm. Nobody comes back from the dead. Miracles don’t happen.

The Catholic Church added more nonsense to that already in the New Testament. Getting rid of Catholic doctrine and going back to the New Testament does not get rid of all the nonsense. The New Testament itself contains nonsense. To get rid of all the nonsense one has to get rid of the New Testament or admit that part of it is nonsense.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 17 February 2016 2:00:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

You have used the word nonsense nine times in this short post. It reveals more about your emotions than about the subject of the post which has been dealt withmuch more seriously by hundreds of thinkers - some of them scientists some of them philosophers some neither - over many centuries, most of them agreeing that these things are not to be taken as something natural science can investigate and pass judgement about.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 17 February 2016 8:05:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David f,
You stated,
The point is that the virgin birth, resurrection and miracles are all pagan nonsense. That nonsense is in the New Testament. The nonsense in Christianity was there from the beginning.

Women don’t have babies without a male sperm. Nobody comes back from the dead. Miracles don’t happen.

The point of a virgin is the hymen is intact and ancients inseminated sperm so as to ensure the child and heir was of the father. That is why some queens lost their head when it was found the hymen was not intact. Mary was impregnated with sperm from young men from the lineage of David. The NT states she knew not a man till Jesus was born. Read James protevangelion available on the internet. James was the elder son of Joseph, known as James the elder present at Jesus birth.

Regarding miracles they are happening even today, ask doctors if they see miracles happening. Are people restored from death yes, ask dead atheist Kerry Packer if he was restored to life.
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 17 February 2016 8:18:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Josephus,

The notion of human virgin birth, in the case of Mary/Miriam, is quite confusing. Your post raises some intriguing issues:

* for instance, was James the elder son of Joseph AND Mary, or did Joseph have another wife ?

* If Mary was impregnated with the sperm of young men in David's line, how many young men are we talking about ? And how could she do that without ecstatically losing her virginity ?

* If Mary was impregnated with the sperm of young men in David's line, how does God come into the picture ? Did he, or the Holy Spirit, take turns ? Or did he/she (ah yes, it can't be a 'she') turn back time, impregnate Mary as a virgin, then rewind time so that James was born first ? Or was Mary impregnated simultaneously by Joseph and God ? Or by Joseph possessed by the Holy Spirit ? Yeah, that might do it.

* Given Jewish adoption rules, that Jesus was taken on as the full son of Joseph, thereby giving him a lineage back to David (and Abraham), was Jesus one of the first to have two fathers ? I wonder how that would go down on his birth certificate these days: two fathers and one mother ? Or One Divine father and two earthly mothers ?

Perhaps it's a bit late to ask Kerry Packer about coming back to life. Maybe it works only once.

Fascinating diversions.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 17 February 2016 8:47:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When I originally started this thread I wondered how long it would take before it was hijacked by religion. The answer was immediately.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 17 February 2016 9:33:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have just caught up with this theme after a couple of days out of internet contact, quite appropriately out on the Murray cliffs with a bunch of geochronologists - those people who date the earth.

So while I can't help with what was 'before' the universe, except that if there was no 'before', the question is irrelevant, I can advise on what is north of north.

The magnetic polarity of the earth switched regularly so what was north became south and vice versa. The earth didn't flip just the magnetic field. So when the old north pole became the new south pole, what used to be south of it suddenly became north of it. Clear? So when you're considering the universe, remember you can't even trust north to stay put. (This is used for dating rocks and sediments, because when they form they preserve the magnetic inclination of the time). That's on top of the effect drifting continents - about 200 million years ago the south pole was at Bourke (that is, if it wasn't the north pole then), or to put it another way, the continental plates had drifted to place Bourke at the south pole.
Posted by Cossomby, Wednesday, 17 February 2016 10:35:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I should have said they preserve the magnetic polarity of the time.
Posted by Cossomby, Wednesday, 17 February 2016 10:37:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Enough of this obsession with the trivialities of science - gravity waves etc., and back to the serious stuff, religion.

I'd add to David's references, the old classic James Frazer's 'The Golden Bough' (i890, many later editions). This was the first serious study of comparative religion. Among other things, Frazer explored the many religious precursors to the main themes of Christianity: the concept of a scapegoat (taking on the sins of others) and of the dying and rising god. In a way Christianity can be thought of as a religious mega-corporate takeover: buying up the ideas of many previous religions, re-packaging them for global sale and in the process putting other religions (including its own early sects) out of business.

I have also enjoyed Karen Armstrong's books on comparative religion. She was a catholic nun, but her extensive research has led her to modify her views, now seeing 'God' as a religious symbol. Perhaps one day she will wake up as an atheist.
Posted by Cossomby, Wednesday, 17 February 2016 11:05:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Josephus,

If you want to believe in nonsense you will believe in nonsense. It is unreasonable to believe in nonsense and condemn the Catholic Church for adding nonsense to the nonsense you believe in.

Nobody can get any answer from Kerry Packer because he is dead. Kerry Packer was never restored to life. No dead person has been restored to life. A person can be resuscitated but not restored to life.

Miracles do not happen. Natural laws are not suspended. The Catholic Church in its recent making of saints classifies unexplained remissions of disease as miracles. Improbable things happen. Miracles don’t.

My two sons have married doctors. I am sure neither of them can cite any evidence for miracles.

A miracle is more than an unlikely happening. A miracle requires a suspension of the laws of physics and chemistry. There is no evidence that that has ever happened.

What I get from you is that Protestant nonsense is acceptable, but Catholic nonsense is not acceptable. That still smells like anti-Catholic bigotry.

Dear George,

In deference to your sensibilities I have used the word, nonsense, rather than mumbojumbo or rubbish. The word, nonsense, means something that doesn’t make sense.

To the best of my knowledge there is no credible evidence that the laws of physics and chemistry have ever been violated. That is what I understand is something a miracle can do.

There is no credible evidence for the existence of supernatural beings or miracles. Neither makes sense. However, if you can suggest a more appropriate word or one less offensive to your sensibilities than nonsense I will use it.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 17 February 2016 11:21:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,
Joseph had three sons to his first wife before taking Mary as his wife
Posted by Josephus, Wednesday, 17 February 2016 7:35:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus,

Thank you, that makes more sense. Joseph was mature-aged when he married Mary, who was about eighteen, is that right ?

Joseph adopted Jesus as his own son ? Was that Jewish practice ? In Islam, adoption is supposed to be forbidden - all springing from Muhammad supposed to be the very last prophet, the Seal of the Prophets, and therefore without heir who might THEN become the 'last' prophet. He had lost five sons before puberty, according to legend, and had adopted a son; so, to avoid becoming the truly-ruly last prophet, this adopted son had to be 'removed' from history before he himself died. So Muhammad did the David thing and sent him off to a very dangerous battle, in 629, according to legend, from which he did not return.

Also according to legend, and perhaps also as another imitation of the David story, he saw his adopted son's wife Zaynab in a state of undress, fell immediately in lust with her, and therefore had his adopted son removed to a less congenial environment, after obligingly divorcing his wife and letting Muhammad marry her. He had appealed to Allah in a trance, and his wish was granted in a vision, prompting Aysha, his young (14-15 years old?) wife to remark that sometimes Allah was very quick to answer Muhammad's prayers.

All legend of course, from perhaps a hundred years later, and perhaps as no more than a justification for banning adoption. I'm still puzzling over the more likely reasons for that banning practice.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 17 February 2016 8:50:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those still interested in the topic of this thread: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-future-of-gravitational-wave-astronomy/?WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20160217.

Dear david f,

This is not about my “sensibilities”, otherwise I would have reacted to your (and others’) posts earlier - after all I am well aware of your position on these matters. Many of your opinions help me to enhance mine, many don’t.

I just wanted to point out to you that the use of a derogatory term - irrelevant which - nine times in such a short post speaks about your emotional rather than rational approach to the difficult subjects of biblical exegesis and philosophical interpretations of the Reality the Bible is supposed to be about. Neither I, and I presume neither you, are experts on these matters.

It does not need a display of emotions to simply claim that the Bible is just a book of fiction which does not need exegesis, and that such Reality does not exist - many do so, apparently including you.

Also, it is a difference between saying “this does not make sense to me” (as I would about many claims e.g. economists or financial marketeers make) and stating categorically that this IS nonsense.

Let me finish with the story I already told you about my physics teacher (when I was about twelve years old) who argued against Einstein’s relativity theory claiming it was against common sense. He was very convincing but when I told this to my father he did not offer counterarguments (he was not a physicist, and I am sure he did not understand Einstein either) but only said something like: many respectable physicists accept Einstein’s theory so we should not dismiss it (he might not have used the word nonsense) just because we cannot understand it hence think it goes against common sense.
Posted by George, Thursday, 18 February 2016 8:50:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

I was motivated by emotion. Josephus does not treat the pronouncements of the Catholic Church with the same respect that he treats the pronouncements of his own brand of Christianity. He wrote: " All the things you mention are syncronistic inclusions by the Roman Catholic Church from its pagan civilization and not New Testament doctrine."

When I pointed that Catholics did not invent the virgin birth. There was other tortuous reasoning to justify his beliefs. His statement putting all the items that I mentioned on Catholicism was false, but he did not admit it was false.

In stating your preferences you do not find it necessary to denigrate other branches of Christianity, other religions or even those who reject religion entirely.

He is a bigot. You are not a bigot.

I do not have the same feeling toward you even though our religious views coincide no more closely than mine coincide with those of Josephus.

Your father's view that "many respectable physicists accept Einstein’s theory so we should not dismiss it ... just because we cannot understand it hence think it goes against common sense." is legitimate. Physicists have the knowledge to examine Einstein's theory. Most people's religious views do not come from reason or evidence like the views of the physicists. The religion of most people is simply that of their parents. I respect the fact that people find comfort in fellowship of a religious community and respect the people themselves as human beings. However, there are many conflicting religious beliefs, and there is no objective standard to differentiate among them. That is not analogous to a scientific theory. If Einstein's theory is valid then a theory which describes the same phenomena in a way that contradicts Einstein's theory is invalid. The analogy between respect for the views of physicists to Einstein's theory and respect for different religious views is not valid. I respect the right to have any beliefs one chooses. That does not mean that those beliefs are valid or that I have to respect those beliefs. I could be kinder.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 18 February 2016 10:16:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re: many conflicting religious beliefs.
In my family, only my grandmother was particularly religious, but under her influence I went to Sunday school and church as a child (CofE). Well before I was 10, as early as 7-8 (based on where we lived at the time) I became aware of different religions. I can remember thinking (even where I was at the time): that's odd, they all think they are right but all the others are wrong. Then the eureka moment: does that means they may all be wrong?

I hung in at church etc (they had fun kids camp-outs) but my scepticism grew. Perhaps not surprisingly, I became a scientist, but I've retained a fascination with how people think, and I remain puzzled why people can be so adamant that they are the ones in possession of the truth, in the face of other people being equally adamant that they are the ones who have it.

I've asked religious people this over the years and have never received a satisfactory answer. Maybe someone here can enlighten me?
Posted by Cossomby, Thursday, 18 February 2016 10:56:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Cossomby,

<<I've asked religious people this over the years and have never received a satisfactory answer. Maybe someone here can enlighten me?>>

Please let me try:

As science believes in facts and evidence, the cult of science believes that all beliefs ought be factual and based on evidence.

If you, like most of us who were born in the 20th century, myself included, grew up under the influence of science, then you learned from early age to take that requirement of factuality for granted and reject beliefs that are not based on fact or have no evidence. This requirement that seems so obvious in our age, was not always there, but only in the last few centuries post the so-called "enlightenment" where "right" and "wrong" became associated with "factual" or otherwise.

Religion is not interested in facts: unlike science, it does not ask for example "what is" or "how is it done", but rather it asks "what is good". What is good is "right" and what is bad is "wrong".

Thus if two people entertain two different beliefs that are good for both respectively, then they are both right and not in conflict and it does not matter if those beliefs happen to factually contradict each other and/or objective evidence, so long as they are both good to believe in, for those two people respectively.

Only science has the facts, but truth is not about facts.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 18 February 2016 2:28:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Yuyutsu, but your reply still doesn't quite resolve the issue.

I recognise that people can have different beliefs which may be good for them. We would be all better off if it really did not matter "if those beliefs happen to factually contradict each other and/or objective evidence, so long as they are both good to believe in, for those two people respectively."

The problem is it does matter. People get very uptight and protective about their beliefs being 'the' truth. They try and change other people's views (convert them), they discriminate against people with other truths, they kill them, they go to war against them. They don't seem to recognise that the others are also entitled to believe their 'truth' is the only one. Maybe because to recognise the existence of other 'truths' would mean they had to be doubtful that their own was 'the' truth.
Posted by Cossomby, Thursday, 18 February 2016 4:43:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
H Yuyutsu,

"Only science has the facts, but truth is not about facts."

That's an amazing statement. "Truth is NOT ONLY about facts but more about their interpretation" - is that what you meant ?

Surely the truth has to include, and account for, "facts" ?

To get BTT, gravity is "true", it's a fact of life throughout the universe, it works, but it took Newton to interpret how and why it worked, and how it was "true", what where the physical principles that explained it.

Or did you mean "belief" - that "belief is not about facts" ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 18 February 2016 5:07:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

"Let me finish with the story I already told you about my physics teacher (when I was about twelve years old) who argued against Einstein’s relativity theory claiming it was against common sense. He was very convincing but when I told this to my father he did not offer counterarguments (he was not a physicist, and I am sure he did not understand Einstein either) but only said something like: many respectable physicists accept Einstein’s theory so we should not dismiss it (he might not have used the word nonsense) just because we cannot understand it hence think it goes against common sense."

Of course, for those who are not physicists, it doesn't seem to make sense...which is why Einstein's epiphany led to such a startling advancement.

He was sitting in his patent office when all of sudden he had a "moment". He realised that if a person saw someone fall from the top a building, that the person falling was "not" the one being affected by gravity - and that the person witnessing their fall was.

The person falling would be weightless - and the person watching him fall - attached to the earth - would be accelerating. Acceleration and gravity being two sides of the same coin, etc.

That insight led to the General Theory of Relativity.

Of course, that could all be confirmed mathematically...which is helpful.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 18 February 2016 6:27:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A miracle takes place when natural healing happens at an unexpected pace or when the patient is deemed incurable by medical diagnosis. New science research is tapping into procedures to restore what once was disabled functions of previous years. They are now performing miracles that once only happened occasionally by deep desire in prayer
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 18 February 2016 8:57:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Josephus,

You have succeeded in trivialising miracle.

Your definition "A miracle takes place when natural healing happens at an unexpected pace or when the patient is deemed incurable by medical diagnosis."

According to the New Testament Jesus did not heal at an unexpected pace or just produce a cure of someone who was supposedly incurable. He raised people from the dead. I don't believe it happened, but, if it happened, that was a miracle.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/miracles/ contains a discussion of miracle.

The term, miracle, is used casually in ordinary language. That fits your definition. That is not the religious concept of miracle.

At the battle of Jericho the sun stood still. That was a miracle. Your common sense tells you that Jesus never raised anybody from the dead, and the sun didn't stand still. To satisfy your common sense you make a definition of miracle which merely means an unusual happening. I agree with you. The miracles described in the Bible never happened. There are no miracles in the religious sense of miracle, but there are many unusual happenings.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 18 February 2016 9:42:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus: If natural healing happens at an unexpected pace or when the patient is deemed incurable by medical diagnosis, and the patient is an atheist and neither they nor anyone else on their behalf expresses a deep desire in prayer...does it count as a miracle? (or teasing by god)?

Or is it just natural but the the current medical knowledge doesn't know why?

I am happy to accept that prayer has a placebo effect - if you believe prayer works, then you may get better. But this is not due to the actions of god, just the brain releasing the relevant chemicals. (if you argue that god works through the placebo effect, then you're back to my first question, why does the placebo effect work for godless people, and without needing to pray?)

Re the power of prayer, I think it was J.B.S.Haldane who studied this. In England, the children of royalty and of the clergy were specifically prayed for in every Anglican church every Sunday. Haldane looked at relative death rates and found that these categories of children had higher death rates than the rest of the population.

Haldane is also famous for his ode to cancer (he died of it) - note the placebo effect mentioned:

"Cancer’s a Funny Thing:
I wish I had the voice of Homer
To sing of rectal carcinoma,
This kills a lot more chaps, in fact,
Than were bumped off when Troy was sacked..."

The poem ends:

"... I know that cancer often kills,
But so do cars and sleeping pills;
And it can hurt one till one sweats,
So can bad teeth and unpaid debts.
A spot of laughter, I am sure,
Often accelerates one’s cure;
So let us patients do our bit
To help the surgeons make us fit."
Posted by Cossomby, Thursday, 18 February 2016 9:55:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Cossomby,

What you describe is tragic indeed. People should not fight each other because they have different beliefs - it is wrong and unnecessary. If a certain belief is making you violent towards others, would you not agree with me that that belief is not good for you?

Yes, the world has a problem there, but it is not the problem to which I responded, regarding the issue that you had at the age of 7-8 and the conclusion you derived from it.

---

Dear Joe,

Let me make a distinction between 'true' and 'truth'. It is true that the sun rises in the east and not in the west: it is true in the sense that if someone claimed that the sun rises in the west, then they would be lying, dishonest or at least deluded and reckless in their observation and logic.

In other words, we call something "true" when it authentically corresponds to our sensory perception and mental interpretation (including social agreements as part of our mentality), so it is true only relative to the correctness and accuracy of our sensory apparatus (including instruments) and our brain/mind that analyses their input (including through the social agreements therein). A Martian with different senses, a different brain-equivalent and from a different type of society might well conclude something different or even contradictory.

Truth itself is not relative, it does not depend on a point of view, but is about what actually is, the thing in itself rather than how we perceive it.

Perhaps the confusion arises from the English language where "she said the truth" roughly means "she was honest". Otherwise it is not possible to say the truth, it is only possible to say words.

So gravity is true, but is not the truth.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 19 February 2016 12:23:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu wrote on Tuesday, 16 February 2016 6:42:46 PM: "I have withdrawn from this discussion because its initiator, Shadow Minister, expressed their wish to keep it about science, especially physics.

That was neither true nor the truth. Yuyutsu, why do you post after you have withdrawn?
Posted by david f, Friday, 19 February 2016 3:29:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Bible uses the word, truth, in a way different from ordinary usage.

Bible: Ye shall know the truth.

Translation: Ye shall buy the snake oil I'm selling.
Posted by david f, Friday, 19 February 2016 3:53:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f,
Understand the Hebrew poetic text of poetry of the sun standing still. Which it did not! There was a massive hail storm that darkened the sky for almost the whole day = the text means the sun ceased to shine for almost the whole day. Unfortunately the Septuagint written hundreds of years later gives the wrong idea that has been translated into English as "stand still". That is not a miracle it is a falsehood promoted by ignorance of language. I will find my writing on the subject and post.
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 19 February 2016 8:17:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Josephus,

The prophesy of the virgin birth is also a mistranslation. In the original Hebrew in Isaiah an almah or young woman will conceive. The Septuagint (translation into Greek) translated the Hebrew, almah, into the Greek, parthenos (meaning virgin). This was probably done to bring the birth of Jesus into line with the many virgin births of pagan deities. Neither the Jewish Bible nor the New Testament is a reliable source of history, science or morals.
Posted by david f, Friday, 19 February 2016 8:46:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
uyutsu,

" .... we call something "true" when it authentically corresponds to our sensory perception and mental interpretation ...."

No. Otherwise whatever we perceived, or believed, to be true, would be true, which is - to use David's celebrated word - nonsense.

E.g., no, the sun does not rise in the East. We traditionally have perceived it as such, but since the Greeks, we have known that the earth revolves on its axis, giving the impression etc.

So, no, God didn't stop the sun for 36 hours for Joshua, he/she stopped the earth from revolving (at 1000 mph) for 36 hours, then fired it up again. According to legends - obviously pre-Greek legends.

So, to amend your statement, " ... gravity is true, but is not the whole truth in the vast spectrum of phenomena .... "

Which says nothing in particular.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 19 February 2016 8:55:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

I would not say that what Josephus or others say is nonsense but would not object to you saying that. I reacted only to your ninefold use of the word nonsense in reference to what many thinkers consider deserving serious study (and eventual reinterpretation). In this respect there is no difference between various kinds of scholarship, be it biblical exegesis or physics, although you are right that opinions of specialists vary more in the case of the former than in that of the latter.

Now you bring also philosophy of physics (and religion) into this.

>>there are many conflicting religious beliefs, and there is no objective standard to differentiate among them. <<

I suppose you meant “adjudicate among them” since where there is conflict there is an obvious difference. In that case I agree in the sense that in distinction to physics religious “theories” cannot make predictions that could be verified experimentally or by observation/measurement.

In physics these measurements (like that of the gravitational waves) could add to the acceptability of the theory but do not make the theory valid in the sense that different theories are “invalid”. Strictly speaking if A (a theory) implies B (predicts an experimental outcome), verification of B does not imply the (absolute) validity of A, but makes it more “adequate” in the empiricist’s meaning of the word: Is classical Newton’s theory valid or invalid? Since Einstein’s GRT and QM contradict each other is one of them valid, the other invalid?

I think it is not that simple and validity is not an appropriate term to be used either for physical theories or for religious representations of a Reality that religions are about. This is partly so because the one involves the subject as part of what is to be represented, the other (physics) does not (never mind Copenhagen).

I think we should leave it at that; this is not the appropriate place for such an abstract discussion between an atheist (experimental?) physicist and a theist (pure) mathematician.
Posted by George, Friday, 19 February 2016 9:04:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

You refer to Einstein equating gravitational and inertial mass - his famous mental experiment with a free falling lift - which led him to his general relativity theory built on sophisticated mathematics, rather than mathematics "confirming" Einstein’s assumption. It is observations that confirm (the adequacy of) physical theories, not mathematics that can be used to write down all sorts of theories.

However, what I had in mind as being “against common sense” was not this but the notion of an absolute speed limit: If A moves with a speed 2c/3 and B in the opposite direction with the same speed 2c/3 then “common sense” would dictate that the speed of B with respect to A is 4c/3, hence c cannot be the maximum speed. [The answer here is that “common sense” assumes the Galilean model of space and time, whereas Einstein assumes the Minkowskian model of spacetime.]
Posted by George, Friday, 19 February 2016 9:08:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f,
You keep harping on about pagan deities. In the ancient world men of power were considered as gods as a Pharaoh or a Roman Emperor and to ensure their birthright young virgin women were inseminated by the use of a straw, rod or tube. They had no intercourse with a man till the child and heir was born. This was a practice used of women in the Essene community so the men did not become ceremonially unclean, even in Orthodox thinking today the young men thank God they are not born a woman. Men in early thinking considered woman to be unclean. We today see this is sexist.
Posted by Josephus, Friday, 19 February 2016 9:09:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Josephus,

I keep harping on about pagan deities because that is what Jesus is. As I pointed his description in many ways coincides with the description given to other pagan deities. Jesus is a pagan god crafted on to Judaism to make a new religion acceptable to pagans. Unlike Judaism and Islam which are monotheistic Christianity with the Trinity continues the polytheism of the ancient pagan religions.

Sorry, I will be offline for a few days.
Posted by david f, Friday, 19 February 2016 9:28:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Josephus,

I've got degrees in ancient history and anthropology and this is the first I have heard of practices by Egyptian pharaohs and Roman emperors of inseminating virgins with tubes. Can you please let me know where you got this information? BTW I just loved your book on the history of the Jewish people.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 19 February 2016 9:31:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

1. You say the sun rising in the east is 'true' (recognising that this a perspective from earth of the earth's movement around the sun). That to deny this would be lying or at least deluded; but that it depends on our sensory perception, and a Martian with different sensory perceptions might conclude something different. Problem: the earth moving round the sun is independent of human or Martian perceptions. It was moving round the sun long before there were humans (not sure about Martians), when there were dinosaurs, and even before dinosaurs. Dinosaurs might not have had a word for 'east' but to them the sun would have appeared to rise from the same direction every morning.

2. You say 'Truth itself is not relative, it does not depend on a point of view, but is about what actually is, the thing in itself rather than how we perceive it.'
But earlier you wrote: 'if two people entertain two different beliefs that are good for both respectively, then they are both right and not in conflict and it does not matter if those beliefs happen to factually contradict each other and/or objective evidence, so long as they are both good to believe in, for those two people respectively.' This suggests to me that your 'truth' is indeed relative and different people can have different views. Unless, you think that all these different beliefs are really different versions of the same truth. In either case I'm happy to accept that Martians could have a totally different 'truth', as a result of a different sensory apparatus and different society. In other words I think this 'truth' is in fact a human invention, based on the nature of human evolution, biology and culture.

The problem does seem to be that people use the same word for very different things: evidence based knowledge and socially constructed belief. Maybe we should all stop using the word 'truth' and come up with some new words (with no semantic hangovers).
Posted by Cossomby, Friday, 19 February 2016 9:35:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Also Yuyutsu, Re your earlier comment about the influence of science on my childhood perception "[if you] grew up under the influence of science, then you learned from early age to take that requirement of factuality for granted and reject beliefs that are not based on fact or have no evidence."

That wasn't it at all: I wasn't rejecting beliefs not based on fact, (I hadn't got that far yet!) I was puzzling out how adults worked. I can see now that I was working on pure logic - that if each group believed they were right and all the others were wrong, then how could any of them be certain they were right given that for each group, everybody else thought they were wrong. Then, maybe, I thought, they were all correct about all the others: that each of them was wrong.

Maybe I was just realising that all adults don't agree, and that this was a problem for kids in knowing who to believe.

My ability to analyse logically was, I think, what led me to science. (Just realised I'm qualifying even that statement - I remain sceptical of my own 'beliefs' as well as everyone else's!)
Posted by Cossomby, Friday, 19 February 2016 9:49:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Cossomby,

Beliefs are never the truth because they are just ideas and the truth is not an idea. So why do people still insist that their ideas be true? not even that, but why do they still fight each other about their different ideas?

It is important that our beliefs be good for us, that they serve us to become better - rather than that they be factual, or correspond to objective observations.

Now there is a claim of overlap and some even go as far as claiming identity - that it is always good to believe in what we observe objectively and never good to believe in things that cannot be verified objectively.

The former claim I consider "practical", the latter "nonsense".

Our attachment to our human body is so great and overwhelming that we tend to consider that which pleases the body as "good" for us and that which displeases it as "bad". Further, this has become a social convention. Evolution developed our senses and brain to maximise survival and propagation - to discover food, shelter, enemies, mates and technology - but not to discover truth, which from a genetic point of view is a superfluous waste of energy.

That is the basis of the overlap: if we listen to our senses and our brain, which in turn seek the objective, then we please our bodies, which we then consider "good". Doing so is practical and due to the social convention: in everyday life what is practical normally passes for "truth" and in a limited relative sense it is, but only in this limited social sense where it is agreed that equating "practical" with "good" is not a lie.

To the extent that humans, dinosaurs and Martians share that same social convention, adopting the perspective of their bodies, they could all agree about the sun, which warms them all. Whether Dinosaurs and Martians actually share that perspective, I cannot tell.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 19 February 2016 1:44:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy