In the Beginning...

[Sommerswerd]

There is always a leap in logic. Every path begins somewhere that has no foundation and is rooted in an assumption of some sort. You don't like MS's starting points, but you do have your own that is on equally shaky ground.

You have stated my point exactly. And I recognize the truth of what you are saying, while a fundamentalist does not. As I stated very clearly, I recognize that the idea of an eternal universe is just as logically problematic as the eternal creator. But pointing out that an eternal universe doesn't make sense just as much as an eternal creator doesn't make sense... does not bolster the existence of an eternal creator. It just highlights that the eternal creator concept doesn't make sense. I don't care if the universe is eternal or not. I don't care if superbeings created the universe or not.

What I do care about is establishing that Genesis is wrong. And the moment that people try to switch the subject from that to arguments like "Well, its just as flawed to believe in God as it is to believe in a universe springing out of nothing" I know that I am accomplishing my goal... Yes, yes it is. I agree that both beliefs are nonsensical and illogical. So I will renounce my "belief" in the universe springing out of nothing, and you can renounce your belief in God. Deal? Let me know when you're ready.

"Your idea is just as faulty as mine... so that means my idea is right!" Bzzzzzzt! wrong

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Powdered alcohol is getting us there pretty quickly.

The New Testament does not mention powdered alcohol. It was "all we have is water." Then ZAP! and "okay, now we have wine."

For that to be literally true, it requires believing in magic, and magic is nothing more than an illusion. It's not real.

While there is no scientific evidence of god, there is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence. Should all that be summarily discarded?

There are also a lot of anecdotes about Santa Claus, the Loch Ness monster, Ogopogo, sasquatch, and space aliens landing in UFOs and kidnapping people for medical/sexual experiments. Wow, that must all be true, as well, then.

Amazing, how people on this forum are fond of telling me that anecdotes of my own life experiences that really did happen and don't include magic are nonsense and invalid, yet anecdotes about magic are suddenly to be taken at face value and even considered as scientific proof that the magic-dependent bible stories literally happened.

What MS is suggesting is that he has a different underlying assumption: all that exists, physically or not, are united by a single essence. He calls that essence god and without that, nothing exists.

Not quite. He's saying that this assumption is not only true for him, but that it MUST be true for everyone else, and no argument otherwise is accepted. It's like assuming that 2 + 2 = 5, and that's all there is to it, he has spoken.

I don't have a problem with everything that exists being part of the universe. Carl Sagan said it himself: "The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."

I just have a problem with the assumption that it's the same as the Old Testament god.

As for plants growing in the dark we can talk about that later, once we finish this discussion about the moon being erroneously called a light in Genesis. That's why I was reluctant to even talk about that because I didn't want people trying to change the subject.

I did a very quick bit of googling, and apparently some plants do well as far as germinating in the dark. But germinating isn't the same as growing. Plants need light in order for photosynthesis to work.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You have stated my point exactly. And I recognize the truth of what you are saying, while a fundamentalist does not. As I stated very clearly, I recognize that the idea of an eternal universe is just as logically problematic as the eternal creator. But pointing out that an eternal universe doesn't make sense just as much as an eternal creator doesn't make sense... does not bolster the existence of an eternal creator. It just highlights that the eternal creator concept doesn't make sense. I don't care if the universe is eternal or not. I don't care if superbeings created the universe or not.

What I do care about is establishing that Genesis is wrong. And the moment that people try to switch the subject from that to arguments like "Well, its just as flawed to believe in God as it is to believe in a universe springing out of nothing" I know that I am accomplishing my goal... Yes, yes it is. I agree that both beliefs are nonsensical and illogical. So I will renounce my "belief" in the universe springing out of nothing, and you can renounce your belief in God. Deal? Let me know when you're ready.

"Your idea is just as faulty as mine... so that means my idea is right!" Bzzzzzzt! wrong

While I do agree that genesis does not present an accurate picture of how things came to be, it is only "wrong" because I begin in a different place, as do you. There is a starting point where from which Genesis can be seen as truthful and accurate. That place, in our modern scientifically driven world, seems woefully extreme and perhaps even silly. The difficulty with such thinking is that attempts at reconciling that position with science or even just rational thinking is not really possible. The tortured logic, reinvented definitions, infusions of real science and twisted adaptation of language are readily apparent in this thread. It would be much better to to say "I believe that...and it makes me a better person and my improves my life." But where is the fun in that?

I personally find much of the discussion interesting and worthwhile reading despite that fact that there are lots of extremist views.

 

[Flying Pig]

The New Testament does not mention powdered alcohol. It was "all we have is water." Then ZAP! and "okay, now we have wine."

For that to be literally true, it requires believing in magic, and magic is nothing more than an illusion. It's not real.

I'm staying out of the argument as a whole, but you're begging the question there. Your argument hinges on 'magic' being by definition not real, and transforming water into wine being by definition 'magic'. Having taken those two, it's perfectly legitimate to conclude 'turning water into wine cannot be real'. However, somebody who accepts the story has to reject at least the first one - to them, there are ways of turning water into wine which are not magic (that is, by a miracle) and so can be real. Your argument only works if you assume its conclusion to begin with. Whatever we think about the Big Questions of this sort, I think it's worth starting from the position that the other side might see the world in a way that makes their answers to them make sense, and that it might not be so obviously silly to take that view of things.

 

[Lexicus]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

 

[timtofly]

I did highlight them, and I talked about them. But the moon does not "give light" it reflects light that the sun gives off. You keep trying to introduce the red herring of "rule over". The phrase "rule over" is completely irrelevant, in fact some versions of the Bible replace "rule over" with "govern." Who cares what the moon "rules over"? Saying that the moon "rules over" the night has no impact whatsoever on the reality that the moon is not a light. The moon rules over/governs the night. The moon is still NOT a light and Genesis clearly says that it is a light, so Genesis is wrong.

And what does that mean anyway (rule over/govern)? That the moon is the municipal, judicial authority and source of law at night-time? No, obviously it means that the moon is the biggest light in the sky at night, the "boss" light... which again, makes sense if you are a primitive human looking up at the night sky, the moon does indeed appear to be the biggest thing in the sky.

As for plants growing in the dark we can talk about that later, once we finish this discussion about the moon being erroneously called a light in Genesis. That's why I was reluctant to even talk about that because I didn't want people trying to change the subject.

A red-herring would be avoiding how the text was written, and blame a person for not giving in to an argument. Seeing as how you say the word "to rule" or "govern" is a red-herring distracting from the fact that the moon gives off the sun's light. Now you say that the moon cannot give off light, it can only reflect it. You are misleading the topic by declaring that people should never say that the moon gives off light, because that is misleading. The correct term would always be the moon reflects the sun's light. What seemed like a good figure of speech, from now on, will always be wrong according to you.

In other words we are back to the point, that the Hebrews were ignorant and misguided because they thought that the moon was shining at night, just as God put it there for that purpose. You assume they thought it was a light, because obviously the moon cannot be a light.


Their mistake was calling the moon a light in the same sentence as the sun. They neglected to inform the reader that it was just reflecting the sun, assuming that they should have known about reflection, even though they were ignorant and had no knowledge of science. They deliberately lied to all those who would read the text. On top of that we should accept the writing as wrong to prove a point that it had no basis in reality, because they were too ignorant to come up with a plausible story that all humans would accept in the future.

I believe that is what you are trying to say. I get that you are claiming the moon is not a literal light. Now you are claiming that it cannot even be a figurative light. That would be a red-herring deterring us from reality. For all intents and purposes, the author seemed to be deliberately giving us a red-herring, because we are questioning why use the terms, "to rule" and "govern".

Not sure why this would ever be finished, other than a stale-mate. I already understand and accept your view on the topic. I think the cliché would be that God gave you an "out". Of course that would just be a cliché, as you seem to accept there is no God to give you a chance to believe what you do.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Plants need light in order for photosynthesis to work.

No they don't. The process can be created artificially by applying chemicals... But again, that is why I did not want to start into that subject, its too complicated to talk about both things at once... you just end up with tl;dr wall-o'-text...

 

[Sommerswerd]

Now you say that the moon cannot give off light, it can only reflect it. You are misleading the topic by declaring that people should never say that the moon gives off light, because that is misleading. The correct term would always be the moon reflects the sun's light. What seemed like a good figure of speech, from now on, will always be wrong according to you.

No. Again, I said that the moon is not a light. Genesis says that the moon is a light. Genesis is wrong. Genesis also says the moon gives light. That is also wrong, because as you acknowledge, the sun gives the light and the moon only reflects it. I never made any comment about what the moon "gives off" because that is irrelevant. The point is and always has been, that the moon is not a light. Genesis says it is a light, so Genesis is wrong. That's it. Once again you are misquoting me, and then arguing with the statement that you made up, rather than the one I made.

I believe that is what you are trying to say. I get that you are claiming the moon is not a literal light. Now you are claiming that it cannot even be a figurative light.

This is exactly what I am driving at. If Genesis is calling the moon a light, then Genesis is wrong. So if you want Genesis to be right, (which you seem to be invested in) then you have to use the metaphor excuse, ie say "it's a figurative light". But that means the author knew that what they were writing was not literal but figurative, in other words, the Genesis account is not an accurate description of the creation, but a figurative story. A myth.

As for god giving me "an out"... As a person experienced in Christian fundamentalism, I am very familiar with this particular brand of Biblical apologeticism. The way it works is, whenever the Bible is wrong about something and it can't be explained away, the apologist then claims that the error/contradiction etc is there to "test our faith." In other words, God put that mistake there to give you a reason not to believe it, to test whether you can resist the temptation to be lead astray from faith, by reason, logic, science, etc.

I happily fail that test.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I'm staying out of the argument as a whole, but you're begging the question there. Your argument hinges on 'magic' being by definition not real, and transforming water into wine being by definition 'magic'. Having taken those two, it's perfectly legitimate to conclude 'turning water into wine cannot be real'. However, somebody who accepts the story has to reject at least the first one - to them, there are ways of turning water into wine which are not magic (that is, by a miracle) and so can be real. Your argument only works if you assume its conclusion to begin with. Whatever we think about the Big Questions of this sort, I think it's worth starting from the position that the other side might see the world in a way that makes their answers to them make sense, and that it might not be so obviously silly to take that view of things.

Of course magic isn't real. It's a deception, misdirection, illusion, and just plain not true. It's fantasy. Harry Potter is just a story, and Dungeons & Dragons (which I've enjoyed for over 30 years) doesn't really teach anyone how to do witchcraft or cast sorcerer's spells.

And if anyone would care to demonstrate to me how to make wine out of water without modern technology - or any technology at all, then they are welcome to come to my home and demonstrate it. They'll have to drink the wine (if they succeed), though; I don't do alcohol. Actually, it would be nice if they'd take water and change it into hot chocolate... without adding anything to the water, or using any heating element, in front of me, using my own kitchen and cups. And no attempts at hypnosis or drugging me to make me think it's hot chocolate. It has to be the real thing.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Apparently, Clarke wasn't the first to come up with this idea.

It's an oft-quoted saying, but it's also a bit insulting. It presupposes that we're not smart enough to learn how the technology works.

 

[Lexicus]

Apparently, Clarke wasn't the first to come up with this idea.

It's an oft-quoted saying, but it's also a bit insulting. It presupposes that we're not smart enough to learn how the technology works.

Yeah, it does. I prefer humbling to insulting.

 

[Berzerker]

a light can be something bright or shiny

 

[Berzerker]

And if that's your only reason to claim that they are backed by science, that's such an incredibly low bar as to be useless. Norse mythology doesn't feature a watery void at all, the Greek creation stories talk about Chaos and Night and eventually how everything sprang from the union of multiple elder deities, and whilst the Egyptian creation story mentions a watery void, the story either has gods springing into existence (along with their various aspects) or everything being named or "seeded" into life. Where's the rest of the science in any of that?

you were complaining about cherry picking?

the primordial waters appear in all 3 cultures - chaos and darkness to the greek and the ice giant in Norse myth

 

[onejayhawk]

Of course magic isn't real. It's a deception, misdirection, illusion, and just plain not true. It's fantasy. Harry Potter is just a story, and Dungeons & Dragons (which I've enjoyed for over 30 years) doesn't really teach anyone how to do witchcraft or cast sorcerer's spells.

And if anyone would care to demonstrate to me how to make wine out of water without modern technology - or any technology at all, then they are welcome to come to my home and demonstrate it. They'll have to drink the wine (if they succeed), though; I don't do alcohol. Actually, it would be nice if they'd take water and change it into hot chocolate... without adding anything to the water, or using any heating element, in front of me, using my own kitchen and cups. And no attempts at hypnosis or drugging me to make me think it's hot chocolate. It has to be the real thing.

Then it isn't magic. It's misdirection, sleight of hand, etc. Magic is real. Once you understand how it works, it becomes chemistry, engineering, or whatever. That does not make it fiction.

Using the term magic to describe something like Genesis is like emptying a swimming pool with a fork. It is neither appropriate nor effective, despite a vague association. Something done by God is defined to be beyond comprehension. At best we can get glimpses of a process or two. Often, not even that.

The water into wine miracle has always stood out as different from others. For one thing, it was done to order. For another, it involved true transformation. The water was already there. It was converted, in a negligible amount of time to better quality wine than was already being served. That is not magic. It is something fundamentally more difficult. Of course, raising a decomposing corpse to life and health is pretty big as well.

No one is going to show you. God knocks but it's your door. You have to open the door yourself. He gave that much freedom.

J

 

[timtofly]

When I first read Dune, it was when I was working in the theatre, and I caught one of those bad spring colds, or perhaps the flu (this was before I was diligent in getting my immunization every year). So I was in bed, not able to sleep for fretting about getting well enough to go back to work, and decided to see what was on my bookshelves. I'd had the first three Dune books around for years and hadn't read them; I was actually thinking of selling them back to the book store. But I decided to read Dune while I was sick, and by the second page, I was hooked. Actually, I don't think it even took that long.

And I will say that reading about a dry planet where everyone is chronically water-deprived, while one is sick in bed with a fever, really helped me sympathize with some of the characters!

I've read the entire Frank Herbert series many times since. Herbert had a lot to say on the subject of religion, charismatic leaders, and what it means to be human.

I recommend that you try them again (the Frank Herbert books; the others are just garbage). And yes, there are good points about the David Lynch movie, but some of it makes me wonder if he read the same book the rest of us did. The miniseries are very good, too. If you're interested in seeing those, let me know.

I checked and I have the DVD's of the original movie, the 4+ hours mini series, and the "Children of Dune".

No. Again, I said that the moon is not a light. Genesis says that the moon is a light. Genesis is wrong. Genesis also says the moon gives light. That is also wrong, because as you acknowledge, the sun gives the light and the moon only reflects it. I never made any comment about what the moon "gives off" because that is irrelevant. The point is and always has been, that the moon is not a light. Genesis says it is a light, so Genesis is wrong. That's it. Once again you are misquoting me, and then arguing with the statement that you made up, rather than the one I made.

Why does it matter that it is wrong? Is that not your point?

This is exactly what I am driving at. If Genesis is calling the moon a light, then Genesis is wrong. So if you want Genesis to be right, (which you seem to be invested in) then you have to use the metaphor excuse, ie say "it's a figurative light". But that means the author knew that what they were writing was not literal but figurative, in other words, the Genesis account is not an accurate description of the creation, but a figurative story. A myth .

I did not say that Genesis was right or wrong. I just said that it seemed the usage for the moon to be a light is figurative. I keep hearing the story is wrong and should just be taken figuratively. What is the point to just view it as poetic? When pointing out that the statement about the moon is figurative, you indicated that makes the whole story figurative. Why is it so important that the story is not a literal one? It was not a test, nor was it necessarily a mistake. I cannot be the only one who calls the reflection that comes from the moon, as moonlight, nor do I have an issue with calling the moon a light.

As for god giving me "an out"... As a person experienced in Christian fundamentalism, I am very familiar with this particular brand of Biblical apologeticism. The way it works is, whenever the Bible is wrong about something and it can't be explained away, the apologist then claims that the error/contradiction etc is there to "test our faith." In other words, God put that mistake there to give you a reason not to believe it, to test whether you can resist the temptation to be lead astray from faith, by reason, logic, science, etc.

I happily fail that test.

Nope, it does not test faith at all. Life test faith, not belief systems. Besides, faith is personal and cannot be generalized by religion or an established set of beliefs. It gives you an out, because you have judged it as wrong, and there is no longer a conflict in what you believe. It is quite possible that the story was just one item in a list of items that formed your belief system. It would seem to me that you were doing the testing, not God.

As for calling the moon a light, I will remain "wrong" in calling it a light, for the rest of my life. It is a light in my way of thinking and always will be, because at night it is a light regardless of the mechanics. I did not call it a light based on what the Bible said. I call it a light, because in my experience it has always been a light. It was not life changing either when I found out that it was just reflecting the sun. Nor did I feel that I was deceiving myself by continuing to call it a light.

I did a quick survey of my 3 kids (15, 14, 12): is the moon a light? first response. 15 year old, "it reflects does not matter what you call it." 14 year old "yes", had not really thought about it reflecting the sun. 12 year old, "no, call everything related to the moon as sunlight."

 

[Birdjaguar]

I did not say that Genesis was right or wrong. I just said that it seemed the usage for the moon to be a light is figurative. I keep hearing the story is wrong and should just be taken figuratively. What is the point to just view it as poetic? When pointing out that the statement about the moon is figurative, you indicated that makes the whole story figurative. Why is it so important that the story is not a literal one? It was not a test, nor was it necessarily a mistake. I cannot be the only one who calls the reflection that comes from the moon, as moonlight, nor do I have an issue with calling the moon a light.


As for calling the moon a light, I will remain "wrong" in calling it a light, for the rest of my life. It is a light in my way of thinking and always will be, because at night it is a light regardless of the mechanics. I did not call it a light based on what the Bible said. I call it a light, because in my experience it has always been a light. It was not life changing either when I found out that it was just reflecting the sun. Nor did I feel that I was deceiving myself by continuing to call it a light.

I did a quick survey of my 3 kids (15, 14, 12): is the moon a light? first response. 15 year old, "it reflects does not matter what you call it." 14 year old "yes", had not really thought about it reflecting the sun. 12 year old, "no, call everything related to the moon as sunlight."

Of course the moon is a light in the night sky. Its source of light is the sun; so what. The source of the sun's light is fusion. It is easy to get lost in the trees of definitions and miss the moonlight falling on the forest at night. "Falling" is probably night the right word, but it will have to do.

Genesis tells a story that is not scientifically true in 2016, but words are like slippery pigs and their original meanings can be hard to grasp when we study them 2500 years removed and we are predisposed to what they "should" mean.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Then it isn't magic. It's misdirection, sleight of hand, etc. Magic is real. Once you understand how it works, it becomes chemistry, engineering, or whatever. That does not make it fiction.

Using the term magic to describe something like Genesis is like emptying a swimming pool with a fork. It is neither appropriate nor effective, despite a vague association. Something done by God is defined to be beyond comprehension. At best we can get glimpses of a process or two. Often, not even that.

The water into wine miracle has always stood out as different from others. For one thing, it was done to order. For another, it involved true transformation. The water was already there. It was converted, in a negligible amount of time to better quality wine than was already being served. That is not magic. It is something fundamentally more difficult. Of course, raising a decomposing corpse to life and health is pretty big as well.

No one is going to show you. God knocks but it's your door. You have to open the door yourself. He gave that much freedom.

J

I've stated what it will take to get me to accept that this could have happened. Saying "you have to have faith" or talking about doors just isn't going to do it.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The New Testament does not mention powdered alcohol. It was "all we have is water." Then ZAP! and "okay, now we have wine."

For that to be literally true, it requires believing in magic, and magic is nothing more than an illusion. It's not real.

Magic is not necessary an illusion. It can also be simply something which we dont have good knowledge of and which works along the yet unmaped natural laws. Occult forces are essentialy of mental nature but the physical science which is prominent today as a mean of knowledge does not study mind and its forces except as a purely physical phenomena. [/QUOTE]

Not quite. He is saying that this assumption is not only true for him, but that MUST be true for everyone else, and no argument otherwise is accepted. It's like assuming that 2 + 2 = 5, and that's all there is to it, he has spoken.

I don't have a problem with everything that exists being part of the universe. Carl Sagan said it himself: "The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."

I just have a problem with the assumption that it's the same as the Old Testament god.

I think the Old Testament God is simply an approximation of the universal and transcendental God I am trying to picture together with the human kind of mentality of its time. I dont have much doubt that at that time and place kind of a ruthless diety was a practical way how to approach reality simply becouse of the ruthless mind-set of those people. I dont see it as a practical today but that doesnt mean that this God and God-forming mind-set isnt a reality of some kind just like an existence of a tiger is in spite of me having practicaly zero fear of tigers.

Now we can try to debate the nature of the universe/God.

 

[Agent327]

The New Testament does not mention powdered alcohol. It was "all we have is water." Then ZAP! and "okay, now we have wine."

For that to be literally true, it requires believing in magic, and magic is nothing more than an illusion. It's not real.

So, literally, the wine wasn't real. Because magic.

I think the Old Testament God is simply an approximation of the universal and transcendental God I am trying to picture together with the human kind of mentality of its time.

There is nothing in the Hebrew Bible to indicate that God was anything else than a God of the Jews - and nobody else.

 

[Arakhor]

the primordial waters appear in all 3 cultures - chaos and darkness to the greek and the ice giant in Norse myth

Well, now you're reaching, even by your standards. Even if you're going to claim that the ice giant Ymir is some sort of metaphor for the primordial watery void, where are you even going with this? The Greek or Egyptian gods having lots of sex or Ymir getting the universe's first reconstructive surgery are clearly not how the world was actually formed.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

So, literally, the wine wasn't real. Because magic.

I dont follow your logic. If you change something with an occult force it does assume the properties and characteristic of its normal physical state. In other words if you have access to the proper tools of the secret nature you can change what we understand as the molecular structure of physical matter through conscious manipulation. I dont think knowledge of physics or chemistry is required as the change is done in subtler plane than that of physical matter where all existing mental, physical or emotional phenomena are recorded. If you had the means for this kind of transmutation you could take the trouble to look for a chardonnay rose or something and voila..
The rationale here is clearly that all existing matter is part of some universal element which can be mentaly manipulated but also it requires existence of subtler parallel worlds which are enveloping the physical universe and the possibility of communication among them.

There is nothing in the Hebrew Bible to indicate that God was anything else than a God of the Jews - and nobody else.

I dont know about that. But what counts is that Jesus would clearly disagree.