Support NeoGAF

[Sharp]

No. Simply not possible. Due to entropy, we will enter proton decay in about 10^100 years. Stars will stop shining in about 10^15 years.

Over such extended periods of time, we really don't know whether the current physical laws will remain constant. There is some evidence to suggest that at least one value commonly believed to be a physical constant is not, in fact, the same in other parts of the universe. So I'd hesitate before declaring anything with such certainty about events that will occur 10^15 years in the future.

 

[jay]

Here is something that might help others understand why we believe what the Bible says:

That's some pretty thick satire. You may want to go easier on the Christians.

 

[The Technomancer]

Here is something that might help others understand why we believe what the Bible says:

I'm not even sure where to start addressing this. Its entire argument of consistency depends on people not modifying the books of the Bible to perpetuate their message over the last 2000 years, which we certainly have no proof of in the first 500-1000 years after Jesus' death.

 

[jay]

I'm not even sure where to start addressing this. Its entire argument of consistency depends on people not modifying the books of the Bible to perpetuate their message over the last 2000 years, which we certainly have no proof of in the first 500-1000 years after Jesus' death.

We actually have a lot of proof of the books being modified.

 

[The Technomancer]

We actually have a lot of proof of the books being modified.

Oh, really? My knowledge on the actual history and investigation of Christianity is quite weak.

 

[Sharp]

We actually have a lot of proof of the books being modified.

Really? I don't take the bible literally but this is news to me. The Dead Sea scrolls are generally thought to have been a "spinoff," and I wasn't aware that there were a whole lot of other copies of the books with dramatic differences. Perhaps you could give us some sources for this?

 

[Noirulus]

Over such extended periods of time, we really don't know whether the current physical laws will remain constant. There is some evidence to suggest that at least one value commonly believed to be a physical constant is not, in fact, the same in other parts of the universe. So I'd hesitate before declaring anything with such certainty about events that will occur 10^15 years in the future.

I'd be interested to see what that is. AFAIK, Physics is the same everywhere in the universe, from our observations so far.

Really? I don't take the bible literally but this is news to me. The Dead Sea scrolls are generally thought to have been a "spinoff," and I wasn't aware that there were a whole lot of other copies of the books with dramatic differences. Perhaps you could give us some sources for this?

It is widely believed that 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus of the new testament were not written by paul. The style of writing and other things are almost completely different from the first 7 letters. I'm too lazy to look up sources but i'm sure someone else will do it

 

[Zaptruder]

Really? I don't take the bible literally but this is news to me. The Dead Sea scrolls are generally thought to have been a "spinoff," and I wasn't aware that there were a whole lot of other copies of the books with dramatic differences. Perhaps you could give us some sources for this?

You should probably begin with the knowledge that the modern bible (king james and derivatives) and the catholic church are essentially the product of 4th century rome; and its emperor Constantine.

 

[Kapura]

Here is something that might help others understand why we believe what the Bible says:

I read that, and it made me angry. Very few of those arguments hold water against any sort of questioning, although they may appear to be superficially correct. I would have many fewer problems with theist argument if it stopped at the singular leap of faith: "I believe there is a God." That is something that cannot be proven or disproved, cannot be argued, and is where the difference between Theists and Atheists lies. Instead they bring up arguments which an intelligent person can dance circles around, further fuelling the feud between the two sides.

 

[jay]

Bart Ehrman has written on the topic. An example is the "let he is without sin..." story was not in the original and was inserted later. I'm sure Answers in Genesis and whatnot have long articles people can copy and paste to discredit the guy, though.

You should probably begin with the knowledge that the modern bible (king james and derivatives) and the catholic church are essentially the product of 4th century rome; and its emperor Constantine.

Yeah, and this. There are other books and versions that were not chosen to be part of the official codified Bible.

 

[The Technomancer]

I'd be interested to see what that is. AFAIK, Physics is the same everywhere in the universe, from our observations so far.

Although also to be fair we do know that a.)some "physical laws" were different in the moments after the big bang/inflation, and b.)There is a limit to how much of the universe we can observe dictated by the speed of light.

 

[Sharp]

I'd be interested to see what that is. AFAIK, Physics is the same everywhere in the universe, from our observations so far.

There was a thread on GAF about it at one point. This Wikipedia entry goes into more detail. As I said, there is "some evidence"--it's not conclusive by any means--but it's definitely not a settled matter.

You should probably begin with the knowledge that the modern bible (king james and derivatives) and the catholic church are essentially the product of 4th century rome; and its emperor Constantine.

I'm Jewish by birth so I only really know about the Old Testament, but my impression was that that had remained relatively constant. It's entirely possible that the New Testament changed frequently.

It is widely believed that 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus of the new testament were not written by paul. The style of writing and other things are almost completely different from the first 7 letters. I'm too lazy to look up sources but i'm sure someone else will do it

Ah, cool. Good to know. Like I said, I'm not up to date on my New Testament information

 

[jay]

Instead they bring up arguments which an intelligent person can dance circles around, further fuelling the feud between the two sides.

You know he believes every word of it, right?

 

[Orayn]

I find it kind of funny that Game Analyst's wall of text is something that GTP_Daverytimes posted in another thread, albeit in a slightly different form. Fundies share a common ammo pool, I guess.

 

[Noirulus]

Although also to be fair we do know that a.)some "physical laws" were different in the moments after the big bang/inflation, and b.)There is a limit to how much of the universe we can observe dictated by the speed of light.

Yeah, i'm aware that after a very significantly small time after the big bang, the temperature was so high that our physics can't describe that.

but what do you mean by b.)? If your telescope was strong enough, you would see an opaque wall, this was during the time of the universe when photons were not free to travel, and so it was a dense fog. Are you implying something else?

 

[Chaplain]

Bart Ehrman has written on the topic. An example is the "let he is without sin..."

Robert Dick Wilson is considered one of the greatest Old Testament Biblical Scholars that has ever lived. Here is some background info on him:

Wilson was born in Indiana, Pennsylvania. He proved himself an outstanding language student even as an undergraduate. While at Princeton University, he was able to read the New Testament in nine languages. He graduated from Princeton at the age of 20, later receiving a master's degree and doctorate before doing post-graduate work in Germany at the Humboldt University of Berlin. In 1883, Wilson became Professor of the Old Testament at Western Theological Seminary (later known as Pittsburgh Theological Seminary), where he had done some of his graduate studies. In 1900, he returned to Princeton as the William Henry Green Professor of Semitic Languages and Old Testament Criticism at Princeton Theological Seminary.

Throughout his career, he opposed the higher criticism theory, which held that the Bible was inaccurate on many points and not historically reliable. Professor Wilson wrote, "I have come to the conviction that no man knows enough to attack the veracity of the Old Testament. Every time when anyone has been able to get together enough documentary 'proofs' to undertake an investigation, the biblical facts in the original text have victoriously met the test" (quoted in R. Pache, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture).

Wilson was but twenty-five years of age when he determined that he would invest years of careful study in the text of the Old Testament so that he could speak with authority as to whether or not it has been preserved in an accurate format.

The body of Old Testament literature was completed by 400 B.C., and yet prior to 1946 (when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered), the oldest copies of the Old Testament Scriptures we possessed dated to about the tenth century A.D. There was, therefore, a gap of some twelve hundred years between the last of the Old Testament books and the extant manuscripts.

Could we be sure that the writings at our disposal had been faithfully preserved? After all, even if one is confident that the original Scriptures were inspired of God, that would amount to little if they have been grossly corrupted across the centuries. This was the task, therefore, to which young Wilson dedicated himself. And he was a wonderfully disciplined person.

Based upon the longevity of his immediate ancestors, Robert Wilson estimated that he might live to about seventy years of age. Since he was twenty-five at the time, that would give him about forty-five years remaining to accomplish his goal. Accordingly, he divided his projected remaining years into three periods of fifteen years each. Here is how he would pursue his plan:

For the first fifteen years, he would study every language that had a bearing on the text of the Old Testament. He set himself to the task. During that time he mastered forty-five languages! He not only became an expert in Hebrew and its kindred tongues, but he learned all the languages into which the Scriptures had been translated down to the year A.D. 600.

During the next fifteen years Wilson dedicated himself to studying the text of the Old Testament itself. He looked at every consonant in the Old Testament text (the Hebrew Old Testament has no vowels)—about one and a quarter million of them. He made a thorough scientific investigation of the Old Testament text, as compared to other writings of antiquity.

Wilson noted that there are twenty-nine ancient, pagan kings of various nations which are mentioned in the Bible. Their names are also found in the writings of their own lands. The names of these kings consist of 195 consonants. He discovered that in the Old Testament there are only two or three letters—of the entire 195—that are in question as to spelling. By way of contrast, in the secular literature of the same period, the names of those rulers frequently are so garbled that one can scarcely identify the person.

For example, Ptolemy, an ancient writer, drew up a list of eighteen Babylonian kings, and not a one of them is spelled correctly. The text of the Bible was amazingly precise.

Wilson then spent his remaining years writing down the results of his long research. He authored a marvelous book titled, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, in which he confidently affirmed “we are scientifically certain that we have substantially the same [Old Testament] text that was in the possession of Christ and the apostles and, so far as anybody knows, the same as that written by the original composers of the Old Testament documents.”

So, to say the Bible was altered, at least the Old Testament, is false from a academic point of view.

 

[Sharp]

Right, like I said, I hadn't heard anything about the Old Testament being substantially altered, at least not since the A.D.s, which is why I was surprised at this thread. But apparently most of the documented changes likely took place in the New Testament.

 

[The Technomancer]

Yeah, i'm aware that after a very significantly small time after the big bang, the temperature was so high that our physics can't describe that.

but what do you mean by b.)? If your telescope was strong enough, you would see an opaque wall, this was during the time of the universe when photons were not free to travel, and so it was a dense fog. Are you implying something else?

The Observable Universe is a sphere approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter. We can't see anything outside of it because the light from anything further away then that hasn't had time to reach us since inflation. Its so large even though the universe is only 13.5 billion years old due to the continued expansion, i.e we see things that appear to be only 10 billion light years away but when we take into account that they have also been moving away from us for 10 billion years we can say that we "observe" something that is much further away.

 

[jay]

Robert Dick Wilson is considered one of the greatest Old Testament Biblical Scholars that has ever lived. Here is some background info on him:



So, to say the Bible was altered, at least the Old Testament, is false from a academic point of view.

The specific thing I pointed out is actually a New Testament story. Also, no offense but I trust nothing you have to say on this topic at face value.

"Robert Dick Wilson (February 4, 1856 – October 11, 1930) was an American linguist and Presbyterian scholar who devoted his life to an attempt to prove the reliability of the Hebrew Bible."

I may do more research on the guy and his work but it is already off to a bad start.

Also, to hear you argue something from the academic point of view is funny. I guess evolution is true after all?

 

[Raist]

I'm Jewish by birth so I only really know about the Old Testament, but my impression was that that had remained relatively constant. It's entirely possible that the New Testament changed frequently.

The OT has been edited and modified multiple times by multiple sources.

 

[soul creator]

The OT has been edited and modified multiple times by multiple sources.

damn you mods!

 

[Sharp]

The OT has been edited and modified multiple times by multiple sources.

I don't deny it, I'd just like to see a source for it, particularly for modifications occurring in the Old Testament after the creation of the New Testament. I know there's some work demonstrating at least five or six probable authors for the Old Testament, probably at different periods of time. Certainly for at least a millenium or so (probably longer) copying the OT letter for letter in painstaking detail has been given paramount importance, to the point that we are still preserving ancient typos.

damn you mods!

:jakncoke

 

[Raist]

I don't deny it, I'd just like to see a source for it, particularly for modifications occurring in the Old Testament after the creation of the New Testament. I know there's some work demonstrating at least five or six probable authors for the Old Testament, probably at different periods of time.

Ah. My bad.
Well I don't think there's any evidence pointing at the OT being modified after the NT was put together, but then again I'm not an expert.

 

[Sharp]

BTW, people citing the Bible as evidence: saying that the Bible had some historical accuracy has nothing to do with whether God existed or not. History books also have historical accuracy but they don't prove the existence of a deity. And if the OT makes hundreds of prophecies, you can't just cherrypick one or two and say that they have come to pass; through sheer chance you'd expect that to happen. You have to show that most or all of them have come to pass or are coming to pass. Similarly, citing prophecies made in the bible as being fulfilled based on evidence from the bible is circular and not likely to convince anyone who doesn't already treat the bible as gospel.

 

[Chaplain]

Also, to hear you argue something from the academic point of view is funny. I guess evolution is true after all?

Science is observable, testable, & repeatable, right? Using this definition for science, what many scientists say about the theory of evolution is scientifically wrong.

 

[The Technomancer]

Science is observable, testable, & repeatable, right? Using this definition for science, what many scientists say about the theory of evolution is scientifically wrong.

Are you in the group that says evolution can happen on micro scales, but not on macro scales? Because we have repeated experiments showing that the basic tenets of evolution happen before our very eyes with bacteria.

 

[Sharp]

Science is observable, testable, & repeatable, right? Using this definition for science, what many scientists say about the theory of evolution is scientifically wrong.

This is extremely interesting. Do you think that the principles of evolution aren't observable, testable, and repeatable? Do you think that evolution has made no predictions and we have been unable to test those predictions, or that it has made predictions and those predictions have been proven false? Please explain.

Are you in the group that says evolution can happen on micro scales, but not on macro scales? Because we have repeated experiments showing that the basic tenets of evolution happen before our very eyes with bacteria.

Evolution has also predicted a lot of other things that we either have fossil records or living specimens to demonstrate existed, along with otherwise inexplicable phenomena like vestigial organs. That's why I find his assertion so interesting. No doubt he has some new evidence that just recently came to light and will blow us out of the water.

 

[wolfmat]

No. I was assuming that time holds no meaning before the Big Bang. I'm confused by your point. If you are at a state that is essentially beginningless, time holds no meaning. There is no point in time in which the Big Bang occurs. It is essentially a meaningless question as there is no starting point. That state has always been. If it has always been, the idea that energy could build up gradually would also be meaningless. That would indicate a period of time. Why then does the Big Bang occur?

It's a question you can't answer.

Of course I can't answer the question. But that doesn't mean much. I'm not particularly involved in cosmology. You should probably speak to someone who actually knows his stuff instead of me; I only have the general ideas down, but the particulars in that extreme state are beyond me.

Anyway, there are multiple theories about said trigger; one of the recent ones involves an exterior source and a generally cyclical model (the M-brane thing). But that's outside of my interests.

I don't think it's necessary for the BB to have a humanly comprehensible trigger anyway, as long as evidence shows it's occured. At least in our current state of scientific advancement.

What were we talking about, anyway? I mean, the BB is a good candidate for Godwin's Law applied to religion threads, right?

 

[jay]

This is extremely interesting. Do you think that the principles of evolution aren't observable, testable, and repeatable? Do you think that evolution has made no predictions and we have been unable to test those predictions, or that it has made predictions and those predictions have been proven false? Please explain.

It's only interesting if you haven't read the stuff he is going to copy paste here 500 times already in countless conversations with other creationists.

 

[Subtervotion]

Science is observable, testable, & repeatable, right? Using this definition for science, what many scientists say about the theory of evolution is scientifically wrong.

A scientist can observe, and repeatably test the theory of evolution right now. The fossil record and DNA allow that.

We cannot 'see' something evolve in front of our eyes, however.

 

[Kosmo]

A scientist can observe, and repeatably test the theory of evolution right now. The fossil record and DNA allow that.

We cannot 'see' something evolve in front of our eyes, however.

Read "The Beak of the Finch" - evolution in real time.

 

[Sharp]

Read "The Beak of the Finch" - evolution in real time.

A lot of creationists / IDers accept that evolution can occur on what they see as a "small scale" (beak swapping, etc.) but not on a large one. Never mind that the exact same mechanisms are at work nor the fact that we see drastic mutations pretty frequently, nor that as a percentage viral and bacterial DNA changes more than enough to constitute "large scale" evolution, nor the experiments showing that the "large steps" that it is argued could not have occurred by chance can often be replicated in a laboratory with very little in the way of "intelligent" prodding. Ultimately, opposition to evolution is all about not wanting to believe the evidence that's staring you in the face. It has nothing to do with science or reason.

 

[Orayn]

A scientist can observe, and repeatably test the theory of evolution right now. The fossil record and DNA allow that.

We cannot 'see' something evolve in front of our eyes, however.

We watched a colony of e.coli develop the ability to process citrate, which was supposed to be a non-edible part of its food. Took a few years for the mutation to develop, but it definitely happened and it's very well documented.

 

[CornBurrito]

We watched a colony of e.coli develop the ability to process citrate, which was supposed to be a non-edible part of its food. Took a few years for the mutation to develop, but it definitely happened and it's very well documented.

Bbbut the e.coli is still e.coli! That's MICRO evolution!!!

Spoiler

Fundamentalists say the darnedest things.

 

[Septimius]

To people discussing the veracity of the writers of the bible and when it was written, I give you this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70SYwkoH_yc

While the video in itself only sheds light on the fact that it seems that a handful of people wrote the bible, and how it was modified throughout time, it does point to all the sources you'd ever need to further investigate this, meaning the video is a fair introduction before I ask people to read books on the matter. There's a lot of information about this out there, and I do not wish to take up this discussion, myself, since this guy does an amazing job at it.

 

[zomaha]

A lot of creationists / IDers accept that evolution can occur on what they see as a "small scale" (beak swapping, etc.) but not on a large one. Never mind that the exact same mechanisms are at work nor the fact that we see drastic mutations pretty frequently, nor that as a percentage viral and bacterial DNA changes more than enough to constitute "large scale" evolution, nor the experiments showing that the "large steps" that it is argued could not have occurred by chance can often be replicated in a laboratory with very little in the way of "intelligent" prodding. Ultimately, opposition to evolution is all about not wanting to believe the evidence that's staring you in the face. It has nothing to do with science or reason.

I personally find it hilarious when people say they accept micro evolution but not macro.

I try to tell them macro is just a whole bunch of micro built up over time, but for some reason they just can't make that connection. It's almost like their brains are so feeble that they can't comprehend how long "millions of years" really is.

 

[Kapura]

Human mind can't abstractly conceptualise what millions of years means. It's not their fault, it's evolution's.

 

[Ashes]

Can a scientitst be a true scientist if he/she/or any other gender or a mix of genders, believe in a god of some kind or another?

 

[NullPointer]

Can a scientitst be a true scientist if he/she/or any other gender or a mix of genders, believe in a god of some kind or another?

You'd lose a lot of great minds and discoveries if you instituted a litmus test.

 

[CornBurrito]

Can a scientitst be a true scientist if he/she/or any other gender or a mix of genders, believe in a god of some kind or another?

I'd say yes. There have been/are great scientists that believ(ed) in god, and view(ed) their work as explaining the method by which god does things.

While their belief in god/gods might be unscientific, their discoveries are based around the scientific method and still valuable.

And "true scientist" just strikes me as "true Scotsman."

 

[Kapura]

Can a scientitst be a true scientist if he/she/or any other gender or a mix of genders, believe in a god of some kind or another?

Yes.

 

[wolfmat]

Can a scientitst be a true scientist if he/she/or any other gender or a mix of genders, believe in a god of some kind or another?

Sure, why not? What problems do you think could arise that would make them untrue scientists?

 

[The Technomancer]

Sure, why not? What problems do you think could arise that would make them untrue scientists?

Well there is the theoretical problem where if you believe in the existence of God then you accept that at a certain point science will reach a barrier of understanding beyond which "God did it" is the explanation. Thats hardly an issue that the vast majority of real world religious scientists are ever going to face though.

 

[Cyan]

Can a scientitst be a true scientist if he/she/or any other gender or a mix of genders, believe in a god of some kind or another?

Why wouldn't they be?

 

[Ashes]

Well there is the theoretical problem where if you believe in the existence of God then you accept that at a certain point science will reach a barrier of understanding beyond which "God did it" is the explanation. Thats hardly an issue that the vast majority of real world religious scientists are ever going to face though.

If god did it, there must be a way god did it. If god is a rational idea, so must his methods be. Alternatively, you may ask, that one day we may reach a position where it becomes beyond human reasoning. A lot of the most complex scientific ideas are arguably fully understood by a select few in the world today. Right?

 

[The Technomancer]

If god did it, there must be a way god did it. If god is a rational idea, so must his methods be. Alternatively, you may ask, that one day we may reach a position where it becomes beyond human reasoning. A lot of the most complex scientific ideas are arguably fully understood by a select few in the world today. Right?

Every religious person I've ever spoken with, even those I've explicitly talked about science with, have said that it is impossible to understand the nature of God or to scientifically explain His methods. That He exists beyond the scope of human understanding.

 

[Ashes]

Every religious person I've ever spoken with, even those I've explicitly talked about science with, have said that it is impossible to understand the nature of God or to scientifically explain His methods. That He exists beyond the scope of human understanding.

Let me put it another way. Is it a bad idea to be a theist, if you are a scientist?
If I were the director of the science club, and a position opened up, and two people show up: 1 is theist, and 2 is atheist, which one would I hire, if they were equally qualified in every other virtue?

 

[jay]

Let me put it another way. Is it a bad idea to be a theist, if you are a scientist?
If I were the director of the science club, and a position opened up, and two people show up: 1 is theist, and 2 is atheist, which one would I hire, if they were equally qualified in every other virtue?

Which one is more likely to sleep with me?

 

[The Technomancer]

Let me put it another way. Is it a bad idea to be a theist, if you are a scientist?
If I were the director of the science club, and a position opened up, and two people show up: 1 is theist, and 2 is atheist, which one would I hire, if they were equally qualified in every other virtue?

Oh yeah, my point was a theoretical one. Like I said, its not going to apply to the vast majority of scientists because the vast majority of scientists are not going to reach a point in their work that they would be compelled to explain through God.

 

[Ashes]

Which one is more likely to sleep with me?

Lol!
<serious face> which part of equal in every other virtue did you not understand.