My spirit is troubled..

[Mytical]

I have my own 'crazy' view of how things might have actually happened in the bible. Things that make sense to me, but might be seen as absolutely crazy to others. So, just to have it out there..so you know how mixed up I might be in this religion thing..here it is. This of course assuming everything in the bible is literal, and everything actually did happen as it said in said bible.

First, the world would not have to be only six thousand years old. Adam was in Eden for an untold amount of time before Eve came along. He was immortal (mortality did not start until the apple was eaten, when knowledge was gained), so did not keep track of time. Each day was taken as it was with no care of the past or future. No harm could befall him, so why worry about what tomorrow was? Then came Eve, and they lived in harmony again for an untold time. It could have been billions of years..as I said they were immortal, and living in a physical heaven basically where no harm could befall them. They had no reason to keep track of time, and the outside world kept turning, unable to affect what was in 'paradise'. The universe, everything aged..Adam and Eve..being in paradise and not knowing death, age, disease, etc did not. Until the day that they ate the apple. When they were thrown out they became no longer immortal..and began to worry about tomorrow and actually count days. Thus the six thousand years began AFTER the apple was eaten. Any amount of time could have passed until that point..no where that I have ever seen tells how long Adam was around before Eve, or Eve was around before they ate the apple..and it does say that they would not know death unless they ate of the apple. So...ie immortality, agelessness.

Now during that time I think evolution was also taking place..why do I say that? Because Cain and Abel went to the land of Nod for their wives..if it was just incest (which would be the only other way we would have populated) why would they have to travel to find their wives? IE they would have had to have something like Cromagnon (spelling) wives. Anyhow..that is my crazy theory on how the world could be billions of years old and the bible be correct as well.

I have much stranger ideas on how the universe works, but there is one. Yep, I belong in the loony bin, but seems to make some logical sense if the bible is actually to be believed.

I would state some more of my more controversial theories, but have given enough rope for people to hang me with for today. Sorry for the offtopic..carry on.

[Gravekeeper]

This of course assuming everything in the bible is literal, and everything actually did happen as it said in said bible.

Yeah, I wouldn't tread that route. Seeing as its been proven otherwise 8 ways from Sunday. The Bible is essentially Aesop's Fables. A collection of stories to be used as morale teaching tools. Many of said stories are far older than the Bible and appear long before Christianity existed.

The Gospels are where things get muddy. Those are sort of half historical and half mythological. Half of it is an attempt at documenting the teachings of Jesus, the other half is mythology, shamelessly lifted from other, older sources.

As for your musings on Genesis, well....Genesis is a novel, really. One that was pieced together by editors from several different sources around 500 BC or so and by combining two different versions. Originally there was just the story itself, a creation fable. It was combined with a "historical" account for the appropriate effect by adding the covenants to it and breaking it up into "generations".

It was an intentional product, meant to run contrary to Babylon's polytheistic creation myth. By borrowing Sumerian myths and rewriting them into a monotheistic format. Basically, Genesis was kind of a plagerised fuck you rebuttal to the polytheism of Israel's enemies at the time.

So debating its divine relevance is rather moot. It was written by the hands of men for a specific purpose in the face of opposing religions. It has no divine inspiration or source. It's a calculated literary product dervised by borrowing bits from various sources and combining them with rewritten Sumerian myths.

Its at the first of the Bible because its a good beginning. Much like Revelations was basically added simply because it was a good ending. You have to remember the Bible went together like any other book. It had editors, proof readers, critics, etc. Before it was finalized. Revelations was actually a controversial additional but was forced in by powerful buttfaces.

If the assembly of the Bible had been a democratic process, you wouldn't even know what Revelations was. -.-

[Hyena Dandy]

I have a problem with your claim, GK, that if miracles exist we would notice because they'd inevitably send shock waves/chaos effect stuff. But it seems to me that if there's a supernatural power powerful enough to, say, suspend all natural laws that say that water doesn't turn into wine when you're not looking, or that this bag can only hold ten fish, then the power might also be powerful enough to suspend the natural laws that say we'd inevitably notice.

[Gravekeeper]

But it seems to me that if there's a supernatural power powerful enough to, say, suspend all natural laws that say that water doesn't turn into wine when you're not looking, or that this bag can only hold ten fish, then the power might also be powerful enough to suspend the natural laws that say we'd inevitably notice.

But that's simply not how the universe works. You cannot have cause without effect. Even the temporary suspension of a natural law creates an effect through the absence of that law. If you turn water into wine, you have added matter to the universe in the form of the additional ingredients required to turn water into wine. You have added matter that does not have any causality. Violating one of the most fundemental laws of physics.

You have most definately caused an effect and that is the core problem with any claim of divine intervention. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want the effect of intervention, yet say intervention can have no effect.

[Duelist925]

But that's simply not how the universe works. You cannot have cause without effect. Even the temporary suspension of a natural law creates an effect through the absence of that law. If you turn water into wine, you have added matter to the universe in the form of the additional ingredients required to turn water into wine. You have added matter that does not have any causality. Violating one of the most fundemental laws of physics.

You have most definately caused an effect and that is the core problem with any claim of divine intervention. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want the effect of intervention, yet say intervention can have no effect.

This is a bit of a tangent, but a friend told me of a theory of his that the reason we don't see "biblical" miracles anymore today is the fact that we can scientifically observe them now, and thus "prove" the existence of the devine of we were to ever capture scientific evidence of it. Hence why all "miracles" that are reported now a days (miraculous recoveries from cancer, for instance) remain unexplained--God simply moving in an a way we don't understand yet. ONce we understand that way, he'd move on to another.

[Gravekeeper]

This is a bit of a tangent, but a friend told me of a theory of his that the reason we don't see "biblical" miracles anymore today is the fact that we can scientifically observe them now, and thus "prove" the existence of the devine of we were to ever capture scientific evidence of it. Hence why all "miracles" that are reported now a days (miraculous recoveries from cancer, for instance) remain unexplained--God simply moving in an a way we don't understand yet. ONce we understand that way, he'd move on to another.

Do you need me to tell you how stupid that is or are you already aware? >.>

[Mytical]

GK, it depends on your view of things. Yes a cosmic scale miracle might indeed be noticed by all. The scope of things however is important. How we notice things also must be taken into account. For instance, turning said water into wine. It does not create anything, it changes the state of the matter. Nowhere does it say that matter can not be changed. Or else koolaide and such would never be possible.

Now..lets take a patient that has been told. "There is nothing we can do, there is no cure..and you should get your affairs in order. You have two years at most." Two years come and go, patient is still there. All tests show that the illness has gone into remission without any explanation. Doctors are stumped, patient is stumped, heck everybody around the patient is scratching their head. Medicine didn't do it, doctors didn't do anything..there was nothing they could have done, yet..patient is alive when everything says "He should be dead." That is observable...but I am sure those who do not believe in miracles will point out that the universe is so big, and so old, that random chance means anything is possible. Ie nothing is a miracle, regardless of how rare it is.

[Andara Bledin]

Whose to say the water was turned into wine at all? There's more than enough wine out there that's already available to just swap it out. One drop each from thousands of bottles would more than do the trick and be completely undetectable and neither create nor destroy a thing.

Honestly, the idea that we know so much is laughable at best.

Plus, the lack of imagination displayed by those who refuse to accept that they might not know it all is actually quite disappointing.

^-.-^

[Seifer]

Plus, the lack of imagination displayed by those who refuse to accept that they might not know it all is actually quite disappointing.

^-.-^

Normally, "making things up" isn't the right way to explain a happening. Having an imagination is fine and dandy, but just because it can be imagined doesn't mean it's plausible.

[Hyena Dandy]

You have added matter that does not have any causality. Violating one of the most fundemental laws of physics.

And that's exactly my problem with what you're saying.

You've ALREADY violated the laws of physics. If magic can break the laws of physics in one way, why can't it in a second way?

Magic is magical. There's no reason I can see it can't be ALL magical. This isn't something like in Star Trek, with Replicators where things are created out of nothing with science. It's magic, and things done with magic are, by definition, breaking the laws of physics. So why is violating a fundamental law of physics a problem when it comes to noticing the water isn't wine, but not a problem when we're making something something that it isn't?

You're saying I can't have my cake and eat it to, but I can. That's the thing about this cake. It is a magic cake. It can be had and eaten at the same time. If it wasn't a magic cake, I wouldn't be having a cake at all. The cake in question is magic by its very existence.

The argument that "Magic can't happen, because if it did, we would notice it" is essentially the same thing as saying "Magic can't happen, because magic can't happen."

If magic breaks some laws of physics, why are we drawing the line at this one?

[Duelist925]

Do you need me to tell you how stupid that is or are you already aware? >.>

Feel free. I fail to see the stupidity. It seems a reasonable enough theory to explain why we don't see "biblical" miracles anymore. There are a lot of areas of science that aren't fully understood, or able to be fully measured. Hell, we only recently discovered something that MIGHT be the Higgs.

Enlighten me.


Incidentally, there is one hole in your arguement that we could detect any sort of miraculous event via its own effects that hasn't been addressed yet, I believe--it requires that we know all the variables, which we rarely do. If we don't know all the variables, what could be a higher power working is far more likely to be explained as "freak occurence" or be blamed on something else--say, a truck passing by a seismograph making it jump, rather than some supernatural power. After all, what scientist is going to say "god did it" or "obviously it was a nature spirit that was angry" when presented with odd data? Wouldn't they more likely either dismiss it as a malfunction, or blame it on some other aspect in the area?

[Gravekeeper]

For instance, turning said water into wine. It does not create anything, it changes the state of the matter. Nowhere does it say that matter can not be changed. Or else koolaide and such would never be possible.

It does not change the state of matter. Wine and water are composed of different ingredients. Water being one ingredient of wine. Matter has to be added. =p

Changing state would be liquid turning into a gas.

That is observable...but I am sure those who do not believe in miracles will point out that the universe is so big, and so old, that random chance means anything is possible. Ie nothing is a miracle, regardless of how rare it is.

That's exactly what statistical chance means, yes. There is a statistical chance of cancer farking off by itself. "Miraculous" cancer remission is very very rare, but research shows the explaination is likely the patient's immune system being triggered in a way the average person's isn't. Thus said miraculous recoveries are being studied for new treatments.

Whose to say the water was turned into wine at all? There's more than enough wine out there that's already available to just swap it out. One drop each from thousands of bottles would more than do the trick and be completely undetectable and neither create nor destroy a thing.

So now your argument is a divine being swapped 10,000,000 drops of water and wine just to impress a small group of people as evidenced in a 2000 year old book known for blatant plagarizing and being politically motivated?

Do you see the problem here yet? Besides, while your scenario is undetectable at the time, its not unobservable in practice and is still a cause and effect. Unless you're going with the "God hides from science because rawr, science bad" angle.

The argument that "Magic can't happen, because if it did, we would notice it" is essentially the same thing as saying "Magic can't happen, because magic can't happen."

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that magic can happen. No practical evidence. No theorhetically evidence. Not even a loose theory. The only reason you insist it exists is because you learned of the concept from other people.

You are literally arguing the cause of something completely imaginary.

If magic breaks some laws of physics, why are we drawing the line at this one?

You can't just break the laws of physics without consequence. The absence of a law is just as much an effect as the presence of a law.

The universe is an amazingly complex machine full of countless precision components. Think of it as old fashion watch. You're basically arguing "Well why can't I just jam a screw driver between two gears and not break anything?". You want to stop a gear, yet not stop all the gears that gear turns, yet still have the correct time.

Feel free. I fail to see the stupidity. It seems a reasonable enough theory to explain why we don't see "biblical" miracles anymore. There are a lot of areas of science that aren't fully understood, or able to be fully measured. Hell, we only recently discovered something that MIGHT be the Higgs.

Its a theory that completely ignores the fact the only "evidence" you have of said miracles is the Bible. A book you can't verify any aspect of, which was written by and manipulated by the hands of men, men who did not understand science as we do now and explained natural events as "God did it". Yet despite the mistakes, plagerism and unverifiable nature of the book, its still somehow acceptable evidence.

It's a logical fallacy. An argument from ignorance: The God of gaps.

Furthermore, by his and your logic, every other unverifiable miraculous claim has equal weight from every other religion and belief system that has ever existed despite the fact there are clear direct contractions and conflicts. And that's not even going into the shit laden can of worms that is the implications of "God" favouring one group of people over all others. As it makes God out to be an asshole of, well, Biblical proportions. -.-

As for Higgs, it was theorhetically projected by existing science. It had to exist to reconcile the laws of physics with quantum physics. It would have been a problem if it DIDN'T exist. Because then something weird would have been going on beyond our comprehension. But science predicted it, and it exists.

[Hyena Dandy]

The universe is an amazingly complex machine full of countless precision components. Think of it as old fashion watch. You're basically arguing "Well why can't I just jam a screw driver between two gears and not break anything?". You want to stop a gear, yet not stop all the gears that gear turns, yet still have the correct time.

But again,it's not a watch. It's not operating in a way that is comprehensible. If it was, it wouldn't be magic.

[Duelist925]

Its a theory that completely ignores the fact the only "evidence" you have of said miracles is the Bible. A book you can't verify any aspect of, which was written by and manipulated by the hands of men, men who did not understand science as we do now and explained natural events as "God did it". Yet despite the mistakes, plagerism and unverifiable nature of the book, its still somehow acceptable evidence.

It's a logical fallacy. An argument from ignorance: The God of gaps.

Furthermore, by his and your logic, every other unverifiable miraculous claim has equal weight from every other religion and belief system that has ever existed despite the fact there are clear direct contractions and conflicts. And that's not even going into the shit laden can of worms that is the implications of "God" favouring one group of people over all others. As it makes God out to be an asshole of, well, Biblical proportions. -.-

As for Higgs, it was theorhetically projected by existing science. It had to exist to reconcile the laws of physics with quantum physics. It would have been a problem if it DIDN'T exist. Because then something weird would have been going on beyond our comprehension. But science predicted it, and it exists.

I still fail to see the stupidity of it--it seems a sound enough theory to explain why such things might have happened in the past, and yet not today. And it doesn't claim the bible as evidence--he mostly takes a interpretive view of the book, much as I do, and he uses it to explain why such things might have happened back then, wether it be from the bible, various other mythologies, etc. and not happen today.

That men back then did not understand science is rather the point of it. And it does not invalidate that we may someday discover incontrovertible proof of god--we would simply need to have every variable that exists mapped. Which we don't yet.


*shrugs* Perhaps they do. While the most likely explanation is a completely natural happening (Or just shit getting made up or exaggerated) for most reports of "miracles" the action of a higher power, or supernatural entity is allowed via the logic I posted before.

And what implications? Please elaborate.

And you still haven't addressed the fact that unless we know every variable of something happening, it would be fairly easy for a higher power to exert some effect without being detected, as most would use occams razor and assume a more mundane reasoning behind something.

[Gravekeeper]

But again,it's not a watch. It's not operating in a way that is comprehensible. If it was, it wouldn't be magic.

Do you think we don't know *anything* about how the universe works? You're just repeating an appeal to ignorance over and over. You can't just wave your hand and say "magic" as if that will make logic and science go away so they stop bothering your imagination. The burden of proof is on *you* here, not me.

The universe is an amazingly complex machine, and we can see the gears moving. Why are you guys so hellbent on arguing ways to break the machine just because a 2000 year old novel written by people that thought a solar eclipse was the wrath of god told you so?

Its ass backwards and its completely the wrong question to be asking at this point in human advancement. I've been told in this thread that faith and science can co-exist, yet I have spend most of the thread having faith tell logic and science to go fuck itself because God. So there.

Why are you not looking forward at how a "God" might exist instead of backwards at how people who didn't know you shouldn't use the same hand to eat and wipe your ass thought "God" might exist? If you looked at a science textbook from the 1930s, you'd laugh at how little they knew. Yet you're perfectly willing to accept the claims of a 2000 year old book of short stories that went through much much less stringent review process.

But somehow I'm the ignorant one here?