Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: MadeInAfrica on 11/07/2006 22:12:15
-
do you really believe that Jesus walked on water?does it
make any logical sense? i think not.there's a scientific
study that showed that temperatures dropped low such that
water could have iced.this happened during the times when
Jesus lived.i will find you the article on the outcome of
that research.this makes sense to me,unlike what the bible
says.
here is another one:do you believe that it was a miracle
that the Israelites crossed the Red sea? well,think again.
According to a 'Bulletin Of The American Meteorological
Society' account, computer calculations indicate that
because of the peculiar geography of the northern end of
the Red Sea, a moderate wind blowing constantly for about
10 hours could have caused the sea to recede about a mile
and the water level to drop 10 ft., leaving dry land for a
period of time before crashing back when the winds died
down."
- Mike Fillon, "Science Solves the Ancient Myteries of the
Bible", Popular Mechanics, Dec. 1996
this too makes sense to me,but the bible says that it was a
miracle.
these stories are preached time and again in church and
millions of people believe them, most with no reason at all.
I LIVE IN A WORLD OF REASON!!!
-
Its called faith. people with faith dont need evidence, they just believe .
And their is no point in trying to point out to them that this or that is not possible.
Michael
-
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky
Its called faith. people with faith dont need evidence, they just believe .
And their is no point in trying to point out to them that this or that is not possible.
Michael
Thank you, Michael. My thoughts exactly.
Carolyn[:)]
-
my point is simply that through faith people believe in things in an irrational manner, with no proper reason at all. imagine someone comes to you and say: it is going to rain later today. you ask him/her why they think so. he says he saw it in a dream. another person comes with the same view that it is going to rain later. he tells you that he saw it on TV. obviously the second person is worth believing than the first one because of his/her reasoning, though the first person might also be correct.
apply the same logic to my point above.
-
quote:
Originally posted by MadeInAfrica
my point is simply that through faith people believe in things in an irrational manner, with no proper reason at all. imagine someone comes to you and say: it is going to rain later today. you ask him/her why they think so. he says he saw it in a dream. another person comes with the same view that it is going to rain later. he tells you that he saw it on TV. obviously the second person is worth believing than the first one because of his/her reasoning, though the first person might also be correct.
apply the same logic to my point above.
My answer is that both are equally worth believing – in the absence of any other information, why is a dream more or less believable than an image on a TV.
Ofcourse, the difference between history and prediction is that one can demonstrate whether the prediction comes true or not – with history, you know nothing more than what has been reported, and you either believe it or do not.
If someone says it is going to rain, and he said he saw it in a dream, and it subsequently does rain – how would that effect your argument?
I accept that the story of Jesus walking on water sounds implausible, particularly if one assumes that liquid water is the intended meaning, and we assume the water is of reasonably high purity (the highly saline water of the Dead sea, although one cannot actually walk on its surface, one can walk on it insofar as one does not sink beneath it). The point is that there are many possible interpretations of the story that has been handed down to us, but whatever it is, one can only talk about plausibility, not certainties.
You and I can discuss how we could, in the modern world, create an event, using our current understanding of science, that might be interpreted as in some was 'walking on water'. None of this can prove what did or did not happen, only what seems probable may or may not have happened.
Incidentally, while I am no biblical expert, I thought the story pertained to the Sea of Galilee, not the Red Sea.
quote:
these stories are preached time and again in church and
millions of people believe them, most with no reason at all.
Most people who are taught physics in school believe what they are taught with no reason at all. There are a small number of real scientists who will question and test the laws of physics; but most ordinary members of the public merely believe what they are taught by their teachers, and for all that, it may as well be a religion.
George
-
The point about the Jesus walking on water story is, surely, that it *is* impossible. Same for the Red Sea.
In the context of a belief in the Judeo-Christian god, there is no gap in the logic... it's impossible by the normal physical laws, but God did it all the same, because He is all powerful. (Not, just to clarify, what I believe, but it's a flawless argument as far as I can see... the only a priori assumption being a god who can do anything at all but in general choses not to).
There are three possibilities:
1. It never happened at all, it's all made up/an allegory/a joke we're missing/part of someone's plan to get a hold over some people at some point.
2. It happened, but it was the result of a set of odd coindidences involving the meterology/geology, which have been talked up/exaggerated into a good story.
3. It happened, as a result of a divine miracle.
Any one of these is perfectly plausible. My money is on a combination of 1 and 2 across the various biblical miracles, but that's a personal view.
Clearly 3 assumes the existence of a god, which we can't really prove or disprove, even by establishing that a given event was just a random act of nature. I have my own problems with the plausibility of the god of the bible, but they're not based on the miracles (or otherwise).
-
quote:
aMost people who are taught physics in school believe what they are taught with no reason at all. There are a small number of real scientists who will question and test the laws of physics; but most ordinary members of the public merely believe what they are taught by their teachers, and for all that, it may as well be a religion.
Except that if you chose not to believe it you're likely at worst to fail a few exams. No-one is telling children that if they don't believe this stuff they'll spend the rest of eternity somewhere horrible.
I think that's quite an important distinction.
-
another someone: think of it this way: someone comes to you and say "i believe that Italy is going to win the world cup",which they did. you ask him/her why? the answer you get is that "my ancestors told me so" or "i saw it in a dream" or "i just feel it".
another person comes with the belief that " France is going to win". the reason this time around is that "france has got a stronger team" or "the french are on top of their form" or "4 of Italy's top players are injured".
my point is that it is worth believing or talking to the person who goes with France because unlike the other one, he/she provided reasons that are worth taking into consideration. there is more reason to believe him than the one for Italy. this has nothing to do with the actual outcome of the game, but a lot to do with whether the reasons provide adequate grounds for the conclusion, which is the opinion or belief the person holds.
I LIVE IN A WORLD OF REASON!!!
-
quote:
Originally posted by MadeInAfrica
another someone: think of it this way: someone comes to you and say "i believe that Italy is going to win the world cup",which they did. you ask him/her why? the answer you get is that "my ancestors told me so" or "i saw it in a dream" or "i just feel it".
another person comes with the belief that " France is going to win". the reason this time around is that "france has got a stronger team" or "the french are on top of their form" or "4 of Italy's top players are injured".
my point is that it is worth believing or talking to the person who goes with France because unlike the other one, he/she provided reasons that are worth taking into consideration. there is more reason to believe him than the one for Italy. this has nothing to do with the actual outcome of the game, but a lot to do with whether the reasons provide adequate grounds for the conclusion, which is the opinion or belief the person holds.
I LIVE IN A WORLD OF REASON!!!
OK, lets give these guys some names, just so we can keep tabs on them. Let us say that Frank is the one telling you that France will win, and Moses is telling you that Italy will win.
Both Frank and Moses have given you there reasons why they have stated as they have. You cannot in fact necessarily trust that either reason is true, but being a trusting soul, we may believe them in the first instance. But, now Frank has got it wrong, and Moses got it right. I take your point that Frank's reason sounds more plausible than Moses's reason, but being the open minded investigators of the truth that we are, one can never dismiss either reason as impossible, only assign relative probabilities of veracity to them.
Say that for the next three matches, Moses's dreams have consistently correctly predicted the outcome of the match, while Franks more plausibly justified assertions have consistently got it wrong.
Now, Barney comes along, he tells you that he has spoken to Frank and Moses, and they have each given him tips on the upcoming match, and asks you whom should he go with? What would you tell Barney – do you tell him to go with Frank's well reasoned, but consistently wrong, predictions; or do you tell him that even though you cannot understand how Moses seems to get it consistently right, but you would still trust Moses's dreams in preference to Frank's erroneous judgement?
You may ofcourse then seek to rationalise how it is that Moses has been so consistently right, but you cannot now deny that (at least on recent track record) Moses has been consistently right.
George
-
my point is that it is not enough for moses to simply say that he believes so based solely on his dream. what if the frank knew nothing about his past predictions? what he needs to do is to put forth things like "the team has played well in the past three games" or something along those lines. that's much better reasoning. at the point when the argument is being presented, the actual outcome need not be thought of at all coz no one knows for sure what its going to be.
what moses needs to do is to analyse the three games won by Italy and come up with proper reasons as to how Italy won. my point is that it might not have anything to do with his dreams at all.
-
quote:
Originally posted by MadeInAfrica
my point is that it is not enough for moses to simply say that he believes so based solely on his dream. what if the frank knew nothing about his past predictions? what he needs to do is to put forth things like "the team has played well in the past three games" or something along those lines. that's much better reasoning. at the point when the argument is being presented, the actual outcome need not be thought of at all coz no one knows for sure what its going to be.
what moses needs to do is to analyse the three games won by Italy and come up with proper reasons as to how Italy won. my point is that it might not have anything to do with his dreams at all.
My point is that in the first instance, the most important point is who delivers the goods. All the theory in the world is worthless if the demonstrated facts contradict the theory.
You would like Moses to give a better explanation of why his predictions come true, when Franks do not. Maybe Moses simply does not choose to give a better explanation, or maybe he is simply unable to better explain how he comes by his prediction; but you would be a fool to dismiss the veracity of those predictions merely because Moses has failed to adequately explain how he came by them.
George
-
if moses chooses not to better explain his opinions/views/predictions he will certainly fail to convince people like myself, though he might be right- that's if i know nothing about his past experiences. you would be a fool to believe him if he reasons in such a way.
-
But you make the important caveat: “if I nothing about his past experience”
That having been said, it is not only his past experience that matters, but also Frank's past experience.
But then, it is experience that defines science. In the absence of any relevant experience, Newtons law of gravity would sound nonsensical. Newtons laws of gravity (or any other laws of nature) only make sense because the concur with our own experience of the universe (in some cases, the term 'our' has to be viewed collectively, rather than necessarily your own personal experience).
If someone came up to you and said all matter falls up towards the sky – you would say he was talking nonsense, not because a law of gravity that causes things to float is any more sensible in its abstract form than a law that dictates that all objects fall to the ground; but only because it contravenes your own past experience.
George
-
quote: "If someone came up to you and said all matter falls up towards the sky – you would say he was talking nonsense, not because a law of gravity that causes things to float is any more sensible in its abstract form than a law that dictates that all objects fall to the ground; but only because it contravenes your own past experience."
you are so wrong. i would rely heavily on the law of gravity. but to someone who has never heard of the law of gravity, reliance on past experience would definitely be the case. you are so wrong on this one!
-
quote:
Originally posted by MadeInAfrica
you are so wrong. i would rely heavily on the law of gravity. but to someone who has never heard of the law of gravity, reliance on past experience would definitely be the case. you are so wrong on this one!
But at some time in your dim and distant youth (well, I cannot say how distant your youth was, so you will have to take that as a relative statement), there must have been a time when you had not heard of any laws of gravity – so what made you decide that a law of gravity that described objects falling to earth was more plausible than an alternative law of gravity that might describe things floating skyward?
George
-
you sound very much like one of those uninformed people who think that there are no human beings in Africa. anyway.....
before i knew about the laws of gravity, i knew that heavy stuff fall to the ground and things like balloons floated. why? read the quote on your last post, the answer is there.
well, that's 'partly' how bright my early days were!!!
-
quote:
Originally posted by MadeInAfrica
you sound very much like one of those uninformed people who think that there are no human beings in Africa. anyway.....
I am not sure where this comment comes from. I do realise that you are signing on from Africa, but that has no relevance at all to my answers. I am responding to what you write, not where you are writing it from. I would say the same if you were posting from China, Australia, Venus, or Europe – it would make absolutely no difference to my response to what you have written.
quote:
before i knew about the laws of gravity, i knew that heavy stuff fall to the ground and things like balloons floated. why? read the quote on your last post, the answer is there.
well, that's 'partly' how bright my early days were!!!
But that is exactly the point I was making, that you accepted the law of gravity as a valid law only because it supported what you already had already observed. This is why past observations must be regarded as important in formulating our expectations of the future; and however good the theory, if it does not match up to the observations, then the theory must be regarded as wrong.
George
-
do you really believe that Jesus walked on water?does it
make any logical sense? i think not.there's a scientific
study that showed that temperatures dropped low such that
water could have iced.this happened during the times when
Jesus lived.i will find you the article on the outcome of
that research.this makes sense to me,unlike what the bible
says.
here is another one:do you believe that it was a miracle
that the Israelites crossed the Red sea? well,think again.
According to a 'Bulletin Of The American Meteorological
Society' account, computer calculations indicate that
because of the peculiar geography of the northern end of
the Red Sea, a moderate wind blowing constantly for about
10 hours could have caused the sea to recede about a mile
and the water level to drop 10 ft., leaving dry land for a
period of time before crashing back when the winds died
down."
- Mike Fillon, "Science Solves the Ancient Myteries of the
Bible", Popular Mechanics, Dec. 1996
this too makes sense to me,but the bible says that it was a
miracle.
these stories are preached time and again in church and
millions of people believe them, most with no reason at all.
I LIVE IN A WORLD OF REASON!!!
What I don't understand and don't like is the time and effort that modern science spends addressing and refuting religion. As a non-religious I am uncomfortable seeing scientists berate and ridicule people who believe in God. Whether you believe in a god or not it was religion and the order that it created that advanced mans progress out of the darkness of his primitive past. Richard Dawkins has for instance stated that wars "would not exist had it not been for religion" what a load of BS. Was the Vietnam war over religion? the Korean war? WW2? WW1? He has also publicly stated that Jesus never existed which shows the mans total ignorance of historical evidence. Dawkins and his followers are in my "secular" opinion, modern day inquisitioners !!! If we had no religion we would never have heard the likes of Bach and Mozart, nor many of our greatest works of literature including my favourite "Lord of The Rings" what a dull,dull world that would be!
Mozart Ave Verum Corpus Leonard Bernstein
-
It is a matter of creativity, wisdom and presence with power from outside space/time and above even from the author of entropy. Jesus action of walking on water was the second miracle with water in the Gospel. It was timed and set up for Peter's eyes and confidence. And Also for our benefit. The idea is Jesus did not use his own power, but was covered in the presence of god, and accorded and this power in the presence, could override entropy and alter nature into what is called a miracle, which has no normal scientific explanation.
What elevates us above robots, computers and servants, is a faculty partly in the brain, which allows us to co-relate to the author as sons and daughters. No just tools. This is enviable.
The other miracle with water involved a material called "Alabaster" a high quality clay that has been fired in a kiln. In the history of modern electricity, there was a need for insulators. Taking from the Gospel story of water turning to wine in alabaster jars by Jesus' power, the inventor used alabaster clay as strong electricity insulators. I think we see this on overhead wiring today. Jesus had a kind of power. Wisdom, and will related powers.