[DoctorBeaver]

In the beginning was a chasm, a void, called Ginnungagap. To the north was Niflheim, a place of ice & snow. To the south was Muspelheim, made from fire. The first being came into existence from the drop of water caused by the ice of Niflheim meeting the fire of Muspelheim. This first being was a frost giant named Ymir.

From somewhere unspecified arose a race of frost giants. Ymir fathered a son who was nourished by Audumla, the cosmic cow. Audumla fed herself by licking salty rimestone until it was in the shape of a man. This stone man was named Buri.

Buri fathered a son, Bor, who married the giantess Bestla; daughter of Boltha. Bor & Bestla fathered the first gods Odin, Vili and Ve.

Ymir grew so large that the 3 gods killed him. So much blood poured from his wounds that nearly all the frost giants drowned. Odin and the other 2 gods then formed the universe from Ymir's body, placing the body over Ginnungagap. From his flesh they made the Earth and from his blood, the seas. His skull, supported by 4 dwarves, became the heavens. From Ymir's eyebrows they fashioned Midgard, a place for humans to live. Sparks from Muspelheim were used to create the sun, moon & stars.

I think that's a much nicer creation story. Anyone care to disprove it?  []

[Chemistry4me]

Errr... what ever happened to getting an intelligent head? []

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19945.msg223835#msg223835

[demadone]

So, if we pick the bits we like and reinterpret the other bits in  our favour then that constitutes proof, does it?

And who were these guys "with no education"? That's an incredibly arrogant way of describing highly intelligent and well educated philosophers.

What then are the bits I shouldn't like? The example I gave from Isaiah is not just a 'bit' of information. That is high level physics. Einstein receives so much praise for saying it but when I show you from the bible you conclude it's not so amazing.

Be honest. If I showed you that the bible may also be talking of an expanding universe would that be more amazing?
Or that it told of a round earth thousands of years before Gagarin went into space or Magellan around the globe. Would that impress you more.

Somehow I doubt it would impress you because you believe in science, and you wrongly think it contradicts the bible.

I wish you could say exactly what makes you not believe in a creator.
No hard feelings. [8D]

[LeeE]

...The example I gave from Isaiah is not just a 'bit' of information. That is high level physics. Einstein receives so much praise for saying it but when I show you from the bible you conclude it's not so amazing.

The bit you quoted was neither information or high-level physics.  It could just as easily be interpreted as me getting my washing back from the laundry and finding that I haven't lost a sock.

Be honest. If I showed you that the bible may also be talking of an expanding universe would that be more amazing?
Or that it told of a round earth thousands of years before Gagarin went into space or Magellan around the globe. Would that impress you more.

Somehow I doubt it would impress you because you believe in science, and you wrongly think it contradicts the bible.

The bible doesn't talk about science, it sticks to allusion, which is so open to interpretation as to make it meaningless in any absolute sense.  Incidentally, both the ancient Greeks and Asian Indians thought that the Earth was spherical.

The difference between religion and science is that religion is all about belief, and furthermore, it requires a lack of proof; when you have proof you have knowledge and belief becomes redundant.  Science, on the other hand is all about knowledge, and it seeks proof.  Be careful not to confuse knowledge and belief; they are mutually exclusive.

I wish you could say exactly what makes you not believe in a creator

The lack of evidence for one.

[DoctorBeaver]

Errr... what ever happened to getting an intelligent head? []

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19945.msg223835#msg223835

So showing that I know the Norse creation myth is not a demonstration of my intelligent head in action? Maybe you would like me to post it in another language as a further demonstration?

No começo era uma falha, um vácuo, chamado Ginnungagap. Ao norte era Niflheim, um lugar do & do gelo; neve. Ao sul era Muspelheim, feito do fogo. Primeiro ser entrou a existência da gota da água causada pelo gelo de Niflheim que encontra o fogo de Muspelheim. Este primeiro ser era uma geada Ymir nomeado gigante.

Em algum lugar de não especificado levantou-se uma raça de gigantes da geada. Ymir genou um filho que fosse nutrido por Audumla, a vaca cósmica. Audumla alimentou-se lambendo o rimestone salgado até que estêve na forma de um homem. Este homem de pedra foi nomeado Buri.

Buri genou um filho, Bor, que casou o giantess Bestla; filha de Boltha. & de Bor; Bestla genou os primeiros deuses Odin, Vili e Ve.

Ymir cresceu tão grande que os 3 deuses o mataram. Tanto o sangue derramou de suas feridas que quase todos os gigantes da geada afogaram. Odin e outros 2 deuses deram forma então ao universo de Ymir' corpo de s, coloc o corpo sobre Ginnungagap. De sua carne fizeram a terra e de seu sangue, os mares. Seu crânio, suportado por 4 anões, transformou-se os céus. De Ymir' as sobrancelhas de s formaram Midgard, um lugar para que os seres humanos vivam. As faíscas de Muspelheim foram usadas para criar o sol, & da lua; estrelas

[demadone]

It could just as easily be interpreted as me getting my washing back from the laundry and finding that I haven't lost a sock.

It says in clear terms that matter resulted from energy. No 2 ways about it.

The bible doesn't talk about science, it sticks to allusion, which is so open to interpretation as to make it meaningless in any absolute sense.  Incidentally, both the ancient Greeks and Asian Indians thought that the Earth was spherical.

You must have heard interpretations from guys who don't really know the bible. About Indians, it is common knowledge that they believed in an elephant with a turtle on it's back on whose back was the earth. Even just 500 years ago people were afraid of falling over the edge. And Philosophy was quite hot then.

The difference between religion and science is that religion is all about belief, and furthermore, it requires a lack of proof; when you have proof you have knowledge and belief becomes redundant.  Science, on the other hand is all about knowledge, and it seeks proof.  Be careful not to confuse knowledge and belief; they are mutually exclusive.

Not true

The lack of evidence for one.

You exist as proof. Singularity if it existed must have come from somewhere. Isaiah explains where.

[DoctorBeaver]

The difference between religion and science is that religion is all about belief, and furthermore, it requires a lack of proof; when you have proof you have knowledge and belief becomes redundant.  Science, on the other hand is all about knowledge, and it seeks proof.  Be careful not to confuse knowledge and belief; they are mutually exclusive.

So if you believed in God and then 1 day he provided absolute proof of his existence, would you necessarily cease to be religious?

Consider this. Little peasant in his cottage in the Middle Ages. He has been told all his life that his country is ruled by a king and believes that to be true even though he has never seen him. Like many other serfs, he is a royalist. Then, one day, the king (uh huh huh) comes a-calling. Maybe he fancies a scoop of ale. But whatever the reason for his visit, there he is in front of little peasant person. Little cottage-dwelling paean now knows the king exists because there he is in little man's favourite chair.

Erm... I've forgotten where I was going with this. I'll come back to it in a while unless someone else can determine the point I was trying to make. Blame the medication!  [xx(]

[BenV]

It could just as easily be interpreted as me getting my washing back from the laundry and finding that I haven't lost a sock.

It says in clear terms that matter resulted from energy. No 2 ways about it.

Here's another interpretation from the same words - he had lots of energy (which almost certainly had a different meaning in biblical times) so he was able to make lots of things.  Just because an interpretation (fit around modern knowledge) fits, doesn't mean it was the intended one and doesn't suggest that the bible contains encrypted scientific knowledge.

The difference between religion and science is that religion is all about belief, and furthermore, it requires a lack of proof; when you have proof you have knowledge and belief becomes redundant.  Science, on the other hand is all about knowledge, and it seeks proof.  Be careful not to confuse knowledge and belief; they are mutually exclusive.

Not true

In what way is it not true?  Which part of that are you dismissing? 

I think there are semantics at issue here - for example, I believe my cat will be at home to greet me, based on my experience and evidence of the past, but it may not come to be true - likewise, I can have faith that my cup of tea will taste nice, based on my previous knowledge of tea.

Doc - I think I know what you are getting at - it's a definitions thing though - technically, once I can confirm that the cat is at home, or my tea is refreshing and good, I no longer believe it, I just know.

The lack of evidence for one.

You exist as proof. Singularity if it existed must have come from somewhere. Isaiah explains where.

Nope, it doesn't.  You have interpreted it in such a way that allows you to think it did.  Don't forget the bible has been translated, altered and translated many times since it's inception, and so nobody knows the original intent behind the words.

And do you mean LeeE existing is proof of the bible being correct?, or proof that god exists?

Because he is neither.

Here's the nub of it though - there doesn't need to be a why.  We don't know what came before the big bang, and perhaps we never will.  But that gap doesn't need to be filled with a deity.

Doc - I much prefer the Norse creation myth in English, thanks - it's a good one, isn't it?

[Vern]

The difference between religion and science is that religion is all about belief, and furthermore, it requires a lack of proof; when you have proof you have knowledge and belief becomes redundant.  Science, on the other hand is all about knowledge, and it seeks proof.  Be careful not to confuse knowledge and belief; they are mutually exclusive.

So if you believed in God and then 1 day he provided absolute proof of his existence, would you necessarily cease to be religious?

Consider this. Little peasant in his cottage in the Middle Ages. He has been told all his life that his country is ruled by a king and believes that to be true even though he has never seen him. Like many other serfs, he is a royalist. Then, one day, the king (uh huh huh) comes a-calling. Maybe he fancies a scoop of ale. But whatever the reason for his visit, there he is in front of little peasant person. Little cottage-dwelling paean now knows the king exists because there he is in little man's favourite chair.

Erm... I've forgotten where I was going with this. I'll come back to it in a while unless someone else can determine the point I was trying to make. Blame the medication!  [xx(]

If you change the scenario to the South American Indians and the arrival of the Spanish, then you have another story; maybe the same ending; I don't know where you're going with your story.

[DoctorBeaver]

Doc - I think I know what you are getting at - it's a definitions thing though - technically, once I can confirm that the cat is at home, or my tea is refreshing and good, I no longer believe it, I just know.

Ben - I was addressing the assertion that religion is based on belief not knowledge. If I have absolute proof of God, definitive knowledge of God, can I not still be religious?

Vern - I was trying to construct an analogy about belief, knowledge & religion but lost my way. These tablets make my head spin and I sometimes find it hard to concentrate.

[Vern]

I know what you mean Doc, I get that way even without tablets. []

[yor_on]

Doctor  Beaver is right.
I recognize this description, therefore it must be true.

Excuse me while i feed my Bear...


*Sails away, his third head happily nodding in the wind *

---

Ah, Polar Bear...

Oh yes.

[demadone]

Here's the nub of it though - there doesn't need to be a why.  We don't know what came before the big bang, and perhaps we never will.  But that gap doesn't need to be filled with a deity.

There has to be a why. As scientists, we always ask why. There is a design to everything that we study. That's the only way we can know them. Take the electron, in a normal atom it orbits the nucleus without falling into it. Automatically we ask what question...?
So how come when we know the closest answer to a question may be God. We stop asking 'why?'.

Even to understand the most chaotic of astronomical phenomena such as neutron stars, black holes or quasars we look for organization.
Even the big bang would not have resulted into the universe had it not taken place with the particular precision that is practically impossible without design.

No wonder God asks: "Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth?
Tell [me], if you do know understanding"

[demadone]

I think there are semantics at issue here - for example, I believe my cat will be at home to greet me, based on my experience and evidence of the past, but it may not come to be true - likewise, I can have faith that my cup of tea will taste nice, based on my previous knowledge of tea.

You probably have faith that this is the year 2009. But you have no knowledge that this is about the number of years since Christ's being born on earth.

[demadone]

Here's another interpretation from the same words - he had lots of energy (which almost certainly had a different meaning in biblical times)

Different meaning as in what? We as well as the old timers only understand energy from the results of it's interaction with matter. We also don't know what it is.

[demadone]

But then again, God created humans not for him to be an object of scrutiny. We are too insignificant. So it remains a question of faith. If the bible was a science book then we would discuss in those terms. But it is not.

The best evidence of his existence is all around us. In the precision, foresight, intelligence that went into creation which on earth only man can understand because he was created to have those characteristics to a smaller degree.

Evidence is also in the very fact that something so obvious can escape people who spend years studying it. It's like physical matter has a hidden code that you need only wisdom to understand.

The universe is so perfectly fine tuned that it's precision seems impossible considering that it may have started in a super massive bang. (I'm not arguing the big bang). Actually, even the rate of expansion of the early universe was very highly fine tuned.

If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster, then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life

That's a quotation from Sir Alfred Charles Bernard Lovell.

There is even more intricate fine tuning in the four fundamental forces but I won't go into that.

[lyner]

demadone

The example I gave from Isaiah is not just a 'bit' of information. That is high level physics.

Could you tell me the 'high level Physics' content of that quote?
It just says that the stars look breathtaking and someone very superior must have made them. There is no proof included with that statement, as far as I can see.

If you simply say "I believe", then there is no counter argument. Once you start trying to  bring in 'proof' then you are on to a loser. I have not seen one yet and your arguments are just assertions - not proofs.

[lyner]

Two alternative models:

1. God made everything. Nothing made God. God was always there .

2. The Universe can be regarded as starting at a certain 'time', long ago. Time, itself only 'started' 'when' the Universe formed. There must have been something outside / before our Universe. The Universe exists within itself. The notion of 'outside' implies the ideas of 'before' and 'elsewhere' but it would be less of a problem to refer to it as 'NOT Universe'; that way, you needn't use our particular dimensions, which cannot describe the larger situation adequately.

The first model sustains itself because it puts off the main question of the 'before'. Before God there was God - for ever - without limit. You can't ask the question, in fact.
The second model actually is much harder to consider. It involves 'outside' rather than before and there are dimensions to consider. The outside has no limit.

So they both involve no limits (despite the BBT). One is surprisingly like the model of a parent. Not surprisingly, perhaps.
The other is very, very hard and requires all of the effort to be made by the student. There is no cosy feeling that, however far along the road you go, there is someone to deal with the imponderables.

I'm not ever surprised that people choose the first model. I am not even surprised that they fight tooth and nail to keep it intact. The other way is so scary.

It's such a pity that they try to prove it.

[BenV]

Here's the nub of it though - there doesn't need to be a why.  We don't know what came before the big bang, and perhaps we never will.  But that gap doesn't need to be filled with a deity.

There has to be a why. As scientists, we always ask why. There is a design to everything that we study. That's the only way we can know them. Take the electron, in a normal atom it orbits the nucleus without falling into it. Automatically we ask what question...?
So how come when we know the closest answer to a question may be God. We stop asking 'why?'.

Don't most scientists ask 'how'?

I think there are semantics at issue here - for example, I believe my cat will be at home to greet me, based on my experience and evidence of the past, but it may not come to be true - likewise, I can have faith that my cup of tea will taste nice, based on my previous knowledge of tea.

You probably have faith that this is the year 2009. But you have no knowledge that this is about the number of years since Christ's being born on earth.

Actually, I accept that we call it 2009 for convenience - if I was still living in Thailand, it would be the year 2552.

But then again, God created humans not for him to be an object of scrutiny. We are too insignificant. So it remains a question of faith. If the bible was a science book then we would discuss in those terms. But it is not.

The best evidence of his existence is all around us. In the precision, foresight, intelligence that went into creation which on earth only man can understand because he was created to have those characteristics to a smaller degree.

Evidence is also in the very fact that something so obvious can escape people who spend years studying it. It's like physical matter has a hidden code that you need only wisdom to understand.

The universe is so perfectly fine tuned that it's precision seems impossible considering that it may have started in a super massive bang. (I'm not arguing the big bang). Actually, even the rate of expansion of the early universe was very highly fine tuned.

If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster, then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life

That's a quotation from Sir Alfred Charles Bernard Lovell.

There is even more intricate fine tuning in the four fundamental forces but I won't go into that.

This is not evidence for god, it is merely how you seek to validate your belief - why do you feel your belief needs validation?  If you believe in a loving god, and that gives you some comfort, why should you care about what's actually, objectively, 'true'?

I think the only thing we can safely conclude from all of this is that you choose to believe in your god, and I do not.  There is no objective evidence for a god/some gods, and so there is no reason for me to accept the existence of a god as fact.  I do, however, accept that you are welcome to beleive what ever you like, and I hope this brings you happiness.

[allien]

However we can disprove the bible !

The earth was not created in 7 days. Either that or carbon dating doesent work at all. Humm who do i believe !

Moses well parting the red sea is disputable ! 

God killed the first born children sent wave after wave of plagues, personally Adolf seems quite mild in comparison !

One of my favorites Adam and Eve, two sons, I mean INSEST!

Quote Pen and Teller  " The best way to dismiss the bible as fiction is to read it ! "

Our scientists are more powerfull from God, since they say "universe created in a time less than a second" (from zero to E+25m radius)

Same six days mistake (if it is) repeated in Quran also.

10:Yunus
3- Verily your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then He established Himself on the Throne. Regulating and governing all things. No intercessor (can plead with Him) except after His leave (hath been obtained). This is Allah your Lord; Him therefore serve ye: will ye not receive admonition?

However we can disprove the bible !

The earth was not created in 7 days. Either that or carbon dating doesent work at all. Humm who do i believe !

One day represents 1000 years

Time is relative, so it could not be said one day is 1000 years or 50000 years unless you have corelation between them according to different observers.

32 - The Adoration
5- He directs the affairs from the heavens to the earth: then it ascends unto Him, on a Day, the measure of which is a thousand years of your reckoning.  (one day = 1000 years)

70 - The Ways Of Ascent
4- The angels and the Spirit ascend unto Him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years:   (one day = 50000 years)

And one important point, you could not measure the thing, if your measuring device exsisted after. So the meaning of day may not be an earth day.
And also meaning of the earth day at the begining could be different from our present day.