Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Your suggestion that science does not use the operational definition of time is hogwash. Science created the operational definition of time. An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is highly useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. The operational definition leaves aside the question whether there is something called time, apart from the counting activity just mentioned, that flows and that can be measured. (wikipedia) It is the operational definition of time that was used in the special theory of relativity, and in measurements made that refuted the notion of an ether through which light travels in space. Light in a vaccuum is isometric in velocity, which means that it travels at the same velocity regardless of direction of travel. This has been verified time and time again.
To suggest that biblical scripture uses the operational definition of time is also hogwash, since it hadn't been defined during the time in which those books were written. Moses had no clock, and neither did Jesus. Making up terms to suit your argument is just plain wrong. Using the Bible as a science book is about as absurd an idea as has ever been conceived.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
(October 18, 2010 at 3:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well it is important to remember that not understanding "why" something is done, does not mean it was not done. I don't understand "why" a lot of you say the things you say, but that does not mean you did not say (type) them. That being said, we are given the reason for God's pattern of creation. God will use numbers symbolically, He always uses the number 7 to symbolize perfection. So a creation week of 7 days (the 7th being a day of rest) makes sense in that regard. He also created in this pattern to give His people a blue print to follow. The Jews works hard for 6 days and rested on the 7th, the reason they were given to do this was because God did it that way.
I'm going to enjoy this.
Quote:He always uses the number 7 to symbolize perfection.
So god just picks the number seven to be the symbol of perfection? What the hell!?
Where is the point in that? I could put together a wardrobe in 10 minutes (max). I have the knowledge and power to do that. It would be pointless if I spent 6 whole fucking days on it just to fucking symbolise something that it utterly pointless and useless. If god could just create everything instantly, why don't he? Why the messing around?
You know what I smell? Complete bullshit! What a load of bollocks.
Quote:the reason they were given to do this was because God did it that way.
Why? Why did god do it that way? What's the point?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
October 18, 2010 at 4:31 pm (This post was last modified: October 18, 2010 at 4:43 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(October 18, 2010 at 3:57 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote:
(October 18, 2010 at 3:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(October 15, 2010 at 5:41 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: Where to begin...?
Assuming you believe in the Fall and Original Sin, let me pose a question: where did sin come from? Adam and Eve were supposedly created perfect. This means that, even with the free will to choose evil, they would have chosen good, as they would have had no inclination towards evil. So where did this evil come from? Did God create it? If so, then he punishes us for something he created. Did the Devil create it? If so, why did God create the Devil, knowing that he'd create evil and hence doom many of us to hell? Any way you look at it, it seems that God is directly responsible, either through commission or ommision, for the eternal torture of his creations.
I like the question :-) Well scripture does not give us a lot on the nature of Adam's will. We understand how man's will works today (not a free will), but Adam's will would have been different. Many Theologens believe that Adam had a true libertarian free will, so he was just as likely to choose right than wrong apart from God's common grace. Whereas people today will always choose evil without the grace of God. Did God ordain the fall to occur? Yes, however God does not stand symetricaly behind evil events as he does good events. He ordains both to happen but does so in a manner that does not negate the responsibility of man. I would encourage you to pick up Jonathan Edward's "The Freedom of the Will" (the Theologen not the fake psychic haha) if you would like to learn more, I think it is probably the single best work on the subject.
That's the best answer I've heard to the question, which I've posed elsewhere. Nonetheless, it's not clear that libertarian free will is coherent in a deterministic universe. Besides, God's ordaining the Fall means that he is largely responsible for our evil today, for, as you say, we will always choose evil without his grace (though this is clearly untrue, as it's possible to abide by the Bible's commandments without accepting God's existence). Even if God is not responsible for our bad acts, he is still responsible for allowing them, thus permitting his creations to condemn themselves to hell.
Yes, you are getting into pretty deep Theological stuff here, but I commend you for doing so. The reason most Chrstians cannot answer these questions today is because most Christians kind of follow a hybrid (and I believe incorrect) view of how God and man's will relate. God's common grace can effect non-believers just as easily as it can believers. It's his saving grace that only effects believers.
We see this when God hardens Pharoah's heart, he hardens his heart but still punishes him for it. I think he can do this because of the way he hardened it. The only reason Pharoah was not completely evil was because he was being "held up" by God's common grace. So in order to harden his heart, all God had to do was remove some of that common grace and Pharoah's heart became harder because he made decisions based on his fallen nature. This also gets into the different will's of God. When God has Moses tell Pharoah that God wants him to let His people go, this is one of God's wills. However, God also hardens Pharoah's heart so that he does not let His people go. This is God's other will. God essentially delays Pharoah's response so He could bring more glory to Himself which is God's purpose.
We see this in the death of Christ too. Three different groups of people were responsible for Christ's death, the Pharisees, Pilot, and the Romans. All three groups were doing what they wanted to do, and for different reasons. Yet, all three groups were accomplishing was God had ordained to happen, and yet all three groups will be punished for their actions and justly so. They will be punished because their intentions behind the actions were evil. This is the reformed viewpoint (a cliff notes version) of this issue, you would get different answers from different groups of Chrstians. However I feel this is the most consistant and satisfying position.
A little post-script though. As long as God is accomplishing his purpose he is not doing evil, so none of this can be used to call God evil. In Genesis Joseph gives us another look at how man can do something with evil intentions and yet God can ordain the same event for good. Joseph tells his brothers (after they sold him into slavery), "You meant it for evil, God meant it for good".
I like this discussion though, what are your thoughts?
(October 18, 2010 at 4:03 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Your suggestion that science does not use the operational definition of time is hogwash. Science created the operational definition of time. An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is highly useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. The operational definition leaves aside the question whether there is something called time, apart from the counting activity just mentioned, that flows and that can be measured. (wikipedia) It is the operational definition of time that was used in the special theory of relativity, and in measurements made that refuted the notion of an ether through which light travels in space. Light in a vaccuum is isometric in velocity, which means that it travels at the same velocity regardless of direction of travel. This has been verified time and time again.
To suggest that biblical scripture uses the operational definition of time is also hogwash, since it hadn't been defined during the time in which those books were written. Moses had no clock, and neither did Jesus. Making up terms to suit your argument is just plain wrong. Using the Bible as a science book is about as absurd an idea as has ever been conceived.
I think I said just the opposite. The operational definition of time is the same as the calculated definition of time- I said the Bible uses the OBSERVATIONAL definition of time. There is a big difference.
(October 18, 2010 at 4:12 pm)Ace Wrote:
(October 18, 2010 at 3:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well it is important to remember that not understanding "why" something is done, does not mean it was not done. I don't understand "why" a lot of you say the things you say, but that does not mean you did not say (type) them. That being said, we are given the reason for God's pattern of creation. God will use numbers symbolically, He always uses the number 7 to symbolize perfection. So a creation week of 7 days (the 7th being a day of rest) makes sense in that regard. He also created in this pattern to give His people a blue print to follow. The Jews works hard for 6 days and rested on the 7th, the reason they were given to do this was because God did it that way.
I'm going to enjoy this.
Quote:He always uses the number 7 to symbolize perfection.
So god just picks the number seven to be the symbol of perfection? What the hell!?
Where is the point in that? I could put together a wardrobe in 10 minutes (max). I have the knowledge and power to do that. It would be pointless if I spent 6 whole fucking days on it just to fucking symbolise something that it utterly pointless and useless. If god could just create everything instantly, why don't he? Why the messing around?
You know what I smell? Complete bullshit! What a load of bollocks.
Quote:the reason they were given to do this was because God did it that way.
Why? Why did god do it that way? What's the point?
I would not expect you to understand why God did it that way because I already said He did it that way as a model for His people. They completely understood this. Yes the number 7 is a symbol for perfection, this is why 777 is used a lot to represent God and 666 is used to represent imperfection to the highest degree. God is very into symbolism, this is why He had His people sacrifice animals, and do it in a certain manner because this was all a direct symbol of the coming Messiah and Christ's atonement. Nobody was saved by these animal sacrifices, but they were used to demonstrate faith in the Messiah to come. We no longer sacrifice animals because they would be symbolizing a coming atonement that has already happened. Again, just because you don't understand the reason for someone's actions does not mean their actions never happened.
October 18, 2010 at 5:20 pm (This post was last modified: October 18, 2010 at 5:21 pm by Ace Otana.)
*Clicks fingers*
Quote:I would not expect you to understand why God did it that way
And I don't fucking expect you to grow up anytime soon.
Quote: I already said He did it that way as a model for His people.
Why? What's the point?
Quote:They completely understood this
Of course they would, they made god up. Along with all the bullshit stories to go with it.
Quote:Yes the number 7 is a symbol for perfection
Why? What's the point in having a symbol of perfection?
Quote:God is very into symbolism
Why? Why does god think symbolism is so great? Does he have trouble speaking the English language?
Quote:this is why He had His people sacrifice animals
That's dumb. He is supposedly all wise, he created the universe and for some strange reason...he wants us to kill animals for him? Fucking why!?!?! What's the point?
Ever wondered if MAN demanded such things and not god? Ever considered that? I'm guessing no.
And religious people wonder why they are laughed at.....
Quote: Nobody was saved by these animal sacrifices
Of course not. You think killing a load of animals is going to do anything? I guess the words "grow up" is somewhat new to you lot?
Quote: We no longer sacrifice animals because they would be symbolizing a coming atonement that has already happened.
I thought we no longer killed animals for delusional beliefs because we grew up and realised just how stupid that is.
Quote:Again, just because you don't understand the reason for someone's actions
No, I do understand. It's just so immature. Their "reasons" aren't very rational.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
(October 18, 2010 at 5:20 pm)Ace Wrote: *Clicks fingers*
Quote:I would not expect you to understand why God did it that way
And I don't fucking expect you to grow up anytime soon.
Quote: I already said He did it that way as a model for His people.
Why? What's the point?
Quote:They completely understood this
Of course they would, they made god up. Along with all the bullshit stories to go with it.
Quote:Yes the number 7 is a symbol for perfection
Why? What's the point in having a symbol of perfection?
Quote:God is very into symbolism
Why? Why does god think symbolism is so great? Does he have trouble speaking the English language?
Quote:this is why He had His people sacrifice animals
That's dumb. He is supposedly all wise, he created the universe and for some strange reason...he wants us to kill animals for him? Fucking why!?!?! What's the point?
Ever wondered if MAN demanded such things and not god? Ever considered that? I'm guessing no.
And religious people wonder why they are laughed at.....
Quote: Nobody was saved by these animal sacrifices
Of course not. You think killing a load of animals is going to do anything? I guess the words "grow up" is somewhat new to you lot?
Quote: We no longer sacrifice animals because they would be symbolizing a coming atonement that has already happened.
I thought we no longer killed animals for delusional beliefs because we grew up and realised just how stupid that is.
Quote:Again, just because you don't understand the reason for someone's actions
No, I do understand. It's just so immature. Their "reasons" aren't very rational.
Wow, such hostility. I think the fact that my responses are much more formal and tactful than your's is evidence that I do not need to "grow up" any, thanks though.
The reason why is very simple, God created everything to bring glory to himself. People modelling His work week brings glory to Him. People anticipating the coming of the Messiah brings glory to Him. People studying His word brings glory to Him. Just for your information the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, so I am not sure what God's knowledge of the English language has to do with anything. The chances of man making up a religion that holds such a negative view of man and gives all the credit and glory to someone else seems rather far fetched.
Quote:I think I said just the opposite. The operational definition of time is the same as the calculated definition of time- I said the Bible uses the OBSERVATIONAL definition of time. There is a big difference.
If the operational definition of time is the same as the calculated definition of time, then what big difference is there? None. The Bible doesn't use the operational definition of time, since it hadn't been invented at the time. Secondly, if it had, then the notion of 500 year old partiarchs would never have been made up. Playing around with definitions to suit your argument is very lame.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
October 18, 2010 at 5:33 pm (This post was last modified: October 18, 2010 at 5:36 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(October 18, 2010 at 5:32 pm)Existentialist Wrote: I asked a question of Statler Waldorf a few days ago. I haven't been able to find the reply. I am still interested in it.
Oh hey! Yeah I was looking for that question this morning and could not find it. Could you repeat it please?
(October 18, 2010 at 5:32 pm)orogenicman Wrote:
Quote:I think I said just the opposite. The operational definition of time is the same as the calculated definition of time- I said the Bible uses the OBSERVATIONAL definition of time. There is a big difference.
If the operational definition of time is the same as the calculated definition of time, then what big difference is there? None. The Bible doesn't use the operational definition of time, since it hadn't been invented at the time. Secondly, if it had, then the notion of 500 year old partiarchs would never have been made up. Playing around with definitions to suit your argument is very lame.
I don't think you are reading what I am typing, I said the Bible used the OBSERVATIONAL definition of time. Not the OPERATIONAL definition of time.
(October 18, 2010 at 5:33 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh hey! Yeah I was looking for that question this morning and could not find it. Could you repeat it please?
It's Post #120 in the "How old is the Earth" thread.
I would add that I think this would be better answered in that thread. Alternatively I could set up an Existentialist Balcony, it's just that the whole idea of a person-entitled consolidation thread is a distinctly alien concept for a subject-based forum, I'm not sure I approve.
