Ten Commandments

[Thorne]

Wikipedia says:

The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, is a list of religious and moral imperatives that, according to the Hebrew Bible, were spoken by God (referred to in several names) to the people of Israel from the mountain referred to as Mount Sinai or Horeb, and later authored by God and given to Moses in the form of two stone tablets.

Now, Thorne, prove your assertion that they are not divine in origin

It is the responsibility of the person making an extraordinary claim to provide proof of that claim. Since it is impossible to prove a negative (except, perhaps, mathematically) there would be little chance of my proving that they are not divine in origin.

However, it is possible to show that the likelihood of that is so far removed from reality as to be next to impossible.

The article states that these "religious and moral imperatives" were "authored by God" "according to the Hebrew Bible." And what proof does the Bible give for this? Only that it is the written word of God. And how can we be sure it is the written word of God? Because the Bible tells us it is! A bit of circular logic here, isn't it? While the Bible is certainly a historical document, it is not a history book! There is no evidence outside the Bible that Moses existed or that the Exodus even took place.

Even if we assume that there was an actual Moses, how do we know that the Commandments were given to him by God? We only have his word for this, after all. He went up the mountain alone, and no one saw God hand him the tablets.

Perhaps the fact that there were at least eight previous codes can give some insight into the true origins of the Commandments.

And just as an aside, which version of the Commandments are we supposed to follow? Those given in Exodus 20, those in Exodus 34, or those in Deuteronomy 5?

While it's true that none of these items constitute proof that the Ten Commandments were not divine gifts from God, they do cast significant doubt on that hypothesis. And with the only evidence for that assertion being the words of some 11th or 12th century BC nomads I think we have to lean more towards doubting the Bible than accepting it.

After all, in the words of Dara O Briain, "It's only the Bible. It's not gospel."

[MMI]

I agree with every word of that. However, on the other thread, where the post you quoted appeared, I had stated that the Constitution of the USA was not a document of divine origin, like the Ten Commandments were. I didn't think anyone would interpret that statement so literally that he would fail to realise that it was made sardonically.

However, I think the excuse that you can't prove a negative in this case isn't good enough, because, ultimately, you can't prove a positive either. I offered a Wikipedia article in response to your demand that I prove the divine origin of the Commandment: you challenge the authenticity of the source, the Bible, because no-one can prove it to be truly the Word of God. If Jesus spoke to you and said, Verily, I say unto you, obey, for they are my Father's orders, you would ask Him to prove it ... after all, even JC's paternity can be called into question. If He would deceive you about that, what other lies would He tell? Furthermore, if the Good Lord Himself came down to answer your questions, you would ignore Him and tell Him He doesn't exist, so His answers don't count.

Even if you deny everything, you don't prove anything and you don't prove nothing either.

Yes, it is highly improbable that the Ten Commandments really are the Word of God. But isn't the reality of existence itself so highly improbable that even divine interference seems no less unlikely?

[Thorne]

if the Good Lord Himself came down to answer your questions, you would ignore Him and tell Him He doesn't exist, so His answers don't count.

If he could prove that he was indeed a supernatural being, able to do something which contradicts the laws of nature, then I would have to believe, wouldn't I? All he would have to do is, say, give new legs to an amputee, in a flash, immediately, with no external assistance, under proper supervision (to avoid fakery). Or make gravity reverse itself. Something which is technologically impossible, but certainly a piece of cake for a supreme being. In fact, the Amazing Randi has been offering $1 million to anyone who can prove a supernatural power. No one has yet come close to winning it.

Yes, it is highly improbable that the Ten Commandments really are the Word of God. But isn't the reality of existence itself so highly improbable that even divine interference seems no less unlikely?

What's so improbable about it? We're here, aren't we? That makes it a certainty in my book. There are 200 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy alone. At odds of a billion to one against the formation of habitable planets, there would likely be 200 such planets in this galaxy alone. Astronomers estimate that there are more galaxies in the universe than the total number of humans who have ever lived on the Earth! Even if there were only one habitable planet in each galaxy, or one for every ten galaxies, or one per hundred, the probability of at least one habitable planet forming is astronomical! Literally!

No, I still maintain that those who profess a belief in a supernatural being, whether divine or otherwise, are the ones making the extraordinary claim, and are therefore the ones who must provide the proof for those claims. Without that proof one might just as well claim that Santa Clause created the universe. There's just no way to prove that he didn't.

[MMI]

I suggest that creation was possibly a supernatural event. What were the chances it could happen by itself before it "did"?

Yes it is very probably certain that we are here, but it is conceivable that we are not and no scientist has come up with a coherent explanation that is better than the creation stories we all know and love.

[Thorne]

I suggest that creation was possibly a supernatural event. What were the chances it could happen by itself before it "did"?

Naturally, a supernatural event is a possibility. No one can definitively prove that such an event did not happen. No one can definitively prove that anything did not happen. We can show, with reasonable certainty, that some things did happen, though, and the more we learn about it the closer we come to certainty. Relying on superstition and the supernatural says, "We already know what happened so there's no sense in learning any more about it." And when you can provide no evidence of a supernatural explanation while science has ample evidence of a natural one, then I will stick with the evidence.

Yes it is very probably certain that we are here, but it is conceivable that we are not and no scientist has come up with a coherent explanation that is better than the creation stories we all know and love.

What? "Conceivable that we are not"? How is that conceivable? All the evidence of my senses tells me "I am here." If you are just a figment of my imagination then my mind is far too contentious and I might want to see about getting my head shrunk. And any explanation which agrees with the evidence that has been found of how the universe began is vastly better than an unsupported, "goddidit". Any creation story may be more enjoyable than the scientific explanation, sure, but they are just stories, with no evidence to support them, and with enough contradictions even within themselves as to make them poor fictions at best. They are children's stories, entertainments, not rational explanations.

[DuncanONeil]

Just a little question.

You have often asked for, in a manner of speaking, for proof of God.

But I ask, if God is proven what need is there of Faith?

[Thorne]

Just a little question.

You have often asked for, in a manner of speaking, for proof of God.

But I ask, if God is proven what need is there of Faith?

Well, for one thing, proving that a god exists does not necessarily mean that your god exists. Unless that god comes out and says, "Hey people, all you snake worshipers got it right. You other poor saps have been barking up the wrong tree.", you'll just have to have FAITH that it is your god who's been proven to exist.

But we don't even need to go that far. Just provide clear, concise, consistent evidence that ANY god exists. Just one example of something happening that could not possibly happen without the intervention of a divine, supernatural being. Like maybe a church which burned down after being struck by lightning miraculously rebuilding itself in front of eyewitnesses and TV cameras and maybe a few skeptical scientists thrown into the mix. Hell, that should be a piece of cake for any god who can create the universe.

As for faith, well I have faith, too. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have faith that summer will follow spring, and that fall will follow summer. I have faith that if I jump off of a tall building I'm going to splatter myself all over the ground below. But who knows. Maybe your gods will intervene and none of those things will happen. But I'll still have my faith that that church won't rebuild itself.

[DuncanONeil]

"(P)roving that a god exists does not necessarily mean that your god exists"

God has many names! Still God.
Calling Deutschland, Germany doe not change the nature of the country.

I will presume that the rest of the message is tic

Well, for one thing, proving that a god exists does not necessarily mean that your god exists. Unless that god comes out and says, "Hey people, all you snake worshipers got it right. You other poor saps have been barking up the wrong tree.", you'll just have to have FAITH that it is your god who's been proven to exist.

But we don't even need to go that far. Just provide clear, concise, consistent evidence that ANY god exists. Just one example of something happening that could not possibly happen without the intervention of a divine, supernatural being. Like maybe a church which burned down after being struck by lightning miraculously rebuilding itself in front of eyewitnesses and TV cameras and maybe a few skeptical scientists thrown into the mix. Hell, that should be a piece of cake for any god who can create the universe.

As for faith, well I have faith, too. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have faith that summer will follow spring, and that fall will follow summer. I have faith that if I jump off of a tall building I'm going to splatter myself all over the ground below. But who knows. Maybe your gods will intervene and none of those things will happen. But I'll still have my faith that that church won't rebuild itself.

[Thorne]

God has many names! Still God.
Calling Deutschland, Germany doe not change the nature of the country.

You don't think that the Greco-Roman gods were different from the Abrahamic God? What about the Egyptian gods, or the Norse gods. The Hindu gods are certainly different. Or the Amerindian gods, Aztec, Incan, Polynesian, Australian Aboriginal gods? Are you saying that, despite all of the documented differences these are one and the same God? Who just happens to be the current version of the Christian God?

But I can be magnanimous. I will accept the argument that, despite these differences, all of these gods are actually the One True God®. You still have not provided any credible evidence for his, or their, existence.

I will presume that the rest of the message is tic

I must be feeling particularly dense today. I don't understand this comment, either.

[denuseri]

Nor has any credible evidence been provided to support a lack of their existance.

"It is the responsibility of the person making an extraordinary claim to provide proof of that claim."

I purpose that it is just as "extraordinary" of a claim to say that God/gods do not exist.

[leo9]

Just a little question.

You have often asked for, in a manner of speaking, for proof of God.

But I ask, if God is proven what need is there of Faith?

Until a couple of hundred years ago this would have been a nonsense question. The Fathers of the Church enthusiastically offered miracles and such as proof that their teaching was true, and every generation of priests thereafter collected new miraculous cures, wonderful manifestations and the like to prove God's and the Church's power.

Only when science started debunking the miracles did the doctrine arise that it was more holy to believe without proof.

[Thorne]

I purpose that it is just as "extraordinary" of a claim to say that God/gods do not exist.

Tell me, please, which is the more extraordinary claim here:

1. There is a man who lives in my attic. You cannot see him. You cannot hear him. You cannot feel him. He leaves no tracks in the dust. There is absolutely no tangible, verifiable evidence that he exists. But I know he's there because he talks to me in my mind. He doesn't talk to anyone else, just me. Therefore, he is real.

OR

2. The narrator of #1 is probably insane and there is probably no man in his attic.

Can you honestly equate these two statements as being equal in insanity? Can you honestly believe that the person who makes statement #1 should be treated as though everything he says is the truth? And what if he tells you that some person (or people) must be killed because the voice tells him they are evil, and the voice knows everything and is good, because the voice tells him so.

I think the man making statement #1 would have to provide proof before he could be released from the asylum. But if he says that the voice speaking to him is God, people send him money instead.

[denuseri]

The little man in the attic story simpley doesnt equate to even nearly the same thing. The analogy imho and is yet another not so well vieled attempt to insult people of all faiths that differ from your own. Which I might add, is so much the scientific pot calling the religious kettle black.

Your ancestors and family members, the very people you trust in your comunity, didnt pass down stories about him from generation to generation becuase more than one of them saw it or experienced first hand for themselves and felt at the time it was so vitally important to them that their children carry on the same beliefs and traditions as they did into their posterity.

[Thorne]

The little man in the attic story simpley doesnt equate to even nearly the same thing. The analogy imho and is yet another not so well vieled attempt to insult people of all faiths that differ from your own. Which I might add, is so much the scientific pot calling the religious kettle black.

Your ancestors and family members, the very people you trust in your comunity, didnt pass down stories about him from generation to generation becuase more than one of them saw it or experienced first hand for themselves and felt at the time it was so vitally important to them that their children carry on the same beliefs and traditions as they did into their posterity.

The fact that the story is centuries old has no bearing on the fact that there is no evidence for its validity! Whether it's one person, or a thousand people, or a million people saying it has no bearing because there is no evidence for its validity! Billions of people, both living and dead have believed in gods primarily because they have been taught since infancy to believe in the gods of their parents/culture! They are taught from infancy that it is a sin to doubt the existence of gods and that they will go to hell if they don't believe as the parents believe!

And why do these people believe it? Because there is a man who stands up in the church or temple or mosque or wherever and tells them that the man in the attic is real! And if you don't believe that he's real, aside from the spiritual price you will pay, you will be cast out of the community, or executed, depending on the religion. In some cases you will be shunned by your own family, just for not believing in the man in the attic! Of course so many people profess belief. The price for not doing so may be too high for them to bear.

Some people will tell me that they have turned away from their birth religion and found something else to replace it. I applaud them for exhibiting the strength to rebel against the status quo. I could wish that they had exhibited more critical thinking and spurned superstition altogether, but at least they have thought about their beliefs.

And for the umpteenth time, I have no problem with people who wish to believe in gods. Faith is not necessarily a bad thing, unless it is blind faith. If you have studied your religion, and have really looked at the arguments both for and against belief and still believe, then you have done all that can be asked of you. I have turned away from religion and superstition, finding their arguments false and borderline insane at best. I have chosen to not believe.

But when you parrot the comments of church leaders without really trying to understand what they are telling you, and then have the gall to state that what you believe is absolutely true just because you've been told it is so, then I will argue against you. Why? Because blind, unreasoning faith kills people!

So believe what you will, there is no man in the attic. The emperor has no clothes!

[leo9]

The little man in the attic story simpley doesnt equate to even nearly the same thing. The analogy imho and is yet another not so well vieled attempt to insult people of all faiths that differ from your own. Which I might add, is so much the scientific pot calling the religious kettle black.

Your ancestors and family members, the very people you trust in your comunity, didnt pass down stories about him from generation to generation becuase more than one of them saw it or experienced first hand for themselves and felt at the time it was so vitally important to them that their children carry on the same beliefs and traditions as they did into their posterity.

Any smart Pagan knows that "my tradition is older than yours" is a dangerous game. My Scandinavian relatives follow Norse gods whose legends are certainly older than the legend about the revived rabbi, though probably about of an age with the legends about the burning bush and the stone law books. I know people who follow the gods the Egyptians had been worshipping for a thousand years before Moses proclaimed a new one. If ancient tradition were the test of truth, we should all worship the Great Mother depicted in Stone Age idols - which sounds good to me, but I don't think that's what you had in mind.

As for preserving traditions, the same people whose folk wisdom you invoke also passed down a tradition that a fat man in a sleigh drawn by reindeer would bring gifts at Xmas...

[MMI]

Naturally, a supernatural event is a possibility. No one can definitively prove that such an event did not happen. No one can definitively prove that anything did not happen. We can show, with reasonable certainty, that some things did happen, though, and the more we learn about it the closer we come to certainty. Relying on superstition and the supernatural says, "We already know what happened so there's no sense in learning any more about it." And when you can provide no evidence of a supernatural explanation while science has ample evidence of a natural one, then I will stick with the evidence.


What? "Conceivable that we are not"? How is that conceivable? All the evidence of my senses tells me "I am here." If you are just a figment of my imagination then my mind is far too contentious and I might want to see about getting my head shrunk. And any explanation which agrees with the evidence that has been found of how the universe began is vastly better than an unsupported, "goddidit". Any creation story may be more enjoyable than the scientific explanation, sure, but they are just stories, with no evidence to support them, and with enough contradictions even within themselves as to make them poor fictions at best. They are children's stories, entertainments, not rational explanations.

First of all, it's probably unwise to critcise me for saying it is conceivable that we don't exist immediately after saying, "Naturally, a supernatural event is a possibility."

In this discussion we are nbot only limited by our own powers of expression, but by language itself. I am certain you understood me, just as I understood you.

Also, why do you claim that existence is of itself indicative of the scientific explanation of creation, but not of the religious explanation?

[MMI]

Scientific contradictions: the cat in the box is both alive and dead ...

So, what's this about biblical contradictions?

[Thorne]

First of all, it's probably unwise to critcise me for saying it is conceivable that we don't exist immediately after saying, "Naturally, a supernatural event is a possibility."

I wasn't criticizing, just asking for some kind of rationale for your statement. While it is possible that you are not here, and are only in my imagination, there is little doubt in my mind that I exist, here and now. Cogito ergo sum.

Also, why do you claim that existence is of itself indicative of the scientific explanation of creation, but not of the religious explanation?

Existence is itself indicative of some kind of origin, and the scientific explanation we currently have is far more able to reconcile our current understandings of those origins. The religious explanation is not.

[MMI]

I wasn't criticizing, just asking for some kind of rationale for your statement. While it is possible that you are not here, and are only in my imagination, there is little doubt in my mind that I exist, here and now. Cogito ergo sum.

I am by no means competent to criticise Descartes's Cogito, however it does puzzle me why it is felt to be so conclusive. I cannot think things into existence: that would be magic, or a divine act of creation. How, then can I think myself into existence? Surely, Descates should have said, I am, therefore I can think. Existence is, as can be seen a pre-requisite - and existence as a human to boot (or other thinking entity, such as a god, for example).

Existence is itself indicative of some kind of origin, and the scientific explanation we currently have is far more able to reconcile our current understandings of those origins. The religious explanation is not.

What's hard to reconcile about, "God made all that there is"? If something exists, that indicates it has a divine origin. Sure, there are contradictions - fossils don't sit well with a creation date of 23/10/4004 BC (Usher), but there are sientific anaomalies too: if you know where a subatomic particle is, you cannot know how it is moving;particles and waves are neither one thing nor the other, but have properties of both of them ... and, of course, every effect must have a cause: there is no uncaused effect. Or can science prove otherwise?

But you could say, you have to believe it happened that way, because that's what my theory holds to be true.

[Thorne]

Existence is, as can be seen a pre-requisite - and existence as a human to boot (or other thinking entity, such as a god, for example).

I think it is simpler than that. The act of thinking is itself a proof of existence.

If something exists, that indicates it has a divine origin.

Only if you postulate a divine being in the first place. But then it comes down to evidence. Is there any evidence that the universe began through some sort of divine intervention? Not a possibility, not a belief, but real evidence. Science can back-track the universe, using the laws and processes that they have learned, to a point a fraction of a fraction of a second after the big bang. Before that point the laws of the universe as we understand them break down. So yes, it is possible that god exists within that tiny piece of unknown time. But possibility is not evidence. There are an infinite number of possible explanations of what happened at that time. And there is evidence for none. Yet.

Sure, there are contradictions - fossils don't sit well with a creation date of 23/10/4004 BC (Usher), but there are sientific anaomalies too:

A contradiction and an anomaly are two different things. The proverbial irresistible force meeting the equally proverbial immovable object is a contradiction: both cannot exist. An all knowing god who becomes angry because his creation does not perform as he wants it to is a contradiction.

An anomaly is something outside the norm, something which means your hypothesis is incomplete, that you must gather more data and, possibly, revise your hypothesis. Science advances through anomalies, because they lead to more questions which will refine our understanding.

if you know where a subatomic particle is, you cannot know how it is moving;particles and waves are neither one thing nor the other, but have properties of both of them ...

These aren't anomalies. There are perfectly valid reasons for these findings, which fit into our understanding of the universe. But their discovery did cause modifications to that understanding.

and, of course, every effect must have a cause: there is no uncaused effect. Or can science prove otherwise?

I don't have the knowledge to deal with this except to say that, under the accepted laws of physics as we understand them there can be no uncaused effect. However, there are places where these laws of physics no longer apply, such as within the event horizon of a black hole, or at the precise moment of the Big Bang. So who knows? Maybe there can be uncaused effects in those areas.

But you could say, you have to believe it happened that way, because that's what my theory holds to be true.

An incomplete phrase. You should believe it probably happened that way because that's what my hypothesis holds to be true, and here is the evidence to support the hypothesis!

[MMI]

I think it is simpler than that. The act of thinking is itself a proof of existence.

OK - I think I can concede that. But with that argument, Descartes only proved that he existed because he was a thinker. Ergo, only thinking things can prove they exist that way. But, fortunateley, it's not just thinking that proves existence, being red proves the existence of red objects, being dead proves the existence of dead things, being a scold proves the existence of my wife, and so on ad infinitum.

But we aren't actually concerned with existence, are we? We've sidetracked ourselves: what we want to find out is how things came to be in the first place.

Religions hold that there was a Prime Mover and He was the uncaused cause. He was also the creator of all things, so if a thing exists - which plainly, many things do - He created them. Cogito has nothing to say about this (so far as I am aware). Religions believe this to be so, and hope one day their beliefs will be demonstrated to be true

Your scientific hypothesis says that there must be a natural law of physiscs that says something can spontaneously come into existence, but we don't know what it is yet. But there is hope that we will know one day.

Where's the difference?

Only if you postulate a divine being in the first place. But then it comes down to evidence. Is there any evidence that the universe began through some sort of divine intervention? Not a possibility, not a belief, but real evidence. Science can back-track the universe, using the laws and processes that they have learned, to a point a fraction of a fraction of a second after the big bang. Before that point the laws of the universe as we understand them break down. So yes, it is possible that god exists within that tiny piece of unknown time. But possibility is not evidence. There are an infinite number of possible explanations of what happened at that time. And there is evidence for none. Yet.

Who cares what happened at any time after the Big Bang? God was there before it. Every one of your scientific laws can easily co-exist with the Supernatural Being who created them, along with everything else. It is hard to see how they can exist at all without a Supernatural Being.

A contradiction and an anomaly are two different things. The proverbial irresistible force meeting the equally proverbial immovable object is a contradiction: both cannot exist. An all knowing god who becomes angry because his creation does not perform as he wants it to is a contradiction.

An anomaly is something outside the norm, something which means your hypothesis is incomplete, that you must gather more data and, possibly, revise your hypothesis. Science advances through anomalies, because they lead to more questions which will refine our understanding.

I won't dispute your distinctions.

It is religious dogma that Yaweh(for example) is perfect, and that leads to inconsistencies that make faith look ridiculous. Why are you assuming God is bound to perfection? Why does He have to be? Why can't He learn like the rest of us, and make mistakes in the process?

And I would also submit that our understanding of religion and what we believe in has advanced, just as scientific theory has: from fear of thunderclaps to more sophistcated understandings of who we are and why we are here. Out of Zoroastrianism grew Judaism, then Christianity and then Islam; before Zoroastrianism, pagan beliefs, myths and superstition, perhaps, but all leading to the Ultimate Truth.

These aren't anomalies. There are perfectly valid reasons for these findings, which fit into our understanding of the universe. But their discovery did cause modifications to that understanding.

I believe they are theories which give (partial) explantions for our current hypotheses. I agree that these theories are constantly being refined in the hope that we will eventually have a Unifed Theory that explains everything ... or at least, as Hawkins put it, enables us to know the mind of God.

[denuseri]

That was pure poetry MMI...sighs wistfully and fans myself.

[Thorne]

Religions hold that there was a Prime Mover and He was the uncaused cause. He was also the creator of all things, so if a thing exists - which plainly, many things do - He created them. Religions believe this to be so, and hope one day their beliefs will be demonstrated to be true

Your scientific hypothesis says that there must be a natural law of physiscs that says something can spontaneously come into existence, but we don't know what it is yet. But there is hope that we will know one day.

Where's the difference?

The difference is shown in your own words: Religions hope that their beliefs will be demonstrated to be true. But through science we hope that we will know one day. Religion deals with revealed truths, while science deals with learned truths.

But there is also the mistaken notion that "there must be a natural law of physiscs that says something can spontaneously come into existence" to be dealt with. I stated that we basically understand what happened in the universe from a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang until now. We don't yet know what happened before that point in time, which may include before the big bang! We do not have to assume that all the matter in the universe was "created" at one moment in time. Only that it was released at that moment.

Who cares what happened at any time after the Big Bang? God was there before it.

How can you know that God was there before it? You make that assumption, but you cannot know. And even then you run into the same problem science has with the universe. If something had to come before the universe, what came before that? Who created your god? And who created the being that created your god?

Every one of your scientific laws can easily co-exist with the Supernatural Being who created them, along with everything else.

That's perfectly true. But they don't require the existence of any supernatural beings.

It is hard to see how they can exist at all without a Supernatural Being.

I don't find it hard at all. I find it harder the see how the existence of supernatural beings can be so widely believed without evidence. But just because we find something hard to believe does not mean it cannot be so.

Why are you assuming God is bound to perfection? Why does He have to be? Why can't He learn like the rest of us, and make mistakes in the process?

I'm not the one making those assumptions! I don't even believe in God. It's the believers who make those claims, and I'm merely pointing out the contradictions those claims engender. But if God can make mistakes and (hopefully) learn from them, just like the rest of us, how does that make him supernatural? That tells me that he would more likely be a being of advanced technology, not a god as humanity has defined the term.

And I would also submit that our understanding of religion and what we believe in has advanced, just as scientific theory has: from fear of thunderclaps to more sophistcated understandings of who we are and why we are here. Out of Zoroastrianism grew Judaism, then Christianity and then Islam; before Zoroastrianism, pagan beliefs, myths and superstition, perhaps, but all leading to the Ultimate Truth.

Again, I have to agree with you, in part. Religion has changed, certainly, but it has done so because science has usurped those areas which were once the sole province of the priests, bringing a better understanding of the forces of nature than religion could provide. So religion has been forced, kicking and screaming all the way I might add, into the realm of the "inner being", the intangible. But here, too, science is making inroads. Advances in medicine and psychology and other sciences are making inroads into our inner selves, learning how the mind functions, and how the brain works. And the more we learn, the less need we have of gods to explain things such as morality and faith. More superstitions fall by the wayside, and religion will be forced to find other explanations for its existence.

I believe they are theories which give (partial) explantions for our current hypotheses. I agree that these theories are constantly being refined in the hope that we will eventually have a Unifed Theory that explains everything ... or at least, as Hawkins put it, enables us to know the mind of God.

And it's my belief that, when we finally are able to look into the mind of God, we will find the mind of man looking back at us.

[Thorne]

That was pure poetry MMI...sighs wistfully and fans myself.

But... but... Aw, shucks. It's always the kooks that get the girls.

[leo9]

"(P)roving that a god exists does not necessarily mean that your god exists"

God has many names! Still God.
Calling Deutschland, Germany doe not change the nature of the country.

So you'd be just as happy praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so long as it's some kind of Supreme Being?

Tell you what, archaeological evidence suggests that the Great Mother and the Horned God were the first deities worshipped by men. (Certainly, the first they made lasting images of.) So would you be happy to accept that your god, and all these other JHVH-come-latelies, are just other, later names for those original True Gods?

No, I thought not.

[leo9]

Scientific contradictions: the cat in the box is both alive and dead ...

So, what's this about biblical contradictions?

A perfect illustration of the fundamental difference between science and religion. (The orthodox kind of religion, anyway.) The contradictions in the Bible are a constant embarrassment to theologians, who devote books to explaining them away.

Contrariwise, Shroedinger was delighted to have found an apparent contradiction (or to be more accurate, an apparently absurd corollary) in quantum theory, and physicists have been enjoying it ever since.

This is why religious fundamentalists (and political fanatics, but that's another thread) cannot get their heads around scientific argument. They live in a world-view where dogmas must be perfect and unquestioned or they are nothing. Whereas any living scientific principle is always being questioned and revised, that's what makes it science. And the religious see this as weakness and failure, and cannot understand why anyone should hold to creeds that are so impermanent when they could have one that hasn't changed in two thousand years.

[leo9]

Scientific contradictions: the cat in the box is both alive and dead ...

So, what's this about biblical contradictions?

A perfect example of the difference between religion (the orthodox kind, anyway) and science. The contradictions in the Bible (which are as many as you would expect in a book written by at least - IIRC - ten authors at widely separated places and times, four of whom thought they were making a complete break with the previous ones) are a constant embarrassment to theologians, who devote books to explaining them away.

Contrariwise, Shroedinger was delighted to have found an apparent contradiction (to be strictly accurate, an apparent absurd corollary) in quantum theory, and physicists have been enjoying it ever since. Every living scientific theory is being constantly questioned and revised, that's what makes it science. And religious fundamentalists see this as weakness, and cannot understand why anyone wants to follow such impermanent creeds when they could have one that hasn't changed in thousands of years.

[leo9]

Sorry about the repeat, I thought the system had eaten it so I rewrote it. Then it popped up. Computers are a mystery.

[MMI]

The difference is shown in your own words: Religions hope that their beliefs will be demonstrated to be true. But through science we hope that we will know one day. Religion deals with revealed truths, while science deals with learned truths.

I think you are making a false distinction: what is the difference between a truth if I am told it and the same truth if I discover it for myself?

But there is also the mistaken notion that "there must be a natural law of physiscs that says something can spontaneously come into existence" to be dealt with. I stated that we basically understand what happened in the universe from a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang until now. We don't yet know what happened before that point in time, which may include before the big bang! We do not have to assume that all the matter in the universe was "created" at one moment in time. Only that it was released at that moment.

That is true, I suppose, but I'm not sure how it advances your argument. If it is your suggestion that before the Big Bang there was a period (I will use the term even though there weas probably no such thing as time) when all that would be was caused pending release then your assertion is no less unfounded, ludicrous and insupportable as is the eternal existence of a deity.

How can you know that God was there before it? You make that assumption, but you cannot know. And even then you run into the same problem science has with the universe. If something had to come before the universe, what came before that? Who created your god? And who created the being that created your god?

I cannot know in the sense you demand it: it is a statement of faith. Religions happily admit that their beliefs do not rest upon proven fact, but upon some other basis instead, such as revelation, perhaps. I agree that, if God has to be created, there is a problem over who or what created Him, but the causa causae problem actually does not exist for religions, only for science. God is not constrained by time. He is eternal. He precedes the Big Bang and everything that went before it.

But just because we find something hard to believe does not mean it cannot be so.

This can be said of religious faith, too

I'm not the one making those assumptions! I don't even believe in God. It's the believers who make those claims, and I'm merely pointing out the contradictions those claims engender. But if God can make mistakes and (hopefully) learn from them, just like the rest of us, how does that make him supernatural? That tells me that he would more likely be a being of advanced technology, not a god as humanity has defined the term.

You are making assumptions too, equally unfounded, based on your belief that there is a scientific answer to everything, and faith that it can be found.

God can be supernatural without being perfect. In fact, He could even be supernatural and thoroughly imperfect. I am thinking of supernatural beings such as Satan, the Daevas, Paantu, and so on.

Again, I have to agree with you, in part. Religion has changed, certainly, but it has done so because science has usurped those areas which were once the sole province of the priests, bringing a better understanding of the forces of nature than religion could provide. So religion has been forced, kicking and screaming all the way I might add, into the realm of the "inner being", the intangible. But here, too, science is making inroads. Advances in medicine and psychology and other sciences are making inroads into our inner selves, learning how the mind functions, and how the brain works. And the more we learn, the less need we have of gods to explain things such as morality and faith. More superstitions fall by the wayside, and religion will be forced to find other explanations for its existence.

Science was once a poor discipline, founded on thoroughly shaky principles that, for millenia, held back its own development. Religion supplied answers science could not. As scientific knowledge grew, religion was able to withdraw to its proper spheres of influence, which was to explain why we are here rather than what we are made of and how we work. Science can continue to grow and religion, though perhaps more focused on particular answers than before, can continue to develop in its search for Truth.

And it's my belief that, when we finally are able to look into the mind of God, we will find the mind of man looking back at us.

I cannot rule out the possibility that after Armageddon, or in whatever new order your preferred religion proposes, the people living in their new Eden will have transitioned from mere mortals to supernatural beings who are no longer bound by laws of nature.

[MMI]

A perfect example of the difference between religion (the orthodox kind, anyway) and science. The contradictions in the Bible (which are as many as you would expect in a book written by at least - IIRC - ten authors at widely separated places and times, four of whom thought they were making a complete break with the previous ones) are a constant embarrassment to theologians, who devote books to explaining them away.

Contrariwise, Shroedinger was delighted to have found an apparent contradiction (to be strictly accurate, an apparent absurd corollary) in quantum theory, and physicists have been enjoying it ever since. Every living scientific theory is being constantly questioned and revised, that's what makes it science. And religious fundamentalists see this as weakness, and cannot understand why anyone wants to follow such impermanent creeds when they could have one that hasn't changed in thousands of years.

I refute the charge that the religious are unthinking, obstinate old fogies who haven't had an original thought in generations and who are afraid to question their most basic tenets. If they were, there'd have been no Jesus and no Mohammed ... and no Aquinus, no Luther or Calvin, and so it can be said, without fear of contradiction, that every living religion's dogmas and beliefs are also constantly being questioned and revised or perfected.

I guess you can compare the religious fundamentalists you deride with the scientists who denied Copernicus's theories, for example, because they preferred the idea that Earth was the centre of the Universe, which they had held, not for a few thousand years, but since time out of mind, or with the bigots who claimed "God does not play dice" when rejecting the idea of quantum mechanics.