Comments by LeeC
101. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #68096 by LeeC on September 6, 2007 at 5:48 am
Its 22:45 here on the 6th Sept.
Damn I've missed it
102. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #68092 by LeeC on September 6, 2007 at 5:39 am
Hi Philip,
My goodness Lee that was rather formidable!
Sorry… as I mention, it has been quiet at work. So I had all day of nothing much to do. (Hope my boss doesn't read this? Eek)
Hope I'm not p*ssing anyone off with my rants.
I hope that was interesting, if I am being boring, tell me and I will mention this no further!
I'm really impressed… its great work. I like it. I cannot get my mind around such research, so I'm glad people like you, Mark and JC can.
I can just then read the summary… (lazy I know) but it is interesting.
Thanks
Lee
103. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #68075 by LeeC on September 6, 2007 at 3:38 am
The Lord and Saviour Quetzalcoatl spoke in Chapter: 1496 Verse: 67888
some commandments (in no particular order)-
- Look both ways before you cross the street.
- Although I watch over you, be sure to watch out for yourself.
- He that says he knows enough knows too little by far. Always keep learning.
- Remember the importance of letting tea brew.
Of course I cannot hope to match your wisdom, so I merely will speak "ideas" of my own in the hope they meet your approval.
- Always heat the pot before brewing your tea
- Where there is evidence, believe – where there is none, doubt.
- If something is too good to be true, then it is probably just not true
- Biscuits are nice, but chocolate-coated biscuits should not be dipped into your tea.
- Question everything, but don't question this.
- Beware of false prophets, and the ones that are not very good and have long white beards, actually just don't trust them unless they have a proven track record, and even then do put your house on it.
All Praise Quetzalcoatl
Lee
Most go… I think that is my 5 posts for 1 of Marks…. Oops.
104. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #68074 by LeeC on September 6, 2007 at 3:36 am
Hi Billy,
No one would quibble over whether Clydebank, Coventry or London were rebuilt after the blitz. They stand today and are inhabited. As does Tyre
Its all about interpretation… you know that. If only the prophecy was a little clearer on the matter so not as much of this interpretation would be required. When I read the chapter I could think of many ways it could be read – this is just one area where the "true" meaning is being ignored.
Let's taken another quick look… (I have already done this once in detail, but hey, if I do it again now, we can see if I match my first comments against it. Maybe I'm interpreting it differently…)
"This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you, then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of long ago. I will make you dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pit, and you will not return or take your place in the land of the living. I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign LORD."
Ezekiel 26:19-21
Shall we bullet point some bits and see how it matches reality?
make you a desolate city… no longer inhabited
So no one should be living in Tyre any more – this is very clear. It says Tyre just before this verse – not the piece of land currently known as Tyre, or the town that looks like Tyre… Nope, it is talking about Tyre.
Anything else requires interpretation – therefore not clear – therefore someone has to bend reality to fit the document – much easier to say it is just wrong.
bring the ocean depths over you…vast waters cover you
A flooded city? – Vast waters!!! Very clear – any evidence for this, or his this part of the prophecy just been ignored? It also seems to mean Tyre should still be under water, any evidence?
bring you down with those who go down to the pit
Now this is just plain weird, and seems to go against the earlier statement of flooding – maybe this area is known to flood and to have earthquakes, so the writer is just saying both, in the hope one turns out true? Edging his bets so to speak.
make you dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pit
Wow… the city actually goes under ground… below the Earth… cool. Very clear – any evidence – or just another interpretation?
you will not return or take your place in the land of the living
So sounds like the city will never been seen by any living soul after this battle of battles… excellent… shame it does not match history.
bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more
Well, any end would be horrible – so this is just words, like most of the prophecy. It could be talking about almost any battle if you ask me.
You will be sought, but you will never again be found
Now this is the important bit on our current debate. "never again be found". However Mark found it… Excellent.
Oh no I'm quoting from the book again… stop Lee, stop…
105. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #68073 by LeeC on September 6, 2007 at 3:16 am
OK - one very long post so not to add to the post-count (just the word count)
Hi steve99,
I wrote:
"Primordial" blackholes (Theoretical objects that might have been created at the start of the universe (doubt it though- no evidence).
Your reply:
No need to worry at all. There is a limit to the size of the primordial black holes that were created during the Big Bang, and that is about the mass of a large mountain. These would not be any kind of risk at all.
Thanks... I don't believe in them myself (didn't know enough physics at the quantum level to prove it like as you say)
I sometimes like to throw "Sci-Fi" science around just for fun - they could make good stories, I guess I watched too much Star Trek as a child.
(Science Fiction Science – does that make any sense? Oh well…)
Please forgive me but I did include "Theoretical", "might", "doubt it" and "no evidence" in the same sentence - this was meant as a hint to the reader my true feelings on the subject, but if any children read my post and had nightmares, then I am sorry.
(It is also good to know that we have people like you out there correcting mistakes and other "misinformation" by fools like me – keeps the mavericks under control.
"May Quetzalcoatl bless your cup of tea!".)
On the maximum mass point in your reply - from what little (I think) I know about primordial blackholes, doesn't this "prove" they do not exist today - since they should have evaporated away by now due to Hawking radiation? The "large" mass I quote was a value I understood was the mass required to last 13.7 billion years? If the mass limit is less, then they have gone "boom" already? (If the theories are correct – which is unlikely at this stage?)
I like physics... and it is good to bounce ideas of others. It is the only way I'll learn.
Hi Quetzalcoatl,
as your God I must chide you for ganging up on Mark. Let your arguments do the convincing, not sheer weight of numbers!
Sorry Quetz… I joined in as well. The "flock" mentality and all that.
Just because all the facts, evidence, logic and common sense are on our side is no reason just to "shoot the score" at Mark as well. This act was wrong – and it shows how wise you truly are.
It is not about "bean counting"… evidence – this is all that matters really.
All praise Quetzalcoatl
Don't forget what I mentioned in Comment 1500 about the Private Messaging. Sounds like Lee is interested in seeing it as well.
You're right… I'm always interested in evidence – I'm rather focused on it.
Sign me up!!!
Hi Quine,
Post 1519
It may be just a coincidence, but about a month ago a couple of J.W. missionaries knocked on my door and proceeded to try to use this old flat Tyre prophecy on me
Coincidence?
It is God's will and message - nothing happens by chance in God's world! It ALL has a purpose and reason… this act via God stoped you watching evil TV for a start because you had to answer the door to the JW and listen to their – erm "story".
I do miss the JW – they have not knocked on my door for years.
A chap stands at the train station giving out their magazines every other week or so. I take a copy in "kind" (no one else getting off the train takes one, only me?) – At least I will read it and it stops a more "impressionable" person getting their hands on this "stuff". On the back page it says something like:-
"If you would like the JW to come visit your house for a bible study, please call this number… 1800 STRAIGHT TO HEAVEN"
I have a little devil in my head who wants to ring… but that would be cruel and immoral – wouldn't it? I have resisted the temptation up to now.
Hi Mark,
Just finishing up on the Google photo evidence (the link didn't work from work)
I found a very clear and detailed piece of visual evidence - visible in the older view but not the current on
I was in a rush this morning; I meant to ask – Why do you think it visible in the original and not the second. Rather important that.
(A bad photograph or just different conditions when the photo was taken?)
Not saying it is impossible but with the little details I have, I must be doubtful at first. We can see many things in photographs if we look hard enough.
Back on the prophecy track though…
You asked me once to read Ezekiel - I read it and give a rather long response as you know (in my own words because you did not want me to copy or be influenced by anyone else). Anything else I write will be repeating what I have already written (although I really, really want to join in again…)
I know you have been busy (and I write 27.3 posts for your one at the moment - sorry) but it looks like the questions against the passage are being repeated – so maybe now would be a good time to address my points (and others) and we can finally (?) move on from the Ezekiel prophecy.
(I fancy looking at the evidence for the miracles described in the bible – not that God cannot do them, I know you believe that he can, but if some of the events did happen as described, why do we not see any non-Christian evidence for them?
I thank Quetz for seconding the motion – but it is of course up to you Mark – I have seen no evidence but want to be amazed – I probably just have not been looking hard enough?)
Anyway, the links to the Ezekiel debate can be found following the summary link at the top of this page under:
Why are there so many questions and interpretations on the bible prophecies?
I am overwhelmed. Lee alone seems to generate about 5 posts for every one of mine. I have a little time, but not nearly enough to reply to all the points people have been raising of late. Sorry - but that's just the way it is!
Sorry… I feel shamed. I grouped my comments into one long post now so it might not look so bad? (It is still sad I know – the shame)
The rate of posting will not last though (so enjoy (or suffer it) while you can kids) I'm having quiet moment at work as the project comes to an end… so I have time to write much of my words during the day (I just post them at night).
When I moved onto a new project – I will not have the same amount of time for writing. (Hooray I hear you all cry!!!)
I do not expect you to answer all my posts, there is a part of me that hopes that my questions are so clever that they are "impossible" to answer – but I doubt I have written anything new on any topic so far. (Maybe this is why I write so much – some of it must be good right, by chance alone?)
You replied to SRWB with:
I can't see where you can go from here, or how you could disprove my argument
Taken out of context I know Mark (sorry) but it is worth commenting on this type of thinking – it is not for anyone here to "disprove" the bible… a theist needs to prove the bible to the rest of us (which I know is your aim Mark and I thank you for that).
For example: If I say "I can fly by just by moving my arms up and down really fast" – Well, you cannot disprove this statement but you would be right to dismiss it until I can prove it to you.
You could throw me off a high building and watch me move my arms around like an idiot before I fall horribly to my painful death (or into a swimming pool so I just get wet - I hope) but this still would not "disprove" my statement. I never said "when" I could fly or if I have to take a "run up" first for the magic of flight to work… I can just "move the goalposts" every time.
You will NEVER disprove me – I'm a moving target.
However, you could look at the claim from a different angle, look at the other 6 billion humans on this planet who cannot fly by moving their arms up and down – has anyone you trust seen such an event? – or you could do some Physics research and state my mass is too great and so the amount of downward thrust I could make with my arms would NEVER be enough to lift me off the ground (and that each downward thrust would be cancelled out by the upward)
This all would make me look like a liar (or just deluded)… certainly very likely to be wrong. You cannot "disproved" my claim with this line of thinking, but would have rightly classified it as unlikely, and without evidence – reject my claim.
So unless I can present you with evidence proving that I can fly (or that flight is likely or even possibly by humans with just their arms moving up and down) then you should dismiss such crazy claims. "False until proven otherwise" (As I am sure you do). You are "atheist" to my claims of human flight.
I used the same method of questioning and reason when I read the "amazing" stories in the bible.
Why would this be wrong?
It has been said (by others, if not you) that "if I believe in God, then I will believe in the bible" – but then it is also been said that "the bible is the evidence for God"… this logic just does not work.
Hence I am looking outside the bible – outside Christianity for evidence for the stories within the bible, it is the only "safe" way, anything else is "out to prove itself"
I have presented this thread with several (I others could make it many if you like) events/"miracles" described in the bible which should have evidence from non-Christian sources to backup the claims (either written or physical)
(I know, I know – I write too much so you probably missed them)
The absence of any such evidence for these miracles for me (and others) is the "evidence of absence"… they just did not happen as described.
It is not that atheists "won't" believe – some of us "want" to believe (or have in the past) – however I think all the atheists here "don't" believe because they have not been present with the evidence.
I have written enough – there is a danger with the volume I write so much gets lost.
Lee
106. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67991 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 2:13 pm
3-1
107. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67990 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Hi Billy,
I'm going to be late... again
You still haven't shown that these things were written about before the event.
This is the most important thing that needs to be proven; when was the document written and last modified (We have all repeated this many times now)
Without it, the story could be just poor history writing.
Lee
108. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67988 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Hi Mark,
By the way, Lee, this is nothing like the "face on Mars" business. We are talking about a real, accessible place
I will trust you then... it just sounded "odd" that the "something" that you saw was in an old picture, but not the new.
Remember, I do not know what this something is yet.
I have to go to work now... back later.
Lee
109. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67985 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Question: Any evidence (from non-Christian sources) for the bible miracle accounts, focusing on the events described at the time of the crucifixion?
This question was raised during a rant that I made here.
In it I question why no evidence has been found outside the bible (or other Christian writings) to confirm the bible miracles, in particular the events around the crucifixion.
JC gave a "possible" reply from a theist point of view, showing a Christian writing that has been used in the past as evidence. here
My main point to this is that it is still Christian literature which is here and here and here
Where I go into further details on the miracle claims, and their more likely natural origin.
No reply as yet for Mark or any other theist.
110. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67984 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 2:03 pm
UPDATE on post 1392
1392. Question: Why has Jesus not come back within the lifetime of those who knew him as promised?
This has been discussed further:
A few "highlights" can be found below:
Mark's first response: 1398,
Further questions from me: 1400 & 1420 & 1428
Response from JC: 1414
The debate is still OPEN.
111. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67983 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Since we are a top of a new page... I will repost the summary. Tell me if this is a bad idea.
A brief history on some of the past topics... that I am sure we will come back to at some point.
Note: The links only seem to work if the post order is the normal sort order i.e. ascending (do not use "Swap Comment Order")
###README#####
The Summary posts
1392.
Question: Why has Jesus not come back within the lifetime of those who knew him as promised?
1393/1394
Question: How can Noah and the flood be understood to have happened as described in the bible?
1395/1396
Question: How old is the Earth and the Universe? Is the Earth 4.5 Billion years old or only 6,000 years?
1397
Question: Why are there so many questions and interpretations on the bible prophesies
112. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67978 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 1:57 pm
#Summary Post#
Now it looks like we have moved on to a different topic! (Good old Tyre)
I now wish to add to this last question to merry list so we can come back to it...
Mark asked the question:
Why would "A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different."
A quote made by Richard Dawkins.
(Too many replies to list them all – sorry all - it gets called SPAM)
Summary:
Quetzalcoatl responded here highlighting bad design in the universe and biology.
the_assayer responded (best in Mark's view) with
this
My attack on a badly designed universe that is out to kill us can be found here.
with a more "direct" response to Mark's question
here
(which also includes another reason why the universe cannot be less than 10,000 years old – if we really needed it)
Mark last response is here
Long may the debate continue….
113. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67897 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 4:56 am
Well Done Q,
A new book, whats the topic of the novel?
Have to go... late here.
Lee
114. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67886 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 4:26 am
UPDATE on post 1492:
1392. Question: Why has Jesus not come back within the lifetime of those who knew him as promised?
This has been discussed further:
A few "highlights" can be found below:
Mark's first response: 1398,
Further questions from me: 1400 & 1420 & 1428
Response from JC: 1414
The debate is still OPEN.
115. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67884 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 4:22 am
Hi Q,
Don't forget the 3 hours of darkness (over the WHOLE Earth)
Funny how no one else in the world notice such an event and thought to write it down?
Even stranger is the fact that a earthquake did happen at "around" the right time - 500 miles away.
A total solar eclipse did happen in Nov AD29 (The wrong time - this is not the day after Passover)
(and the darkness from this can only be a maximum of 7.5 mins... not 3 hours - and not after Passover which happens at full moon (I think))
Philip did give an answer to the Dead walking I liked... drinking the wrong drink from the wrong cup... but I think it was the bible writers who were "on something"
The links that summarise this mini-debate are in my post 1491 above.
The more I read the bible... the more I know it was written by man, for man.
On the subject matter of books - any gospels according to Quetz on the horizon?
We should at least be working on the Ten Commandments for Tea making?
Lee
116. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67881 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 4:13 am
Hi all,
The posts keep moving on, (I take the blame for some of it for writing a lot of rubbish) and so I feel I should re-post a link to my summary.
Mainly so it does not get lost. Please add to it as you feel fit.
I will re-post post it when we start a new page…
They can be found on page28 posts 1392 to 1397 if the links do not work.
###README#####
The Summary posts
1392.
Question: Why has Jesus not come back within the lifetime of those who knew him as promised?
1393/1394
Question: How can Noah and the flood be understood to have happened as described in the bible?
1395/1396
Question: How old is the Earth and the Universe? Is the Earth 4.5 Billion years old or only 6,000 years?
1397
Question: Why are there so many questions and interpretations on the bible prophesies
117. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67878 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 4:04 am
Another new topic?
Goldy reminded me of a post when asking the question:
Talking of earthquakes, what about that one that was meant to have occurred when JC died (if I remember my NT correct). Any "proof" of that?
Goes to show that a summary post would be handy sometimes… this has been discussed (and of course not fully answered) before. (My fault though - I ask too many questions)
So a new question to add to our summary?
Question: Any evidence (from non-Christian sources) for the bible miracle accounts, focusing on the events described at the time of the crucifixion?
I raised this within a rant that I made here:-
JC gave a "possible" reply from a theist point of view here
My rely to this can be found here and here
and here
I think this all goes to show that I just ask too many questions and should have paid more attention in my religious study classes.
I'm trying to quit…
Maybe when we start a new page I will add another summary post at the top… so we do not miss anything. (Drafting it now)
Lee
118. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67877 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 4:01 am
Hi Goldy,
Well spotted, I forgot about that verse, so in the King James…
I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD.
You wrote in post 1482 replying to Mark's claim to have found Tyre:
then Biblically speaking it can't be that Tyre as it would go against God's word.
So is Mark is right, and the bible is wrong?
Maybe another reinterpretation of the bible is required… I never understand the bible as I should – so I am told.
Mark,
When you have a moment, could you respond to the Tyre post I did back in May – I think you are wrong and I wrote my reasons why? Would love to know where you think I went wrong.
Thanks
Lee
119. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67875 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 3:56 am
Hi Mark,
Good to see you are getting back up to speed.
Well, there seems to have been quite a lot of response to one short comment of mine! I don't want to spend much more time on this...
Oh... Oops, I did go on a bit.
I think the_assayer came closest to seeing the issue I was getting at
Well Done the_assayer, looks let I am at the bottom of the class again. I should read the question more carefully.
I would like to think though that I made some valid points, so again, in summary form:-
Does the Universe have a good design or not? This was my first attack on the subject. (It is a rather deadly place)
My next attack was that the universe and life "appears" to be built in stages, step-by-step... and a god should not have to do that. Of course, this depends on your definition on what God can and cannot do. I have not built a straw man here, Mark- I would like your definition on God.
This moved onto my third point (that finally addresses your question head-on I thought), the definition of God taken from the bible (and from the preachers of the bible) is one of a supreme being that can do whatever He wants… so why would He create the universe as we see it? It does not make any sense. Why should it make sense? Well, God is prefect right? So it should – either that, or God is a fraud or a trickster.
So, Mark, could you take a moment to think about my responses here and in post 1470 & 1457? You raised a valid point about the universe and life by highlighting this comment – so I am interested in your views to my objections.
Why am I wrong?
On the Tyre debate, well I have summarised the debate here, so I will not repeat myself further until my original comments have been addressed. (Hooray - I am using my summaries).
I originally saw the pertinent visual details when surveying the area on Google Maps as my debate with JCS on this topic was in its later stages, back in May. Unfortunately, since the Google Maps (and Google Earth) satellite images for Lebanon were updated in June, it is not now so easy to see the details as previously it was
So the new improved pictures do not show what you are looking for? Why?
Not having seen either of the pictures, I cannot really comment - but it does sound a little similar to the "face on Mars" photos. With the original pictures people claim to see a face looking up in the sky. (So do I, the mind works like this - it places common patterns onto unfamiliar objects).
However, the latest pictures, with improved resolution - you cannot see the face... just rocks and shadows - why? There was no face.
Could it be the new improved pictures do not show what you are looking for because it was never really there?
Don't know - would need to see the pictures myself.
The city Alexander conquered and wrecked, the island fortress, was indeed rebuilt then destroyed again a number of times.
This sounds like you are reinterpreting the prophecy? I hope you are not moving the goalposts on us?
No... No... I must not get pulled in until original objections have been resolved...
See ya
Lee
120. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67873 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 3:55 am
Hi Philip,
You're probably right - testing our telescopes by looking at public baths, beaches and any other locations with a "general interest" should be done first. It would be good science and unprofessional of us not to test our equipment first - but it true what they say, it did make Galileo go blind (in one eye at least, he got too close to the sun while looking at the "fine details" at the beach or something I hear)
I also want to know what all this business with (Super Massive) black holes (I love Muse!)
There great aren't they, black holes that is, not sure about Muse, maybe I'm getting old but I'm sure I "watched" them live and fell asleep?
They don't have to be "super massive" either (these are the millions of solar mass blackholes at the centre of most (all?) large galaxies), don't forget the "stellar" mass blackholes though. However, I think the super massive ones could be more fun if you want a quick trip into the future - a "little" safer to play with than the "stellar" mass blackholes.
There is also something called "Primordial" blackholes (Theoretical objects that might have been created at the start of the universe (doubt it though- no evidence). These objects though could be more of God's deadly little "toys". If they came close to the Earth they would rip us apart, if nearby, they would still be a huge risk, they could explode at any moment, they are a ticking timebomb… and if they were created with the right mass – it could be right now they are set to go BOOM!.
Would we see it coming? Erm, well, a Primordial blackhole created with the mass just over half that of the moon (a mass that means it should be blowing up very soon) would be on the sub-atomic scale (rather small) so not easy to see – yet such an object would fry us with Gamma rays in a massive explosion if it went off anywhere close.
Another wonderful way to be killed – but I have bored everyone enough on how many ways the universe wants to kill us.
I take it God was fed up like with stuff in space and the flood and put all the naughty decadent stuff in the black holes?
These would be a great place to move all those asteroids and comets that could kill us any day soon (Hint, Hint Quetz). Why didn't God just swipe all this crap into one of these blackholes? Tidy the place up a little, making it safe for His lovely children?
They could be God's cosmic dustbin so to speak.
Lee
121. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67652 by LeeC on September 4, 2007 at 6:39 am
Thanks Billy for bringing it home... it is amazing the tricks God had to do to get us humans walking around down here on Earth.
However, like you say, the more amazing the trick, the more amazing the magician - I still not heard a good explanation where the magician (God) came from.
Hi Quetz, (It's great when you can call your God by a nickname… The God of the people I say)
Why not just have the same type of star as the Sun
Because Q, you think we humans deserve a variety of colour in our stars… from White blue through to red. I know it was a lot of effort just for pinpricks in the sky – but I appreciate it. It is nice to have different colours in the night sky.
The giant stars burn briefly and tend to either super-nova… [or then] become neutron stars
And we thank you again… and once you taught Galileo how a telescope should be used ("look up at the night – not the women across the street in the public baths") then we could see the wonders of the supernova remnants… they are so pretty to look at. Just like fireworks… look great, but should be viewed at a distance.
Hey, but don't forget the white dwarfs (the future for our sun)… you are so kind to us. You create diamonds the size of the Earth… WOW. Shame I have to wait longer than the age of the current universe for it to be cool enough to touch, but hey. It is still a bloody big diamond. It will be great to watch someone put that on a ring.
what's the point of neutron stars?
Quetzalcoatl, how could you forget? You said you would create the largest, most accurate clocks in the universe so you would not be late for work again? (OK – largest? They are only 20km across, but more massive than the sun – that's not bad) so the neutron star; with their pulsar "beam" have accuracies that are astronomical (sorry)… certainly better than any Swiss watch I may add. So well done you!
Neutron systems don't tend to have planets, because they all got destroyed when the original star went nova
You're not wrong of course…the supernova destroys everything, but do you remember that time you drank one too many of the "special" cups of tea… well, for a joke you decided to create some planets around a neutron star? Well – I remember it, I was at university when I first heard and your powers just amazed me then (and I didn't even know you).
And guess what – the reason why we found them was because you made them such good clocks – what a guy!
so why have them?
I do not question your wonders… just look in amazement.
The subbies promised they'd clean up after themselves, but did they?
They never do… but you should try and find a good Aussie tradesman… now that would be a miracle.
I'm doing my best with the comets, but even for a deity it's hard work calculating all the orbital trajectories and nudging them just enough to avoid killing my worshippers
Keep up the good work, that's all I will say… hey, it has been 100 years since you missed a tiny one (and that only killed a few deer and a lot of trees, (so not so bad)
All praise Quetzalcoatl, the saviour of our planet.
Lee
122. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67620 by LeeC on September 4, 2007 at 3:15 am
Hi pewkatchoo
Whisky surely. None of that Irish muck around here please
I was not feeling well, did I miss the 'e'. Sorry.
It was God's own Scottish water! I promise
Must Go...
Lee
123. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67617 by LeeC on September 4, 2007 at 3:10 am
Hi Mark,
I realised yesterday I just jumped on the back of Quetzalcoatl comments rather than directly address your question. (Well, Q is my Lord and Saviour - I am suppose to follow where he leads...)
Your post: 1453. Comment #67101
Quote:
"A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different."
Richard Dawkins
Mark Asked:
I am always staggered when I see this quote appear in the side-bar, as it just did. I would love Richard Dawkins to tell us how he can happily assert this, without effectively claiming God-level (i.e. infinite) knowledge and status for himself!
Yesterday I mainly pointed out all the crap in the universe and thanked God for doing it this way. Sorry, this does answer your question (and could be classified as being rude - Oops) - my excuse is that I had a cold and was not feeling well - however, I suspect I would use any excuse to write about physics and point out how rubbish the universe is if someone claimed it was designed. No excuses for being rude – just poor humour).
Anyway, it made me feel better. Hope you forgive me.
So, I will try and take a moment to tackle your question "head-on". Just pointing out how dangerous the universe is or pointlessly large is valid if the argument was against "Good Design" from the point of view of mankind. Who knows, maybe God likes it this way, or it is the only way He could make the universe work? (Not sure about the last point - this limits the powers of God a little, not a really that great a God?)
Anyway, to recap and get back to the point:
I would love Richard Dawkins to tell us how he can happily assert this, without effectively claiming God-level (i.e. infinite) knowledge and status for himself!
Do you really need "God-level knowledge" to assert this?
I say No...
However you do need a definition of God and what He is capable of doing.
This is all that Richard Dawkins has done – by using the "standard" definition of God (taken from the bible at least) you would not expect to see the universe as we actually see it.
For example, our Lord and Saviour Quetzalcoatl makes a great cup of tea, but has stated in communications to his followers that He uses subcontractors for all the hard-labour like painting the sky blue. (Good idea if you ask me). So it would not surprise me that Quetzalcoatl would also use subcontractors for the solar system construction. If this was the case, finding rubbish and mess floating around in space is just what you get if you do not get a qualified and certified builders of Solar Systems for your work (Sorry Quetz, this is not a criticism as such, the design was pretty good, and I know you have to take into account the budget and cost on any large scale project – your human "half" is an accountant after all – just please consider getting in some professional cleaners sometime soon before anything bad happens with these comets and asteroids flying around? Look what happened last time with the dinosaurs!)
So Mark, what are the limitations (if any) in the power of the God described in the bible - your God?
If Richard Dawkins is guilty of anything, it is merely "assuming" that God is all-powerful, the creator (and breaker) of physical laws, an all loving God, and whose most important species is the humans. (I am told all this information is found in the bible – so no need for "infinite" knowledge then? Just a good book).
To have this "knowledge" is what religion is all about – isn't it? A theist claims to know what God can or cannot do (Is there anything God cannot do BTW?)
You have even said yourself Mark that you "know" that God created the Earth and the universe 6,000 years ago - does this mean your knowledge is "infinite" and "God-like"? I doubt you will make this claim.
So Richard Dawkins is using the same source of information (the holy books) and stating - well, if this book were true - why would the universe look like it does?
I think that is it? Case closed? No – you what a reason? Fine, no problem.
I did touch on this with my first response on this subject.
The process of the universe can be observed and explained in a linear fashion. Step 1 followed by Step 2. God could make up the order however He wanted.
So ignoring all the things in the universe that could have been done better (in the perspective of mankind - God's choose species) - God did not have to build the universe (or life) in steps (as it appears to be).
Step1 followed by Step 2 – BlockA coming before BlockB.
Physics has NO other way to describe the universe. Biology has no other way to describe life, other than this linear "step-by-step" process. (Lucky for us it matches the observations eh?)
God could break this rule... Hence the universe with a God could look so very different (and probably should if God was powerful enough).
Man does not have to have DNA that "appears" to be built on the foundations of previous species. (I need to learn more Biology talk. I hope this is close enough)
In astrophysics...loads of examples, let's start close to home and chose just one:
The Sun
If God created the solar system, then the sun does not need to be a Population I star. The Sun is "metal rich" and so contains lots of heavy metals in its atmosphere, these had to be made somewhere - in previous stars that have gone supernovae.
(What is a Population I star? - don't ask, Population III stars come first, they go supernova, then Population II come along, then finally Population I stars form out of the ashes of the PopII's - it makes sense to an astrophysicist somewhere this number system? I think they cannot count - it also means in 6 billion years when a star forms out of the ashes of the PopI stars, I do not know what we will call these stars, the Romans did not have a zero, so it will not be Pop0... oh well, not my problem I guess).
If the Sun was made purely from Hydrogen and Helium (a 1st generation - Population III star) then physics does not allow for the terrestrial planets we see around the sun. These all require previous supernovas to create the metals (Chemistry for an Astrophysicist is easy, everything heavier than Helium is a metal - love it). Yet, of course, we see planets - we observe metals in the atmosphere of the sun. A previous step is required.
Now do you begin to see why Richard Dawkins says the universe should/could look different?
Hope I did a better job this time than just criticising Quetzalcoatl's sub-contractors (Sorry about that)
Now, if you are claiming God used sub-contractors also, so they also had to build the universe in steps... well, that would be different - very different from the God of the bible who "clicked" His fingers and formed the universe.
I understand that your God could make the universe look however He likes... God has that power you could say - but why make it the way it is? You could say "God's will" - I say the universe and life formed via a "step-by-step" linear process without a god. I have evidence to back-up my theories.
God could have made the universe look very different.
See ya
Lee
PS
Aside: Have to mention the time issue AGAIN, I do not expect to discuss stellar evolution often this thread (although I do take requests!!!)
The fact that the Sun is seen with Heavy Metals, with planets (showing it is a popI star) is another reason why I "know" the Earth and Universe is older than 6,000 years.
Stars take time to form, to live and evolve... the Sun shows evidence that more than one star had to form and go supernova before it could start its own long life process.
A super massive star (such as an O-B type star - these live fast and die young) live for around 10 million years before they go "BOOM"... throwing their gas of metals into space - it then takes more time for this gas cloud to cool and collapse into the next generation of stars. (Science can put estimates on this time scale and guess what, it is more than 10,000 years. I guess you would debate the estimates – feel free. Just ask yourself though – Why would God make it look this way, just to trick us, or because it really happened this way? Also note, this isn't the only timescale that shows a much older universe.
Thanks again
124. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67613 by LeeC on September 4, 2007 at 2:47 am
Hi Philip,
In a way I am glad we still have 95% still to go, gives mankind something useful to do!!
I think it is great also... it also makes me laugh when some theist say "You scientists think you know everything" - I can reply, "well, we know 5% rather well..."
For us though here on Earth, and in our solar system it is the MOST important bit that we understand well. Dark Matter by its very nature does not affect us at all. Dark Energy I believe only has an influence on space bigger than a billion light years or so (although, this is all new to me – we never had Dark Energy in my day (spoken in broad Lancashire accent))
Lee
PS Whiskey works wonders... cheers!
125. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67353 by LeeC on September 3, 2007 at 5:26 am
Hi Q,
I'm sure a theist would say that the Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt are there for man to exploit for resources. But even they are bloody far away!
A theist can say many things, but it does not mean it makes any sense.
Comet collisions in the early days of the Earth were very useful... we think that is where most (all) of the water came from on the Earth (People debate this a lot though)
But a god does not need to use this method.
These objects are dangerous... and should be moved away by any loving God.
If we need the resources, he could make the moon out of the stuff. It is a lot safer and nearer to home.
The logic just does not work (never does though with some theists)
Doesn't part of the Oort cloud extend beyond the heliopause? Or am I wrong?
Yep, the Oort cloud also goes out much further than that (well, the theory says it is – they are so far away and objects are so small, we only think it does – it explains the comets though we see)
I think the heliopause is suppose to be at around 100 AU (don't quote me) ( 1 Astronomical unit - the distance from the Earth to the sun)
The Oort cloud supposed to be up to the 10's of thousands of AU's...
All good stuff... so a passing heavy object through this cloud could push a new comet straight at us, and we will probably only know when it gets to around Jupiter... when it is too late if it is on collision course.
Lee
126. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67343 by LeeC on September 3, 2007 at 4:59 am
Hello again Philip,
All things are made of something according to the above laws but God seems to not be made of these things...I am so confused!!
I could make it worse if you like?
It is probably best you here it from me. Did you get that cup of tea?
The universe is made of stuff... so far so good? (I'm keeping it simple because I'm ill and drinking whisky to make me feel better)
We know it is made up of 100% of this stuff.
The problem though is that when it comes to the matter in the universe, we only know and measure about 30% of the stuff. And of that, 25% of it is known as "dark matter" (we do not know what it is... we only know of it because of its gravity, it does not seem to interact in any other way with normal matter, maybe it also interacts via the weak nuclear force as well, but we do not know for sure)
We also know about 70% of the universe is made up of "Dark Energy" - we know even less about that. It is causing the universe expansion to accelerate (The best guess is it is the Quantum energy of the vacuum - yep nothing has energy)
So, now do the maths... this give us only 5% of normal "stuff" which we think we understand - a little. It is all that we see in the universe.
Oh dear… maybe I should not have said anything.
It's OK… just think God did it, and all will be well.
Lee
127. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67334 by LeeC on September 3, 2007 at 4:42 am
Hi Philip,
No worries.. just hope I do not bore you all to death...
I just dont like the idea of God taking pot-shots with asteroids all the time, those buggers are getting closer each time!
I just posted a comment on this... didn't see your post at the time.
If a loving God created the universe, then he should have tidied up the bloody mess. I mean, I have a little child, I love him – and therefore I do not leave broken glass and knifes around the house for him to find and hurt himself. It just is not what a loving father does.
Yet it is OK for God?
Lee
128. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67331 by LeeC on September 3, 2007 at 4:33 am
All praise Quetzalcoatl,
You just cannot get the staff these days... BOOBA did a poor job - I mean, it goes all red at the end of the day?
I heard about the extinction theory (there was a post around here about it some time ago)... could be true, but difficult to prove.
There is no super-massive stars near by to worry about (we would notice them, they are bright super-massive stars after all) The problem though are the neutron binary systems... very hard to spot.
I heard they found one such system in the galaxy, but luckily it is pointing away from Earth so we are safe with this one...
It is the comets that worry me... great big snowballs from hell.
I mean, why didn't God tidy up his mess when he finished making the solar system? We do not "need" the asteroid belt, Kuiper Belt or Oort cloud.
OK – we would expect them if you did not believe God created the solar system and the universe was just formed by chance using known physics – but God should have tidied up… He could cause some serious damage with some of this rubbish.
And you thought BOOBA was a poor workman?
Lee
129. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #67295 by LeeC on September 3, 2007 at 3:00 am
Hi Mark,
Glad you are back… I didn't notice on the news any world wars happening, so I guess your visit to the Holy Land was uneventful on the biblical prophecy sense (Or is it?)
Anyway, as Quetz has pointed out – I've been busy asking questions… sorry. I try not too, but they just keep "popping up".
Hi the_assayer,
Like it... Like it….
You have summed up my understanding of RD's quote rather well. It is the absence of "miracles" – No "jumps" in the progress of the evolving universe.
The process of the universe can be observed and explained in a linear fashion. Step 1 followed by Step 2. God could make up the order however He wanted. It is the same with the universe, it is the same with life (but on the evolution part of this question, I will leave it for others to explain in detail – I know my place)
But I think BOOBA could be the future, I will watch His progress with interest…
Hi Q,
...but is BOOBA any good at making tea?
All Praise Quetzalcoatl the maker of blessed sweet milky tea.
… LeeC has taken the opportunity to amass a list of about five dozen questions.....
Oops… sorry – I get carried away. The "devil makes work" and all that.
It what happens when I read the bible – questions, questions.
You may be glad to know I have been posting a lot of my questions at another (Christian) forum now – to keep myself more focus here. I do not get any answers, but I like to think I am doing my bit on the "God bothering" front
Anyway, I will try and make up for it by helping to answer a question by Mark.
It is only fair? (and sorry Mark, I do a lot of "God thanking" – no offence meant, just how I talk)
LeeC and Billy surpass me in knowledge of physics and biology respectively, but I'll give it a stab.
Thanks, but you do not need to know that much about physics to design a better universe for man to enjoy (God's chosen animal I hear?)
Your 3 first points are the main points I would highlighted as well against the designer/creator of the universe.
(Should I go further than just 3? I have done so on another forum (Darwinordesign.com - but the only debater is the site owner - Jason Rennie) He produced a podcast interviewing some IDer's, one who thinks we live on a "Privileged Planet" and has evidence for design? I listened to the "arguments" - laughed - then attacked everyone one of them on the forum- Jason gave up on me. All good fun. So if you want to know more of my thoughts on the un-designed universe, you could wander over there if you like - I ain't got no PhD but I can laugh at the designed universe arguments)
Anyway Q, I will expand a little on your points (if I may) against design/created universe (The biology I will leave of course to Billy and others).
it wouldn't be expanding, since it was all created at once (creationism). There would be no point
The Expanding Universe.
Why isn't the universe static? An expanding universe suggests a beginning, at a single point in space and time. (It also gives the impression using such things as the cosmic background radiation that it all started 13.7 billion years ago - why would God require so much time? Couldn't God just "click" his fingers and here we will be?)
And as you rightly point out - what is the point of an expanding (and accelerating) universe anyway if it was created? None I know of – it just gives us a future of a "Big Chill" at the end of the universe.
The expanding universe makes sense only if you accept the Big Bang theory - and I have not seen any God in those equations. I would have thought I would have noticed.
the gaps between systems would not be so darn large, for ease of human colonisation
Scale
The universe is BIG... very big. Need I go on?
Why would God make such a large universe? It has only been in the last 100 years that man has had the technology to start "visually" exploring the universe (before the 1920's this galaxy was all science knew about – some "nebulae" were seen before of course - but no one knew what they truly were, and it took Edwin Hubble to prove that they were not of this galaxy).
As for the more "local" distances, it was a huge effort and achievement for man to get to the moon, but that is not even getting out of the front door when you look at the scale of the universe. Maybe in the next 20 years man may walk on Mars... but this is really pushing it (A round trip of 3 years stuck in a metal tube is not my idea of a holiday).
This is just our solar system though... what about the stars?
If "Voyager" (our fastest man-made object still travelling) was heading in the right direction it would take nearly 80,000 years (rough maths, but I know it is more than a weekend or two) to reach our nearest neighbour (Proxima Centauri) part of a multiple star system (Alpha Centauri) (its in the "Southern Cross" constellation, the one on the Aussie flag. You northerners just would not understand.)
So - thanks God... thanks a lot - the local neighbourhood is just too bloody big to explore!!! (Forget about the galaxy or the universe – in your dreams)
But hey, we can see the universe right? God is not so bad? He created a universe we can look at - what a nice chap?
Well no - not really.
Very little of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum reaches the surface of the Earth, and "of course" we humans only see in the "visual" part of the EM spectrum. We are "blind" too much of the universe. (Cheers again God – you give other animals better eyes than me - thanks)
If you look at the pictures from the Hubble space telescope (HST) the universe is amazing... yet if you go out to your backyard on a dark night (shoot at all the street lights with your shotgun to get it nice and dark, shoot the moon as well if it is in the way - trust me, the neighbours do not come out to complain if you have a shotgun firing) - you can only see a "few" thousand individual stars with the naked eye... that's it folks. (And I mean a few, 1 – 2 thousand if you are really really lucky)
So what of the other billions stars in our galaxy? God obvious made them so he could laugh at how rubbish he made our eyes, and how big He made the galaxy. Adding all that "dust" must have really made God smile - it means at the visual wavelengths we cannot see over half our galaxy even with the best telescopes. What a joker God is... (You have to love him right?)
And what of other galaxies?
Again, in the right location on a dark night, if you look up you may (just maybe) notice a little blur of light in the night sky. What is it? It is another spiral galaxy like our own (M31 - Andromeda) over 2 million light years away. (Not so local then - I got my beer mat out again and calculated; I think it will take 35 billion years for "Voyager" to reach M31, if we aimed it right. Anyone wants to share the driving?)
God in all his wisdom (and humour) places one of the most beautiful objects in the night sky out of reach to the naked eye.
Why? What kind of design is that? Thanks again God - Think of the impression, the inspiration such an object would have been to art, religion, science everything - if only we could have seen the bloody thing with our own eyes.
And what about the other billions and billions of galaxies?
Forget it… the list just goes on and on...
No evidence for design, not good design anyway.
Why not? Either God likes playing jokes on mankind by making a universe so big we cannot even dream to explore it, so big we cannot see it all (and dirty, bloody dust – lucky we invented Infrared and radio telescopes – with no help from God) - or maybe the universe is just - well, just here.
The universe is the way it is because... I could bore you all with some of the physics, let's just say it has to be this large due to the timescales involved. It takes time to form a sun like ours, for life to evolve, for man to live and think about the world. The universe has to be expanding at the speed it has because otherwise we would not be here (it would have collapsed if too slow, galaxies not formed if too fast) (A miracle? Chance? Something as yet unknown?)
One thing for sure, if God created it all in 6,000 years (or whenever) it does not need to be the size it is... however, without a God, there is no surprise, physics is very happy with the observations - it is this large, and this old because that is the way it goes.
Maybe at this point an IDer will walk into the debate and go...
"This is how the Designer made it"...
Yeah? - prove it.
I can explain much without the need to invoke god, and no one has ever explained God (or BOOBA). Of course I will not question you Quetzalcoatl not while I have my tea.
I've gone on enough on this point.
there would be fewer/none gamma ray bursters/black holes/super-novas/novas/rogue stars/poorly-aimed comets and asteroids/radiation in general. It might be a smidge easier to survive.
The Dangerous unliveable universe.
The universe is not a very friendly place for life - certainly for intelligent life. If God really loved us - He would not try and kill us all the time.
(OK – we are not dead yet, All praise Quetzalcoatl! The Tea makes us stronger and keeps nasty asteroids away)
I will add though Q, supernovas are rather important – without them we could not be here. It is from them that all the heavy metals are created (Heavier than Iron). Of course, I would not want to be near one when it "blows", but hey. I would love to see Betelgeuse blow up wouldn't you? – Anytime now I'm told (Shame it is on the astronomical scale so anytime soon is between now and a million years. Why did God make us live such a short time compared to the interesting astronomical stuff? Every one should be able to watch a couple of supernovas in their own galaxy – and then have a few thousand years more to observer the gas cloud expand. So pretty - it is just not fair!!!)
Anyway, the dangerous solar system touches again on the exploration issue. One of the problems for man travelling to Mars is all that lovely radiation the sun throws at us (The solar wind is pretty to look at with the Northern/Southern Lights - but without the Earth's magnetic field, we would be pretty much dead - well, actually probably just never existed.) So for any journey lasting 3 years to Mars we will have to protect our travellers against this radiation given from the Sun. Not easy. A loving God would not make such a deadly Sun that stops us travelling to one of our neighbours. (Not our nearest - Venus is closer, but who wants to travel to that place? No walking on Venus if you know what is good for you)
So lets continue onto the crappy and deadly Sun itself. Thanks again God, this sun you have given us? It's got 4.5 billion years on the clock, and is getting warmer. It probably will kill life as we know it on Earth within a billion years (maybe a few million)... if not then though, when it moves off the main-sequence (don't ask unless you want me to bore you more) to become a red giant then the Earth really will be toast.
The atmosphere on Earth will have boiled away, and Earth will just be a hot rock in space. If we fancied "moving" out somewhere better, the galaxy is too bloody big - we are stuck here. Maybe we could move to a moon around Jupiter, should be warm enough at this point. However, it will not last - the sun will run out of "fuel", blow away its outer layers, and will be just a dead white dwarf (about the size of the Earth, but very dense) slowly cooling away.
It doesn't have to be this way in a well designed universe... God, I want my money back!
- humans might be designed better. Absence of appendix/straight spine/blind spot/arthritis caused by being bipedal.
- separate "lines" of animals would not have genomes that can be traced back to common ancestors, since they were created separately.
- the "evil" count might be down a little.
- there would be a lot more evidence that God exists.
I should stop now while I still think I am still being clever.
Biology is not my field... but I will add one thing though – more a question.
If you were to design Man (the most important life form in the universe if you believe the bible) wouldn't you make man unique – biologically speaking?
Now I'm no doctor (always a good start to an argument) but isn't one of the problems with "illnesses" like CJD (Mad cow), bird flu, AIDS etc is that these viruses(?) can jump species?
If man was unique, this would not be a problem. The viruses just could not "live" in our unique bio-system.
Just a thought... I will get back to looking at the skies now - I'm sure God will give me a sign anytime soon... what's that bright thing in the sky… oh – it's still the moon.
Lee
130. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers
Comment #66142 by LeeC on August 29, 2007 at 2:47 am
Hi Geraint,
Sorry for the muck-up earlier with names… I have excuses, but what's the point.
That's why particle physicists need a 'five sigma' result to confirm the detection of new particles, or whatever. They do say that 95% of two-sigma results turn out to be wrong!
See, I am learning stuff already ready – I honestly never heard of a 'five sigma' results (or I have forgotten? No, more likely I never knew) but I am going to have to look up its definition and find out more. I also need to lookup this Labini chap mentioned by Tom.
You also have to bear in mind that this model contains quite a few different parts: there's the matter/energy content of the Universe (how much dark matter, how many baryons, etc.); there's the initial conditions (what are the properties of the original 'seed' fluctuations within this matter?); and there are the physical laws and astrophysical processes themselves. A problem with the model could be within any one of those parts, rather than with the whole big bang paradigm.
I agree – this is why a single observation will not bring down the theory. It could just mean a "tweak" is required – nothing more.
It is also known, as you said, that the theory is based on many other theories. It may just mean a "tweak" in those and so the Big Bang theory is left "unchanged".
However, taking this to the extreme, it could also be the start of the theory's fall… but it will take many more observations in many different areas to do that. It must also be remembered that any new theory will also have to answer all the observations that the Big Bang did explain so well.
So are we living in interesting times?
Always… however, I know for one thing, even if the theory falls (and it will take years of other measurements before that happens) it certainly will not be replaced with the "God theory". If Physics cannot answer the question, then no holy book or priest will be able to do it either. (Sorry to bring in the God into the debate, but just in case any theist is reading this I have been debating with lately, I do not want to be misunderstood.)
However, this is not Dogma, the physicists will just move on to the next new scientific theory with evidence the old theory is wrong, and the new one is right.
Lee
131. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers
Comment #66140 by LeeC on August 29, 2007 at 2:44 am
Hi Tom (aka pissinintothewind, and certainly not Geraint),
Its all so verrry interesting, there is one thing for definate though and thats nobody has the answers yet
Its great isn't it - it would be boring if we knew the answers.
Every week (maybe month) something new comes along - normally minor, but still it means the current theories may need "tweaking".
Einsteins theory of relativity which again relies on the universe being both homogenous and isotropic
Does it? I admit I am rusty on my physics now, so maybe I have just forgotten some basic (but fundamental) points. I do not remember it being "reliant" (although my maths was never good enough for General Relativity (GR) "in the raw" – I needed them "solved" for me first before I could use them) although maybe this was the assumption used when "solving" the equations currently being used in cosmology today. So you are probably right – come to think of I remember different GR equations for closed, open and infinity universes. (No accelerating one – shows my age?)
However, it is the "Cosmological Principle" that states the universe is "homogenous and isotropic" not GR and was "backed up" with the observations in the Cosmic Background Radiation. It maybe this principle that is challenged with such observations of usually large voids, not Einstein's theories. (Although, since we "know" these theories are classical, maybe in the earlier universe, when quantum effects might have had more influence, the GR theory breaks-down and so cannot explain the large structure seen today. This would not surprise me too much)
However, I am rusty on my physics now, I try and keep up to date, but life and family gets in way - but the interest has never gone. So I am glad I fell onto this thread.
All interesting stuff… I welcome your thoughts.
Lee
PS I hope I got the name right this time - Faux pas is too close to French for me to risk another mistake.
132. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers
Comment #66085 by LeeC on August 28, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Bob wrote:
As pissinintothewind has pointed out, you misattributed his comments to me.
Sorry that should be Geraint wrote.
Oops... What was I thinking? I fixed it now - but the shame remains...
Lee
133. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers
Comment #66043 by LeeC on August 28, 2007 at 3:19 am
Dr Benway wrote:
So even astrophysics can have moments of little girl slap fight.
Nothing like a good girly slap fight to get the blood flowing.
"Handbags at dawn!!! (After a long night looking at the stars)
It is good for the soul - anyway, we cannot spend all our time shooting God down you know.
The bible talk gets dull after a while – you know he dies in the end?
(Sorry if I ruined the book for anyone – I should have added ***spoiler*** at the start of my post.)
Sittingduck wrote:
I have really enjoyed this thread. People arguing about nothing....:)
Are you surprised?
We are all made from atoms that are 99.99999% of "nothing" (with a very dense nucleus which is only 1/100,000 of the overall volume of the atom with nearly all the mass)
So we have "talking monkeys" made of 99.99999% of "nothing" arguing about "nothing". Excellent!
Best of all(?), we have only explained 5% of the whole universe ("normal" matter/energy) the rest is 25% Dark Matter, 70% Dark Energy… complete unknowns at the moment.
And then of course, some argue how much of the 5% we actually know anyway and certainly when you get to the sub-atomic level it all becomes well, uncertain due to the nature of Quantum Mechanics – it's now all statistical probability.
So I love it… it makes life worthwhile, and why I feel man is so important in the universe – of course it was all made for us in mind - it certainly all makes sense to me?
Do you think this is why the theist feels so empty without God?
Lee
134. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers
Comment #66041 by LeeC on August 28, 2007 at 3:15 am
Thank you Bluebird for the link... when you look at it like that (with the artist impression given)... it is one BIG void.
WOW, this universe just gets better and better... I wish I was clever enough to understand what the hell is going on.
Of course, I blame God for poor workmanship... I mean, God knew he wanted an expanding (and accelerating) universe; he just mucked it up somehow and created this void. I mean, what's the point of this huge void?
It's OK though, just ask any priest and they will explain the large void for us. – "It is God's will" – always make me happy.
pissinintothewind( not Geraint) wrote:-
The current paradigm is that the universe is both homogenous and isotropic (no not a sports drink) in other words its of equal density all the way through.
At large distances yes... but I get your point, it is hard to sweep a billion light-year across void under the "homogenous and isotropic" mat. Unless of course, the universe is a lot, lot larger than we can see... (A very large mat – although it does not make me happy – but some inflation models do just that - scary).
I need to think about this a little more. The void does not worry me as much as dark matter and dark energy - however the more we observe, the more measurements we take - the better the theories.
I do not think we should be too surprised if the "Big Bang" model struggles today to answer this void - the theorist didn't know about it.
True - if the theory predicted the void (as it did for the cosmic background radiation) the Big Bang theory would be better for it. However, this is what happens when we do not have all the measurements in - the theories answer what can be seen first, predict 2nd.
ALL the current theories are based on this principle from the big bang theory to dark matter and dark energy, the (in my view) latter two being gap fillers to explain anomolies arising in the math involved in the explanations.
Gap fillers indeed. Keeps life interesting though - it is good to have a mystery and hope that it will be solved.
But let not forget, Dark Matter has only be "known" for something like 50 years, Dark Energy less than 10. It takes time for theories to catch up sometimes.
Until physics gets a working theory of Quantum Gravity, then these "dark" questions might never be answered.
There is another explanation and that is that the universe is fractal in nature and there has been plenty of interesting work done on this by people from the univerity of Rome and others. I believe that over the next twenty years there will be huge paradigm shift in the description of the universe and its creation.
There is always another explanation, but can they answer current observation and make measurable predictions?
I remember reading something like this a few months ago in "New Scientist" I think, "3 new theories to explain the universe"
Not so sure myself, some just didn't seem to work for me, some could not be measured (and therefore falsified so should not be classified as science) - but hey, lets give it time.
This is the fun with physics (something that the religious theists just do not understand); there are scientists out there who are just not happy with the current theories. It is not that these scientists think the theories are fundamental "wrong", just that since the theories cannot answer "everything"- they say "Hey - lets assume we never heard of the Theory A (i.e. "Big Bang") and lets see if we can answer current observations by some other testable means – what predictions fall out, and what could falsify it".
This always happens - it's great, they want to create better theories. Most turn out to be just mathematical dead-ends, but hey - they are looking. (This is how I see "string theory" at the moment - all good stuff, and I don't claim to understand one bit.)
So if the current models are not replaced (i.e. the Big Bang) it is not for the want of trying or that the science community are just "happy" with the dogma of the current theories. They keep on testing, they keep on thinking, and they want to break the theories for the "glory" it would bring.
History has shown this does happen, however, it can take time, as with Newton's laws; it took 250 years to replace the theories with Einstein's then about 10-20 years to show they were "wrong" and Quantum theory is right. It is a shame it is taking time to replace Einstein's theories with a workable quantum theory of gravity, but should we be surprised when we look at history?
And it will not include the use of a creator.
(Place on head "evil theist" hat...): Ah... you have faith. Science is a religion!!!
(Take off "evil theist" hat - jump up and down on it and invite the dog to use it as a toilet): I agree - we have not seen God in any of the equations to date, so I see no reason to insert one now.
Something the theists ALWAYS forget (and never answers) is that to insert a god into the equation at any point creates more unknowns (What is God? Who made God? Why did God do this?)... Physics is looking for the fundamental equations for the universe and not "God Did It - so you can all go home and worship God"
(BTW Has anyone else asked themselves why God needs our worship?)
Anyway... thanks for this reply Geraint - it got me thinking again.
Cheers
Lee
135. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A
Comment #65947 by LeeC on August 27, 2007 at 2:01 pm
HI Nails,
4 pounds!!!
Weird thing for me is that I bought my copy in Feb, and it was a paperback - it cost me $35 (15 pounds.
I don't think they do many hard-copies over here, I bought "God is not great" the month it came out here, again paper back. (Shame it is still hard-backed prices)
Lee
136. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers
Comment #65837 by LeeC on August 27, 2007 at 2:48 am
Just stumbled upon this thread here..
I picked up on this story a few days ago "when it first broke", but didn't actually think it was that interesting. Is this just my ignorance kicking in but I thought this is just a "void" - a bloody big one, but a void all the same?
If someone wishes to show me why it is the "find of the century?" I will be interested in learning something new (although the century is still only young, so not much to go on yet.)
My astrophysics books are now a little dusty (and dated) but I do remember reading that most of the universe is, well, just empty space(time). The universe is expanding, I should say, space-time is expanding (accelerating, now that is something interesting) and it has already been observed that matter is concentrated together ("clumped" if you like technical terms. It is thought the "dark matter" helped this, but that is off topic.) The description I remember my old lecturer saying is that you can think of the universe as the "bubble-bath foam" or a sponge. The matter is "clumped" together at the edges where the bubbles touch, but the bubbles themselves are just "empty voids" (empty is relative term - it is like saying a large bar of gold is "heavy" when compared to a feather that weighs "nothing". The feather has mass, but is "nothing" compared to the gold bar.)
Anyway, as I said... I did not actually think this topic was actually "interesting" - would love to hear from someone who could show me what I am missing.
I noticed an earlier comment that I agree with though - this is the first observation, so lets wait and see what it really means, and how large the "void" actually is. Distances are hard to measure, so I will sit on the fence on this for now.
See ya
Lee
137. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A
Comment #65601 by LeeC on August 25, 2007 at 4:09 am
Hi Nick,
Good question... I do not know where it is if has been released online - if you find it, please let me know. I only have the original copy of the book.
See ya
Lee
138. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #65191 by LeeC on August 23, 2007 at 5:54 am
Thanks JC
So the quality English Newspapers make it all the way to America - excellent
Must go now...
Lee
PS
I did like the photograph as evidence… I believe it now.
The youth of today!!
139. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR
Comment #65189 by LeeC on August 23, 2007 at 5:45 am
On the subject of movies?
I just found a link to a movie:-
"The God who wasn't there"
http://www.thegodmovie.com/
The trailer is here:-
http://www.thegodmovie.com/clips/Trailer.mp4
The trailer looks good, but has anyone seen or heard of it?
Cheers
Lee
140. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #65171 by LeeC on August 23, 2007 at 4:56 am
Sorry Billy, my mistake...
So they did it on purpose!!! Why would they do that?
No need to answer… I think I can guess.
Lee
141. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #65165 by LeeC on August 23, 2007 at 4:41 am
Thanks Billy,
You're not suggesting that bible writers made a mistake?
I don't want to put words in your mouth or anything – but it seems that you are?
Thanks for the references…
Lee
142. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #65154 by LeeC on August 23, 2007 at 3:21 am
Hi fairytalegod,
Others on this thread know the bible better than I and so the "seed of David" (Romans 1:3) may mean more to them, but for people like me, could you explain what this actually means to your argument?
As you may know, Mark (the only theist currently on this thread) is on holiday at the moment - preaching the word of God to Israel to stir up the 2nd coming of Christ or something like that, although Mark "claims" (if you believe this) that he will be just "sightseeing"... (Only joking Mark)
Anyway, let's see if I can cause more trouble while Mark is away...
All in the name of Quetzalcoatl!!! All praise Quetzalcoatl...
Who's lying here? Paul or all the other Christians? And if Jesus isn't really of the seed of David, does this not show that Jesus was a false messiah?
Both... No, None... erm... Paul? Me? I know... the French.
(Quetzalcoatl can you please curse the French a little more?)
Anyway, if the quote means "seed" as in "son of" or "descendant of" - then the bible may have walked into a typical problem it seems to do - A "Son of God" should not also be the "Son of David (line)" - unless this could come through the mother's line(?), but I doubt that - Half Mary/Half God does not seem to be what the bible claims - I think Jesus is supposed to be 100% God - pure and all that. No mixing of dirty woman genes... (Or man's dirty genes for that matter)
Although, I am sure it will not be the first time the bible "claims" more than one thing that to anyone else would seem impossible. "Son of David", "Son of God", "Son of Man"... if anything, it proves we should be careful of the bible... it could be used to mean anything you want. It certainly tries it best to "prove" a lot of the old prophecies of the OT point to Jesus. (Bethlehem, Virgin Birth and all that - but lets not go there)
Anyway, "Issues" like you raised are sometimes "washed away" under the mistranslation "clause" in the bible mythology. (And sometimes reading a verse out of context - I do that all the time Mark tells me)
Anyway, let tackle the "easy one" - translation...
Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
(King James Version)
Concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh
English Standard Version (ESV)
regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,
(New International Version)
Don't you just love what people can do with words?
You would have thought they were reading different sources sometimes? (Although, they seem to mean the same) I still wonder though why God doesn't come down and write a "new" version of the bible in Modern English, French, German, Chinese etc etc so we do not have any "mistranslations" and "misunderstandings". It does seem odd that we are expected to follow "hearsay", "rumour" and "bias" accounts from 2,000 years ago as the word of god as the means for our salvation? On that matter, why don't we all speak the same language? (Of course, the tower of Babel - God was scared the tower was getting to close to heaven or something - so long time ago changed all our language. This does not explain why are language still "needs" to evolve. The bible just seems to be making up a story to explain an event today we can "understand" with "science". Nothing-new then?)
Anyway, back to your argument, I would like to learn more.... Where does it say Jesus should be "the seed of David"? Who "seed" was Jesus from?
If Jesus was the "Son Of God" - how could Jesus also be said to be a "descendant"/"seed" of anyone?
This "flesh" talk and "descendant of David" just seems weird to me - does the bible want Jesus to be a man descended from David, or a "Son of God" - they should make their mind up. On one hand Jesus should have been "unique" - 100% pure breed God-child-thingy, then next Jesus has a complete family tree back to David? All rather "human"
A man - not a god? God - not a man? Is there a middle ground?
I think you are right - it does create more questions than answers... although I am sure a good theist will have one.
Thanks, another verse to add to my "questionable" list.
Lee
143. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A
Comment #65152 by LeeC on August 23, 2007 at 3:12 am
123. Comment #62554 by Ash Roskell on August 10, 2007 at 5:05 am
Quick note to LeeC: I will get back to with a full response, promise.
No rush... take your time. What did the bible say about the week? A thousand years? Oh dear... I may have to wait a while then? Jesus promised to return, and look what happens? Returning in the lifetime of his followers became "soon" and now nearly 2,000 years later- here we are, waiting.
No worries though (Argh - I'm turning Aussie) I've been busy writing rubbish on other threads... strangely enough I am still asking for evidence (I am consistent, maybe boring, but consistent).
I will be back... soon...
Lee
144. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #64851 by LeeC on August 22, 2007 at 4:49 am
Hi Philip,
This all makes sense... so it was a different crucifixion probably in Nov 29AD to fit in with the solar eclipse in the area… a bad drink in the wrong cup – "dead men walking"… all makes sense to me.
Matthew comes along – hears about an eclipse and dead men walking – turn these drunks into saints (why not, who wants to hear about drunks?)
Hears of an earthquake 500 miles away – move this to Jerusalem, put it all together – lengthen the 3 minute eclipse to 3 hours - it must be Jesus right?
Nobody will ask how an eclipse happened the day after a full moon? Or why no one in Jerusalem felt an earthquake or saw any saints walking around… if they do – we will just stone them to death as a warning for being non-believers.
So what a story this makes… this could be the "The Greatest Story Ever Told" – could make a movie out of it… what should we call it?
Lee
PS
I am interested about your statement that such drink cocktail happened in medieval times… any references or period?
145. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #64834 by LeeC on August 22, 2007 at 2:55 am
Hi JC,
I've been reading the references/links you gave me by Richard Carrier.
I thought I would add something… but it turns out it will not be much, merely repeating some ideas of Richard Carrier.
My main point I have already said, the quote is actually a Christian one, it may refer to a "pagan" Thallus - but this reference only speaks of a solar eclipse, which the Christian writer himself dismisses. (As the writer correctly says, if a full moon occurred at Passover, you could not get a solar eclipse the next day (without a miracle that would be spotted by and assumingly written by others observers around the world))
It seems "clear" then, from reading this quote and the references, that certain events "probably" happened around the time of the supposed crucifixion. So I have learnt something – in hindsight, I should not have been surprised. It saves on imagination for the writer to base his story a little on "truth", and make the story more "believable".
An earthquake may have happened at around the same time, but 500 miles away.
A solar eclipse may have happened at around the same time (Nov 29AD? According to Richard Carrier – when is Passover again?) Maybe it was near by, but certainly not the day after a full moon (and if Passover takes place on a full-moon, it breaks this possibility.)
Now all the biblical writer needs to do is to "beef it up" a little, make the events happen at the same time, in the required location… and BINGO – we have a start of bible story.
It needs just a few more touches though… Earthquakes and solar eclipses happen "all the time" – not good enough…
Oh course – the "impossible" and "unwitnessed" events are required - the dead walking, the darkness lasting 3 hours (all over the earth?) – A solar eclipse happening the day after a full moon… and now we have a REAL bible story.
Best of all, some people will "remember it" as well; Not all of it of course (since not all of it actually happened, and the events that did take place were at different times and locations), but it will all add positive reinforcement on a distant memory. It will start to "sound" real to the unquestioning and "believing" mind. This means when "researchers" come looking 20, 30, 40 or 100 years later people will either "remember" the story clearly themselves, or the story their grandfather passed down to them. (This is another problem with the oral tradition of story telling.)
I wonder if the writers of the bible were alive today they would be writing for "The Sun" or "Sunday Sport"… "Lancaster Bomber found on moon" is still a classic for me. (Sorry JC – this last bit probably made no sense at all – only to the Brits, maybe)
"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story" eh?
Lee
146. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #64831 by LeeC on August 22, 2007 at 2:40 am
Hi Philip,
I too want a non-christian to pop up somewhere from that part of history and say "Yes, this Jesus chap was walking on the water the other day plus he raised that other chap from the dead, jolly nice of him, I say, has breakfast tea been invented yet?" (Sorry, my Hebrew is a little rusty these days so I gave my character and English voice! hehehe)
You would not have thought we are asking too much would you?
There should have been loads of writings knocking around (3 or 4 good examples would be enough for me I think) not just talking about the Jesus chap himself, but also about the many "great" events described in the bible. Many of these would have been "global" events, and some certainly seen by many thousands in and around the cities in question – many of which would have been non-believers - you would have thought some of these witnesses spoke to non-Christians writers during their trading travels who then wrote it down - e.g. The Greek writes "What a strange tale I heard from the Jewish sailor - I did not know Apollo would do such a thing, but he does work in mysterious ways at times, turning the skies to darkness for 3 hours is strange indeed, but all those dead people walking around – gives one the willies Old Boy". (I cannot do Greek either - so I too translate with an English accent, its catching)
It would not be conclusive evidence, but it would add weight to the Christian argument if such documents existed supporting their "biblical" claims. The problem is whenever the Christian gets hold a "little evidence" (maybe an earthquake reference in a near-by city 500 miles away) they have to "alter it" to say more than it really did.
The "global" events/claims cause even more problems for the bible, as I said, such events would be seen by many people, all "untouched" by Christians beliefs and propaganda, for many hundreds of years, events such as the "Star of Bethlehem", "Darkness over the whole earth", the moon moving from one side of the Earth to the other (The result of a full moon one night, then solar eclipse the next day (assuming Passover is always at a full moon, and the "darkness covering the sun" was indeed a solar eclipse). Any such cultural writings and observations would be great evidence for the bible story, since these people had no idea what was going on thousands of miles away. The absence of such writing is telling…
This raises another question (why does this always happen to me?) - If God is so great, why was His message only to a little tribe in the desert and it took hundreds of years to spread around the world (still incomplete)?
Shouldn't the WHOLE world know the message of Jesus - at the time of the events? Not waiting, for some, 1400 years for some Spanish Christians to come along to tribes in South America and say "Be Christian, it's a loving faith, with a loving God... No? OK - I will kill you in the name of the all loving God - God be praised!"
If the story of God is true, then God allowed these people in South America and Australia to live in ignorance without His "love" and "guidance" - and if you believe "some" interpretations of the NT - to burn in hell for all eternity for not living a good Christian life. (Not Mark's, not sure what he thinks happens to such people.)
Of course, there is an easier answer to all this - that religion is man-made and can only be spread by "word of mouth". (Memes if you go for what Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett write about – not sure myself).
These distant cultures could not be "infected" (sorry "blessed") by a religion until they have come into contact with its follows (Christians in this case)... this makes sense to me – and this theory matches the observations in the real world.
If god truly existed, when the Spanish Christians got to South American in 1492, they should have been greeted by loving Christians staying "Oh yeah, we know Jesus... he "popped" over here in 29AD... nice chap, long blond(?) hair and a beard. Look here, it is written in this book we call "THE BIBLE" would you like to taste the blood and body of Christ by using this bread and wine with just a few magic words? (Erm... didn't the Mormons try and write something like this in the 1800's? Maybe Joseph Smith was trying to make sense of the problem I raised... 400 years too late. That's religion for you)
Further more since I don't have a religious bone in my body, like you, the moment I start reading anything in the Bible, automatically questions pop up despite my efforts to let the Jesus or God character exist or do the things they do.
Phew… not just me then?
For the "research" I did before responding to JC, I tried to find a reference in the bible that stated that the Passover happened on a full moon. (From secondary sources, I think this is actually the case but I still do not know for sure)
Anyway – I did a quick search for "moon" on the bible gateway to "find the answer".
Only found more questions… what a surprise?
I think I now know the problem; I (like you and the rest of the atheists here) try and answer what I read in the bible logically, with "common sense" and using known physics (science, biology whatever your cup of tea.), without making any assumptions about the text (such as "god did it" so stop thinking).
If an event breaks my knowledge of physics (this is not a problem, it is called a miracle – God can do that I am told) then I merely require evidence (from sources other than the bible and Christian writers) to back-up the claim that the event actually occurred as described. If a claim is not backed-up, then I will question, logically, why?
I think this may be the difference between me and a theist.
Just a thought…
Lee
PS
I may post a break down of my issues with some of these new verses I found, if it is of any interest to anyone, however I am writing enough at the moment. (It is getting worse than the Harry Potter books – they started as a pamphlet sized book, then grew to be of "biblical" proportions – and make as much sense to me.)
For the reader, to spot any issues, the verses are (in the King James):-
Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their en