The real problem with the atheist is his imagination

[The Judge]

myst7426 wrote

If we can experience it then science can evaluate it.

I think perhaps myst is misguided here. Science attempts to evaluate by measuring, comparing and explaining objective reality. Subjective reality is, by its nature, un-measurable by the same methods. E.g. Someone's experience of "god" talking to them is not measurable. Science may sometimes make a stab at evaluating it by grouping the subjective experience of such things and classifying them as e.g. a form of psychosis in psychiatry, but the actual experiences themselves are unmeasurable in the usual way. They could be evluated qualitatively, but not necessarily fully evaluated or measured quantitatively.

It cuts both ways, too because there are also things which are measurable which we cannot "experience" e.g. the movement of sub-atmoic particles.

[a different tim]

thomas wrote

That's a really interesting claim, and I wonder if it's true. For example are they maybe things that we experience that are caused by effects or events that are too small, or take place over too short a time for us to be able to observe them scientifically ? Or maybe events that aren't repeatable but that we experience ?

Well, we can measure things down to quantum level, and below that I'm not sure it's strictly true to say there are "things" to "measure". Up to that point, I think we can in principle measure anything that yu address in this paragraph, but I concede that current apparatus won't necessarily do it for particular situations. I don't think this is a problem as we are dealing with conceptual limits of science here, rather than the known to be imperfect state of human knowledge, yes?
The repeatability thing is interesting from a philosophy of science point of view, but I'll fire the question straight back at you - how do you know that a non-repeatable experience was in fact an experience of an outside phenomenon, not a hallucination? If it's left physical evidence behind it that evidence can then be measured (repeatedly if necessary) and therefore falls within science. An example is the volcano acoustics we were discussing on the "wonder bone" thread. The eruption only happened once but there were many witnesses and (apparently although I haven't seen the paper) several measurements, and the conclusions drawn result from acoustic measurements of many other eruptions. So this would count as repetition, although it would be nice from a scientific point of view to have a repeat of the eruption so we could see if the acoustic phenomena happen again. Otherwise, repeatability gives you reliable knowledge. I'm contending that "one off" experiences outside the potential scope of scientific method (i.e. those that leave no evidence behind) aren't reliable and therefore don't count as knowledge. They may count as something else but you're not justified in drawing any kind of conclusions based on them, including the conclusion that they actually happened outside your head. It sounds a bit harsh but the human brain is known to have a huge number of ways of fooling itself and we have to filter these out if we're going to get any kind of view of what the universe is actually like. It's not about what questions you can ask, because you can ask any kind of question that is phrasable within the syntax of the language you use, but whether they're meaningful.

thomas wrote

Also, I can experience the smell of coffee. Science can evaluate the smell of coffee but can it evaluate (measure, describe) my experience of smelling coffee ?

You need to ask scathach about this. We have a psychobiologist amongst us now so we don't have to guess any more. I'm pretty sure she can measure you smelling coffee if you care to submit to her devilish mind experiments and MRI scans.

What I think you're talking about, however, is qualia, and I gather there is some dissent amongst philosophers as to whether they "really" exist. Again, I would defer to scathach on this, but I believe the neuroscience concensus is to say to the philosophers "you define what you actually mean by the question, and we'll see if we can measure it". So far defining what qualia mean in anything but the vaguest terms has proven very difficult, as I think your question above shows. If neural firing patterns or whatever won't satisfy you (and I suspect they won't) what exactly do you want measured? I think you need to try to specify, otherwise you can just redefine qualia so anything that actually gets measured "clearly" isn't what you're looking for. So until you do I'm not sure the question is meaningful.

[a different tim]

inkadu wrote

But I invite you to look into this thread: http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2732 -- what tickles your wonder bone? I think you'll find that, despite some obsessing about frauhoeffer encoding, atheists are quite an imaginative bunch and interested in the world in an imaginative and scientific way.

I don't quite understand. Are you saying fraunhoeffer encoding is in some way not cool?:D

I read the first sentance then stopped. What do you think drives scientific exploration?

Well at least I always invoke an honest response from you people. That’s a plus for me.

Listen guys and gals, I do understand more about many of the current scientific theories than you guys give me credit for. You have explained it to me before and I did read your posts. I followed your links and read them. I also know that many of you are Doctors and PhD’s. I don’t feel like any of you want or need a science lesson from me so I don’t bother going into a lot of detail explaining how I know what you already believe. You should thank me for that.

After all, all this information is out there to be researched. I have as you have, I assure you.

I have learned enough to know that nobody truly understands quantum physics. Not you, not I, not Einstein, Darwin or Hawking. I support trying to understand, it’s a noble effort. However from the information I have gathered, I realize that the closer one gets to understanding the sub-atomic and string theory and so fourth, the farther away the answers seem. Is light a particle or a wave? Well that depends on the tests you run, but how does it know? Of course many of you already know all of this so I’ll spare you.

As always, I apologize if I sound preachy, that is certainly not my intent. Nor is it my intent or Christianize or moralize any of you.

I consider myself a messenger and a provoker of thought rather that a saver of souls.

I enjoy the conversation I get here; in spite of the fact that many posts here quickly break down into name calling and time wasting gum flapping.

But the only proof I can offer for my beliefs is all written text. You can scrutinize it yourself. You can examine the authors, the translators and all they’re credentials. You can examine the text and the idiom usage and the doctrines. I am talking about 66 books, which were written over a period of thousands of years, by over forty different authors that contain a single message that is hammered home a thousand different ways.

I will never be able to prove this in a single post. It is up to you to dig the answers up yourselves. There are so many ways, from the faintly subtle to the unmistakably obvious, that the holy bible authenticates itself as having its origin from outside this time domain.

Now if that is true, don’t you want to know that? If you searched and discovered that it was true, would you be unable to except it?

How is it that the bible authors always seem to know and understand fully the intent of the previous authors, even though the majority of readers are confused by them? Each bible author, while using his own style, never strays off course and never confuses the use of a previously used model, type or idiom. NEVER!!!! I consider this a telling sign.

Consider that the bible has been predicting the appearance of Christ from the very first page, and every single page in-between. The whole entire book, both Old and New Testament are all about Jesus Christ. I don’t expect you not to challenge that, but I insist that if you peel the banana far enough, you will see that it is so.


Did you know that the Hebrew translation of the names of the first ten men in the lineage of Jesus Christ, summarize the Christian Gospel.

From Adam to Noah

Adam ----------- Man
Seth ------------ Appointed
Enos ----------- Mortal
Cainan --------- Sorrow
Mahalaleel --- The Blessed GOD
Jared ---------- Shall Come Down
Enoch --------- Teaching (or to teach)
Methuselah--- His Death Shall Bring
Lamech ------- The Despairing
Noah ---------- Comfort

I know you have heard me say this before, but that fact still remains that the bible is full of this very kind of thing.

How are you going to convince anyone that the Jews conspired to hide a summery of the Christian gospel in there highly venerated Torah, and did it over and over again???

To examine closely is to discover that the bible is a tightly woven tapestry that fits together so perfectly, that the notion of deception is not a viable analysis. For example, did you know that the seven kingdom parables of Mat 13 seem to tie in precisely with the seven letters to the seven churches of revelation? Not a single detail is missed between the two.

Jesus gives us a very subtle hint of the rapture in this parable, see if you understand why?
“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.”

Let me explain the subtlety here. Oysters are NOT kosher, a pearl is gentile jewel. A pearl is the only jewel that grows out of a living thing, from an irritation, and is plucked from that location and placed in a position of adornment. Now read Thessalonians 1 and the letter to the church of Philadelphia in Revelation, and then tell me that they are not all on exactly the same “page”.


How about the proof of prophecy? The bible is the only book in the world with audacity to spell out history before it happens. And it is not enough to say that you can’t understand prophecy, because YOU most certainly can. God rarely said anything once. You will find that he repeats himself over and over again, while saying the exact same thing in a slightly different way. All the models, types and idioms used through out the bible are used constantly thought out.

Have you ever heard of Daniel, Isaiah, Zachariah or John? How did all these ancient men predict accurately, the players that would be around to fulfill the end time prophecies?

Yet here we are at the beginning to the 21st century and we have all the players mentioned, setting up like pieces on a chess board getting ready to play out the game. We have the kings of the North, Gog and Magog or Russia, ready to make an alliance with the King of Persia, Iran. We have the Kings of the East, China, watching intently to position itself for a piece of the spoil. We have Israel, back in the land as predicted and finding itself totally surrounded by powerful enemies. (I am sparing you the bible quotes, but if you want them… :D)

We have the great hoar (no catholic bashing intended here) sitting on seven hills, with the purple and scarlet, the golden cup full of abominations visible in her hand, drunk with the blood of the saints, eagerly positioned to ride that beast that will rise up under her. There in lies your one world religion and if you’re perceptive you can clearly see that coming like a freight train.


We have many “technology” prophecies through out the bible. “In the last days, men will go to and fro, and knowledge will be greatly increased.”


We have technology as further proof. I believe that it is not that man has suddenly evolved into technological enlightenment, but rather things were no longer hidden so as to facilitate the fulfillment of prophecy.


What about all those hundreds of specific, detailed prophecies of the first appearance of Jesus? Jesus Christ is the only person in human history that has been written about from the beginning of human history until the present day. That should be a pretty good indicator that there is something special about him, considering that wasn’t born until somewhere in the middle of human history.


Every heard of the Septuagint? That is the name given to the Greek translation of Hebrew bible. No serious scholar will disagree that it was in print nearly three centuries before Christ, Yet Jesus intentionally fulfilled from it, over 300 of these specific and highly detailed prophecies in his lifetime.

Even the zodiac, perverted at the tower of babble, was originally called the Mazzaroth by God and tells the story of Gods redemptive plan written in the stars. The key to the pictures of the constellations are not the pattern or shape of the stars, they are the Hebrew meaning of the stars that make up that constellation. When we know the Hebrew names, we can begin to piece together a story. Who named those stars you ask? GOD did!!


So the proof is there to be discovered, and I believe in many ways, the bible does authenticate itself.

And we have not even scratched the surface. I have not even mentioned the discovery of the bible codes; with I believe are real, for the purposes of authentication, not for the revealing of new insights or any of that.

So there you have it, some brief reasons why I believe there are answers about what lies beyond the big bang, and I do not believe that the answers lie in unification theory. Not that there is anything wrong with looking. It is just that I was looking over here, outside of science and I think I have found something pretty unexplainable and interesting in itself.

Whew, sorry to put you all through that, those of you who are still with me.

And btw- When I add a new server to this network, I simply name them servent 1, servent 2 and so on. This saves the time trying to figure out the spelling of those bizarre star trek names. So I am taking back my cool sign. :cool:

[Choobus]

The real problem with religon is all the luxury.

[inkadu]

thomas wrote

Also, I can experience the smell of coffee. Science can evaluate the smell of coffee but can it evaluate (measure, describe) my experience of smelling coffee ?

We can, by experimentation, determine if you can pick out different varieties of cofee, which cofees don't smell like cofee, which substances smell like coffee but arent, what the minimal level of coffee you can smell is, etc. We can measure variability in sensitivity to cofee smell across the population, we can look for a gene common to caffeine addicts, etc. We can probably do brain scans that light up when you smell the coffee...

But the point is not that we may have trouble describing the coffee-smelling experience. The point is we know you are smelling coffee, because it's in the roaster. We can't be so sure that you're smelling God.

[inkadu]

servent wrote

Well at least I always invoke an honest response from you people. That’s a plus for me.

Yes, it is. However, your post here really is a far departure from your original post and should probably, in the future, be posted in a differnent thread.

So. To re-initialize: Is the Bible self-evident proof of everything in it, specifically the messiah?

I have learned enough to know that nobody truly understands quantum physics. Not you, not I, not Einstein, Darwin or Hawking. I support trying to understand, it’s a noble effort. However from the information I have gathered, I realize that the closer one gets to understanding the sub-atomic and string theory and so fourth, the farther away the answers seem. Is light a particle or a wave? Well that depends on the tests you run, but how does it know?

Excellent. You clearly have a brain on your head and we won't have to explain sixth-grade scientific concepts to you. That's a relief. However, I disagree. I think we're getting closer to understanding wave/particle duality, and when we finally understand it, we'll see that we've fundamentally MISUNDERSTOOD the nature of the universe.

Also, Darwin didn't understand quantum physics because it hadn't been invented. ;)

But the only proof I can offer for my beliefs is all written text. You can scrutinize it yourself. You can examine the authors, the translators and all they’re credentials.

This is a bad start here, because, in fact, we can't scrutinize their credentials. In fact, some books of the bible seem to have multiple authors, according to people who spend their lives studying that book.

Now if that is true, don’t you want to know that? If you searched and discovered that it was true, would you be unable to except it?

I like your style. You should be on the circuit. Or selling vaccuum cleaners. ;)

How is it that the bible authors always seem to know and understand fully the intent of the previous authors, even though the majority of readers are confused by them? Each bible author, while using his own style, never strays off course and never confuses the use of a previously used model, type or idiom. NEVER!!!! I consider this a telling sign.

Wha? There seem to be a lot of fights breaking out over the world about how best to interpret the bible. How can this be, if they are perfectly in agreement?

Consider that the bible has been predicting the appearance of Christ from the very first page, and every single page in-between. The whole entire book, both Old and New Testament are all about Jesus Christ. I don’t expect you not to challenge that, but I insist that if you peel the banana far enough, you will see that it is so.

Are you using hyperbole? Flip to pages 284, 462 and 122 and show me how that entire page is about the coming of Jesus Christ.

And it is quite possible that the people who wrote the New Testament believed Jesus to be the messiah. And they also knew all the messiahnic prophecies of the Old Testament. So what they did is make the story of Jesus conform to the prophecy. I know you don't personally believe this to be the case, but why should we believe it's impossible?

Let me explain the subtlety here. Oysters are NOT kosher, a pearl is gentile jewel.

Don't tell it to that to the jews at Wellesley College! They LOVE their pearls!

Have you ever heard of Daniel, Isaiah, Zachariah or John? How did all these ancient men predict accurately, the players that would be around to fulfill the end time prophecies?

Wow. Well, servent, you clearly are quite the analytical mind, which puts you head and shoulders above your peers. Unfortunately you are falling prey to some cognitive errors. That is, you are seeing a pattern where there aren't any. Your pattern-making is strictly religious, so, fortunately (for you), you are free from attention of the psychiatric profession. But here's a question: have you read the prophecies of Nostradamus? They are also very accurate, largely because they are vague enough to be re-interpreted every few years. I have to spend SOME time with my girlfriend today, so I unfortunately can't go into too much detail with you, but Hal Lindsey isn't the first person to use the bible prophecy. You can go back through history and see people making predictions of their local situation using the bible. The bible is "accurate" because it's vague, and all the terms can be grafted onto contemporary actors. If you were living in 1400, you could use the same logic you are using now and find it to be just as accurate.

best of luck to you. you seem excited by your discovery, but if you keep looking, you will find that same connection all around you, in what people say to you, in the number of red lights you get on your way to work, the color of the sweater your professor is wearing, what the lady on the news says. When you start making those connecitons, you will see it's all a game your mind can play on you. And if you don't find it to be a game, then check into the looney bin posthaste.

We are the pattern makers.

[a different tim]

Well, at least it's more polite. But the original problem remains.

Your first post was preachy. You were trying to tell us stuff , like "we have no imagination", which is insulting. You were asserting things which aren't true. Your vacillating on QM doesn't avoid the issue. You said there "CAN'T" be nothing before the big bang. Yes there can. The no boundary condition is not necessarily true, but it offers a perfectly consistent and possible universe with not only nothing before the big bang, but no "before". No, we don't know everything, nor did Darwin, Hawking or anyone else, but it is you, not us, who claims to have absolute answers without evidence.

Biblical evidence won't, as I'm sure you're aware, impress us, especially not proof texting to your specific interpretation.

I refer you to this link (which someone on this site put me on to). You fell at the very first hurdle. If you want us to listen to you it's good advice.

I didn't take your cool smiley for spelling.

Hmmm, millennialism. Not surprised. Tends to occur when people face rapid change in the world.

The books of the Bible were hand picked by the council of nicea (if im not mistaken). They probably picked out the ones that are most compatible with each other. Have you ever checked out the other books left out of the bible? What about the Book of Enoch? How do you (or the council of nicea) know which are the word of God and whic aren't?

servent wrote

The real problem with the atheist is that his imagination is just not big enough to grasp anything beyond science.

I think the operative word here is "imagination".

I doubt anyone here cares what you're pleased to imagine. The only thing I give a rat's patootie about is what you're prepared to declare as fact and/or implement as law. Also, you'll need to offer your credentials as a psychologist or psychiatrist in order to declare that "the atheist" (which sounds like the kind of mass-produced department store manniquin image which would be promptly rejected by any theist similarly categorized) even *has* a real problem. Maybe it's you who has it. :)

This is why he always stops his questioning of universal origin at the point of the big bang and never beyond that. This leaves many of us unsatisfied and empty.

So, don't accept it. If you need a Sky Daddy, then by all means visualize one. Unless you propose to force it on anyone else, I... for one... don't give a damn if you want to credit universal origin to Steven Spielberg's special effects crew.

For example, if I ask the atheist “What existed before the big bang?” or “What exists beyond the edges of the universe?” he is not going to be able to answer that because that is where science stops and that is where the atheist’s imagination stops.

No, that's where any kind of rational explanation stops. What happened before there was a "before" is so far unanswerable. If you have an answer, please post it now and settle the issue once and for all.

He will likely give an answer such as, “that is beyond the scope of science” and that is precisely the point; that there ARE things beyond science. Science can not answer every question that a man can ask.

1. Stop designating atheists as some kind of singular"he". Besides giving the impression that atheists are a single, mindless entity, you're going to make the female contingent pretty pissed off, and you don't want to do that. We will rip you unsunder and drink your blood. :)

2. Science doesn't claim to answer every question a man can ask. It claims to *investigate*
every question a man can ask. It also promises to provide answers based on fact, observation, testing and review, which is a good deal more than bible idolators will either promise or deliver.

...when one of us comes back to the atheist and says “Hey, I found something pretty interesting over here beyond science” the athiest is always quick to strike back “There is nothing beyond science, get back over here!”

Give an example of something you've come up with which is beyond science (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean). Bigfoot is "beyond science". Tinkerbell is "beyond science". Both of them have the same credible claim to reality as gods do, donchaknow.

I really have no comment on the indecipherable remainder of your post until:

...Knowing that, why do atheists insist that no man be allowed to look beyond science for any answers?

Dude! I doubt any atheists with whom I'm familiar give a rat's ass where you think you're looking for answers, as long as you're not piling kindling at our feet, killing our offspring or electing a problematic God as head of the government.

Oh, and it's probably not a good idea to introduce wistful speculation as fact. You're welcome to believe it, but you won't get away with claiming validity where there is none.

Here...have a couple aspirin and a cold cloth for your forehead.

There's a good fella.

Mac

a different tim wrote

I refer you to this link (which someone on this site put me on to). You fell at the very first hurdle. If you want us to listen to you it's good advice.

Yes indeed, I have read your link. And again I say, I am not really trying to convert you. I am just trying to engage in a debate about a fascinating subject, make my points and see what you all have to say about them. That is it in a nutshell.

Second of all, I have read Nostradamus, and I agree his predictions are quite vague.
I don’t see the same thing in the bible however, just the opposite. For example, I can give you 14 incredibly specific reasons from the scripture why I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the Great Prostitute of Revelation; I will spare you the verses and the details. Still, there she sits atop seven hills, 2000 years after John wrote Revelation, obviously positioning herself for a leadership role that combines the world’s religions. Can any of us make a prediction about the existence of an entity 2000 years from now and come anywhere near close, no matter how vague?


When I was referring to the “authors” of the bible, I meant just that. Yes, People all have there differing views on what the writers of the bible were trying to say. What I am pointing out is that the bible authors themselves, one after the other, always seem to fully understand the previous author’s intent, and remain strictly consistent with every idiom or type ever used, and there are no exceptions. Keep in mind there are literally thousands of these things through out the bible.

inkadu wrote

And it is quite possible that the people who wrote the New Testament believed Jesus to be the messiah. And they also knew all the messiahnic prophecies of the Old Testament. So what they did is make the story of Jesus conform to the prophecy. I know you don't personally believe this to be the case, but why should we believe it's impossible?

No, it is not possible for several reasons. Don’t forget that nobody had understood those prophecies until Jesus came and began to fulfill them. Secondly, by his very birth he fulfilled several of them.

inkadu wrote

This is a bad start here, because, in fact, we can't scrutinize their credentials. In fact, some books of the bible seem to have multiple authors, according to people who spend their lives studying that book.

And as for the credentials of the translators, anyone can research the Septuagint, the Masoretic Texts, Textus Receptus, and examine the lists of documents that they used to translate them from, and come to your own conclusions. I for one read the KJV because the translators put a heavy emphasis on the Septuagint, which the New Testament authors quoted from many times.


But let me not stray from my original post too far. I don’t actually believe atheists don’t have an imagination. I was speaking that was to emphasize that the concept of a creator is beyond you. However the notion of “Something” existing out of and inside of “Nothing” is far beyond my ability to grasp. That sounds very odd, because if you think about it, anywhere that “Nothing” could exist, an entire universe maybe getting ready to explode out of it.

However, I do not believe that “nothing” can exist. “Nothing” is not a big black void in space. “Nothing” has no scope, shape, form, or time. It would be quantitatively equal to a thought in ones head I would think.

"Nothing: Nothing is the lack or absence of anything. "Nothing" and "zero" are closely related but not identical concepts. The term "nothing" is rarely used mathematically, though it could be said that a set contains nothing if and only if it is the empty set, in which case its cardinality (or size) is zero. Nothing differs from zero in the way that zero is something, a finite amount which is defined."

So in my opinion until we know what exists outside the universe and beyond, I will refuse to believe that the answer to that question truly is “Nothing”

If you can buy the notion that this universe some how, some way, was created out of absolute “nothing” and yet we have come this far, why then is the notion of a supreme being any more of a stretch for your imaginations.

Maybe this universe is not the first one to ever exist. Maybe in a previous universe of some unknown kind, a being did “evolve” to become an omnipotent being and subsequently set out to invent this universe?

And if all that is possible, what is to stop this Supreme Being from doing the whole thing just the way he likes, even if the beings of his creation would have preferred that he done it differently?

Hey, I am just speculating here… someone inferred that I claimed to know it all. Far from true, far from true.


:)

And let me apologize again to anyone I may have offended here already.
I know this can be an extremely thin-skinned crowd. I should have been more sensitive.
I recognize that all atheists don’t believe the same things and are not of the same gender, so I am sorry to generalize.

Please recognize that not all Christians wish to force religion upon you. Only the truly misguided and blasphemous scripture twisters do that.

servent wrote

Second of all, I have read Nostradamus, and I agree his predictions are quite vague.
I don’t see the same thing in the bible however, just the opposite. For example, I can give you 14 incredibly specific reasons from the scripture why I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the Great Prostitute of Revelation; I will spare you the verses and the details. Still, there she sits atop seven hills, 2000 years after John wrote Revelation, obviously positioning herself for a leadership role that combines the world’s religions. Can any of us make a prediction about the existence of an entity 2000 years from now and come anywhere near close, no matter how vague?

Will you give us the verses and what you think fulfilled the profecies?

Considering John knew there was a population of Christians living in the largest city of the world and where Peter(the rock on which a church is to be built) and Paul preached. A city which dominated the most of the known world and was considered the center of the world and the ETERNAL city. It would be very easy to conclude a Christian presence in Rome somewhere in the distant future.

"I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the Great Prostitute of Revelation"

why do you believe this?