Evidence in the bible (hijack/split from how to turn a believer)

[Pymander]

Return to the beginning of the thread and try to understand what you read. Follow the references, instead of telling me you don't read "Mother Goose" either, here and in my other threads in Religion. I have presented much evidence throughout.

[DrP]

I haven't seen any! The mod asked us not to debate evidences for or against here though, but I'd like to ask for just a single piece that you might think holds up under investigation - just saying it and expecting people to accept it isn't evidence.

 

 

I'd like to answer jfoldbars question in post#36 though "....why didn't the science in you cause confliction in your mind?"

 

ANS: it probably did - but I reasoned it away with god mumbo jumbo... also, the science we know now about evolution is way ahead of where it was when I was a lad.... or at least the science I now know regarding evolution is way ahead of when I was a lad. ;-) The final nail in the coffin on the evolution debate (I discounted lots of things as co-incidence or incomplete knowledge before) was watching Dawkins and his pal physically hack apart a giraffe's neck to get to the laryngeal nerve... they ripped it out and showed it to the camera and explained the history of the evolution of this nerve and it shows indisputably how we are ALL evolved from fish. Once I accepted this I went back and looked over all the things I had ignored or shrugged off as uncertain and it all holds up pretty well. Of course there are some theoretical gaps regarding the first cells, first proteins etc... but the explanations are improving for sure as we continue to learn more - it is a work in progress.

[iNow]

Return to the beginning of the thread and try to understand what you read. Follow the references, instead of telling me you don't read "Mother Goose" either, here and in my other threads in Religion. I have presented much evidence throughout.

Please link to the evidence you've shared that you find most compelling and which you feel is most convincing.

[Pymander]

Would love to. My privilege to cut and paste have been removed. Surely you can locate my content, or what's left of it. Surf the net for "emerald tablet", of great antiquity, with diverse translations, one of them by Isaac Newton, who incidentally, created the first laws of "Newtonian Mechanics", invented calculus, and produced the equations of motion of the wandering stars of Astrology, WITHOUT abandoning Astrology because he had "a scientific explanation for their peculiar motion." Then search for the associated "Divine Pymander of Hermes." A great deal of its 17 books are of a like philosophy to that expounded by Jesus, or the Bible generally, or the Isha Upanishad by Sri Aurobino, or the Bhagavad Gita, or the Negative Confession of 42 "I have not's" rather than 10 "Thou shalt/shalt nots" in the "Book of The Dead". Then find an alternative explanation for the similarities throughout the philosophies across time and space besides what is given in the Bible:

 

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2 KJV.

 

Not only does it state that the Good Shepherd (meaning of Pymander) has had many appearances in the past, but will return to the unlikely little town of Bethlehem in the future. This is evidence that verifies the Bible, but absolute proof of truth is impossible, both in religion and in science. Newtonian Mechanics did not consider relative velocities approaching the speed of light, and gave way to Special, and then General, Relativity. Newtonian Mechanics was close enough at low speeds much less than c. In my opinion though, some hypotheses of science are completely false, and if so, will hamstring science as long as they are adhered to. You think likewise about those who believe Jesus "who alone hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; ..." 1 Timothy 6:16 and other mysteries as difficult to acquire as Albert Einstein's theories are for mere mortals. Yet even here is just one more ancient allusion to Einstein's discovery, the sacredness of light. Einstein saw no conflict between religion and science. But science is in conflict with some of his discoveries!

Edited May 3, 2017 by Pymander

[dimreepr]

Would love to. My the privilege to cut and paste have been removed from me. Surely you can locate my content, or what's left of it. Surf the net for "emerald tablet", of great antiquity, with diverse translations, one of them by Isaac Newton, who incidentally, created the first laws of "Newtonian Mechanics", invented calculus, and produced the equations of motion of the wandering stars of Astrology, WITHOUT abandoning Astrology because he had "a scientific explanation for their peculiar motion." Then search for the associated "Divine Pymander of Hermes." A great deal of its 17 books are of a like philosophy to that expounded by Jesus, or the Bible generally, or the Isha Upanishad by Sri Aurobino, or the Bhagavad Gita, or the Negative Confession of 42 "I have not's" rather than 10 "Thou shalt/shalt nots" in the "Book of The Dead". Then find an alternative explanation for the similarities throughout the philosophies across time and space besides what is given in the Bible:

 

Is your evidence 'The wizard of Oz'?

[Pymander]

I can see what "The Wizard of Oz" is getting at, but its probably more your level than mine. I'm more of "The Silmarillion" type, and I don't have very much trouble believing "Star Wars" stuff, except for the 2.2 thousand million years of scattering of our cosmic dust since a supernova made it, the consequent minimum 4.3 light years to the nearest star, the cosmic rays where a proton has the energy of a fast bowler's cricket ball, and Einstein's limit of less than the speed of light for non-zero rest masses. It simply means that God has disallowed aliens interfering with mankind. Pity for Star Wars really. Can't take it too seriously. Elves on the other hand...

[iNow]

If this represents your most convincing "evidence," then I remain unconvinced.

[jfoldbar]

a lot has happened here while i was asleep.

 

pymander,

since you consider the 'emerald tablet' to be some of your evidence of god, could you please let us know how? all i see is some 'proverbs'. it doesnt even mention god

 

drp

do you have a link for the giraffe neck thing you saw

 

 

 

 

there is one thing pymander said that i would have to agree on. science does have a lot of things that are not 100% proven, but many still believe anyway. (this is the mentality i want to avoid personally)

 

i guess the difference though, is science is still a work in progress. but the bible finished its 'research' 2000 years ago. noone has anything else to add to the bible. but we are still adding to science every day.

 

the problem i have is, 1000 years ago our knowledge of science was too small to dispute anything in the bible. however in the last few hundred years that is slowly changing, and continues to change.

 

we now know for certain that there are inconsistencies in the bible. it is no longer a belief. but i i guess some people are ok with those inconsistencies because they dont want to change there belief stance in front of their family/friends.

 

so i ask you if i may, pymander, why are you ok with some bible inconsistencies?

[iNow]

so i ask you if i may, pymander, why are you ok with some bible inconsistencies?

Perhaps this will help explain it: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

[Raider5678]

Like who Raider? Most Scientists I know that are believers were believers before they were scientists. I don't know any scientists who suddenly convert to Islam... I have know a good few religious types that drop the myths when presented with science though.

http://blog.drwile.com/category/atheists-who-became-christians/

https://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/How-an-atheist-journalist-became-a-Christian-believer

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/june/nicole-cliffe-how-god-messed-up-my-happy-atheist-life.html

 

Or if you don't like small time people nor the sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_atheists_and_agnostics

 

Well known scientists, doctors, and atheists.

[koti]

Perhaps this will help explain it: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe

I will stay in my cheap condo and keep betting my money on the non-existence of flying pink unicorns while being pissed at the ones who preach they do exist. Good comic though (I think)

Edited May 3, 2017 by koti

[John Cuthber]

a lot has happened here while i was asleep.

 

pymander,

since you consider the 'emerald tablet' to be some of your evidence of god, could you please let us know how? all i see is some 'proverbs'. it doesnt even mention god

 

drp

do you have a link for the giraffe neck thing you saw

 

 

 

 

there is one thing pymander said that i would have to agree on. science does have a lot of things that are not 100% proven, but many still believe anyway. (this is the mentality i want to avoid personally)

 

i guess the difference though, is science is still a work in progress. but the bible finished its 'research' 2000 years ago. noone has anything else to add to the bible. but we are still adding to science every day.

 

the problem i have is, 1000 years ago our knowledge of science was too small to dispute anything in the bible. however in the last few hundred years that is slowly changing, and continues to change.

 

we now know for certain that there are inconsistencies in the bible. it is no longer a belief. but i i guess some people are ok with those inconsistencies because they dont want to change there belief stance in front of their family/friends.

 

so i ask you if i may, pymander, why are you ok with some bible inconsistencies?

Give or take mathematical proofs that are arguably not science it's not an issue of "science does have a lot of things that are not 100% proven, but many still believe anyway. "

Science never "proves" anything- it just shows that some explanations don't work.

But the difference- and it's a massive one- is that science looks at evidence.

 

If the evidence shows that an idea is wrong, science rejects the idea.

If the evidence shows that the idea is wrong, religion rejects the evidence.

 

(just as Pymander keeps doing).

[koti]

 

 

If the evidence shows that an idea is wrong, science rejects the idea.

If the evidence shows that the idea is wrong, religion rejects the evidence.

 

 

oh, I like that.

[Pymander]

I am asked by the OP why I am happy with Bible inconsistencies. Do you refer to minor differences between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Do you refer to the accounts of supernatural events? Do you refer to apparent inconsistencies of current religious doctrine with Bible content? Or do you have difficulties with the meaning of Bible content? Finally, science tends to postulate the there is only effects from causes that must be reproducible and invariant. This is perhaps true for simple elements of creation, but not for composites, like a person riding a one wheeled bicycle on a tight rope, as the original performer cannot exactly duplicate his last performance. Finally, all miracles are from God, which the blind man from birth, whom Jesus healed, could see was the case, and which Jesus makes plain at the raising of Lasarus. So naturally, denying the existence of God as designer, creator, and maintainer of his universe, and all of His (male active principle, Shiva, female passive Shakti) composite entities (as Jesus said, God sees that the sparrows are fed, why do you worry), not just simple physics and chemistry, imposes inconsistency on such faiths. That denial is a false hypothesis, or at least an hypothesis which like all others, has no primitive or proof. I must require a more specific question, or write a book.

Concerning the Emerald Tablet, that Hermes (Melchizedek Genesis 14:18 KJV) is believed to have given to Abraham, this uses the same kind of Alchemaic dream symbolism (super-consciousness communicating through our conscious material life memories and experiences) as in Genesis 1-5 and Revelation KJV, to convey information without using unstable jargon, employing only peasant wording. It opens by saying that all things are one thing, and created from this one thing by adaptation. Arthur Avalon (Sir John Woodroffe) in "The Serpent Power" explains from Hindu Tradition "The first cause and irreducible reality is spirit, in the sense of pure consciousness, from out of which, as and by its power, mind sand matter proceed." In other words, all is mind, a philosophy called Hermetic. Albert Einstein has stated that Hermetic Philosophy is indistinguishable from materialism, and stated it in two ways. "Science cannot determine if the senses are a psychic phenomenon." and "The universe may not have an existence independent of our own being". The Emerald Tablet finishes by saying that the discourse on the operation of the Sun (astrologically God) is complete and represents three quarters of all philosophy. In other words, knowing that God exists is the greater part of true science. I would attribute Einstein's astounding success to this kind of understanding. For instance, his concept that the observer is a necessary part of the definition of the fundamental quantities of physics is an application of this knowledge. Light seems to me the material manifestation of consciousness itself, because the photon, again, has no specific energy without an observer. It plays a role in defining time and space which through Newton's third law, defines mass. I believe it also acts as an accounting principle for the mass-energy equivalence and conservation of a steady state and finite (Einstein) universe. The material proton, on the contrary, has a fixed "rest mass" (which the photon does not), as a materialisation recorded in the light. Anciently, light and consciousness are used synonymously. So, while the Emeral Tablet is disdained by some as Greek twaddle, my take is simply that those who dismiss its authenticity are incompetent to comprehend it due insufficient intelligence (as in CIA). Much is falsified by the disbelief in Atlantis due Aristotle, and unrevised. Troy too, was a myth and is now a reality. The implication would be that superstition conceals ancient wisdom, if Atlantis did exist as recorded by Plato.

 

This "Emeral Tablet" is the original "Philosopher's Stone". A "touch stone" distinguished pure gold from alloys, because gold left a residue being very soft if very pure. Thus, regarding philosophy, it says that true philosophy is Hermetic in an encrypted form understood only by students of Alchemy. The elements of nature, earth, water, fire and air were rendered by Carl Jung as sensing, emoting, thinking (desires and fears, as explained in the funny cartoon above) and intuiting (loves and hates, or attitudes). These form the Hermetic elements of nature, and are used extensively throughout Revelation KJV.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Pymander

[jfoldbar]

I am asked by the OP why I am happy with Bible inconsistencies. Do you refer to minor differences between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Do you refer to the accounts of supernatural events? Do you refer to apparent inconsistencies of current religious doctrine with Bible content? Or do you have difficulties with the meaning of Bible content? Finally, science tends to postulate the there is only effects from causes that must be reproducible and invariant. This is perhaps true for simple elements of creation, but not for composites, like a person riding a one wheeled bicycle on a tight rope, as the original performer cannot exactly duplicate his last performance. Finally, all miracles are from God, which the blind man from birth, whom Jesus healed, could see was the case, and which Jesus makes plain at the raising of Lasarus. So naturally, denying the existence of God as designer, creator, and maintainer of his universe, and all of His (male active principle, Shiva, female passive Shakti) composite entities (as Jesus said, God sees that the sparrows are fed, why do you worry), not just simple physics and chemistry, imposes inconsistency on such faiths. That denial is a false hypothesis, or at least an hypothesis which like all others, has no primitive or proof. I must require a more specific question, or write a book.

 

you have a point here.

so you can discuss an inconsistency of your choosing provided it is of some level of relevance/impotence. meaning, i consider minor differences in wording between the gospels to be a small issue compared with, say,

 

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.

GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

 

Concerning the Emerald Tablet, that Hermes (Melchizedek Genesis 14:18 KJV) is believed to have given to Abraham, this uses the same kind of Alchemaic dream symbolism (super-consciousness communicating through our conscious material life memories and experiences) as in Genesis 1-5 and Revelation KJV, to convey information without using unstable jargon, employing only peasant wording. It opens by saying that all things are one thing, and created from this one thing by adaptation. Arthur Avalon (Sir John Woodroffe) in "The Serpent Power" explains from Hindu Tradition "The first cause and irreducible reality is spirit, in the sense of pure consciousness, from out of which, as and by its power, mind sand matter proceed." In other words, all is mind, a philosophy called Hermetic. Albert Einstein has stated that Hermetic Philosophy is indistinguishable from materialism, and stated it in two ways. "Science cannot determine if the senses are a psychic phenomenon." and "The universe may not have an existence independent of our own being". The Emerald Tablet finishes by saying that the discourse on the operation of the Sun (astrologically God) is complete and represents three quarters of all philosophy. In other words, knowing that God exists is the greater part of true science. I would attribute Einstein's astounding success to this kind of understanding. For instance, his concept that the observer is a necessary part of the definition of the fundamental quantities of physics is an application of this knowledge. Light seems to me the material manifestation of consciousness itself, because the photon, again, has no specific energy without an observer. It plays a role in defining time and space which through Newton's third law, defines mass. I believe it also acts as an accounting principle for the mass-energy equivalence and conservation of a steady state and finite (Einstein) universe. The material proton, on the contrary, has a fixed "rest mass" (which the photon does not), as a materialisation recorded in the light. Anciently, light and consciousness are used synonymously. So, while the Emeral Tablet is disdained by some as Greek twaddle, my take is simply that those who dismiss its authenticity are incompetent to comprehend it due insufficient intelligence (as in CIA). Much is falsified by the disbelief in Atlantis due Aristotle, and unrevised. Troy too, was a myth and is now a reality. The implication would be that superstition conceals ancient wisdom, if Atlantis did exist as recorded by Plato.

 

This "Emeral Tablet" is the original "Philosopher's Stone". A "touch stone" distinguished pure gold from alloys, because gold left a residue being very soft if very pure. Thus, regarding philosophy, it says that true philosophy is Hermetic in an encrypted form understood only by students of Alchemy. The elements of nature, earth, water, fire and air were rendered by Carl Jung as sensing, emoting, thinking (desires and fears, as explained in the funny cartoon above) and intuiting (loves and hates, or attitudes). These form the Hermetic elements of nature, and are used extensively throughout Revelation KJV.

 

sorry, but youve completely lost me. this just seems like a heap of dribble that sounds real good but doesnt actually say anything much.

[Prometheus]

there are so many studies showing that humans generally just believe something or not. and usually if you believe it then no amount of proof will change your belief.

 

so i guess a few things i wonder are. while i was raised a christian and know the bible, how do i know i was not pre wired to believe science and so was easily turned away from my belief. how do we keep ourselfs honest, given that we are all human, and so are all susceptible to believe either way.

 

I think as long as you are asking yourself such questions you will be OK.

 

I've been coming across an increasing number of dogmatic science believers recently: entirely scientifically illiterate but believe because they've been told (they think) it is the unequivocal truth. Unfortunately they focus only on the products of science, not it's essence: empiricism. I guess a certain percentage of a given population simply do not care about trying to determine the workings of the world and are happy to believe whatever prevails in their society.

[DrKrettin]

 

I guess a certain percentage of a given population simply do not care about trying to determine the workings of the world and are happy to believe whatever prevails in their society.

 

Which is why the Catholic church has been so powerful. Fortunately with education, this is changing.

[DrP]

 

drp

do you have a link for the giraffe neck thing you saw

 

 

Here is a you tube excerpt of it.

[Pymander]

There is a more detailed version of the creation in "The Divine Pymander of Hermes", Book 2. But again, the discourse uses alchemaic symbolism, which derives from the Hermetic perspective. Unless you can see yourself as being at Recall (Movie: Total Recall), or in "The Matrix", you can't relate to Hermetic Philosophy. We are born, bred and raised materialistic. With Religions disappearing, the opinion that atoms created DNA by chance on one planet in a system around one star of 200 thousand million in a galaxy which is one of more than that many within range of our telescopes, and evolved creative intellects again by chance, will eventually be accepted by all. That is a lot of turf for such an accident to occur in, and we may wonder how many more such intellects must be out there, without ever knowing any more about the matter. But the mind of a child has no problem with the concepts in the Bible, before it is taught to be materialistic. That the concepts of religion are of value, however, is apparent to those who follow the Darma (ethics) of a religion and discover pragmatically that much of cooperation relies on it, in the creation of fraternities and even civilisation itself. Ethics is the mortar that prevents discord, revolution and war. We now have, by Einstein, been given both the keys to understanding the power of God, and its opposite, the means of wiping mankind out of existence. The prophecy 2 Peter 3:5 KJV is both what will be and why.

 

But this playing field is not level, without being permitted to cut and paste like everyone else, so I bid all adieu with a little consolation from Patience Worth, Pearl Lenore Curran's ghost writer (1883 - 1937) who produced the following across a OUIJA board. You may contemplate how a fraud came up with this before Einstein told Hubble that the universe was expanding, and the Atomic Bomb had not yet announced Einstein's genius to the world in 1945. But it didn't take an Atomic Bomb to announce Edwin Hubble, did it? His genius is prime time TV.

 

"Steadfast

 

I am not awed, the agony of the universe

Doth not appal me, the sun may crumble,

And sift through the star-mesh, onward

In motes to the utmost of chaos.

The moon may become mold,

Stifled by the cold embrace of Eternity,

And the stars burn, till they float like whits of ash.

Earth may become an emblazoned sphere,

staggering drunkenly amid the dead universes.

None of these giveth rise to wonderment--

What of the torment of matter, if in

The eons of decay and destruction--

His promise is fulfilled, and I be!"

 

I guess God does need to keep the miracles coming. And I guess all things corporeal must have a beginning and an end, emerging from the light, and returning to it, from an indefinite beginning to an indeterminable end.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Pymander

[Bender]

That the concepts of religion are of value, however, is apparent to those who follow the Darma (ethics) of a religion and discover pragmatically that much of cooperation relies on it, in the creation of fraternities and even civilisation itself. Ethics is the mortar that prevents discord, revolution and war.

Your entire argument fails because of the fact that this statement is demonstrably false.

According to it, atheists or animals cannot cooperate, while in reality they do.

[Pymander]

After that rubbish, I will have one last word here. Most people believe or don't believe in God (by any other name) to some degree. Only those who are gifted with supernatural abilities, or those who seek and witness such events, or those with both sufficiently evolved intellect and appropriate research, will be able to determine that God is true.

 

I reiterate thus, atheists have also a belief that there is no God exactly as the lukewarm believer in God has his belief. It is time to face facts, an get off your high horses. The disbelief in God is not the problem with atheism. It is simply that this belief leaves them open to believing ANYTHING, as they plainly do. After all, the weight of evidence concerning God and the supernatural events associated with such, is far greater than much of the evidence on which the sciences are based. This is more particularly the case when the attempt is made to unequivocally attribute only one hypothesis as mainstream, and regard alternatives as crackpot, to lend more credence to scientific validity thereby. We are not even considering the systematic influence of vested interests acting through the education system and the media (Ideas and Opinions - Albert Einstein).

Edited May 7, 2017 by Pymander

[DrKrettin]

After that rubbish, I will have one last word here. ...... After all, the weight of evidence concerning God and the supernatural events associated with such, is far greater than much of the evidence on which the sciences are based.

 

Either you have absolutely no concept of rational thought or you need to seek medical help. One thing is clear - you are incapable of discussion because your rigid views are fixed. At least a scientist recognises that any science is based on evidence and a scientific theory may be discarded when fresh evidence becomes available. Your mindset is not so flexible.

[koti]

After all, the weight of evidence concerning God and the supernatural events associated with such, is far greater than much of the evidence on which the sciences are based.

 

No more, please make it stop.

[John Cuthber]

The disbelief in God is not the problem with atheism. It is simply that this belief leaves them open to believing ANYTHING, as they plainly do.

You have this the wrong way round.

It's the theists who will plainly believe any old nonsense they are told by the priests.

 

Examples include

" you shouls worship a man who turned water into wine- but you shouldn't drink alcohol"

"it's vitally important to cut bits of your children's genitals" and

" You should base the way you live your life on that of a man who married a 6 year old".

 

No atheist is going to believe nonsense like that.

 

Explaining that atheism frees you of the requirement to believe that sort of nonsense is one way to convince people to abandon their faith.

Edited May 7, 2017 by John Cuthber

[dimreepr]

All these (religious) threads are so polorized as to render them completely pointless as a valid discussion, which is shameful on both sides of the fence:

 

The secularist's complete refusal to accept the historical evidence of widespread conversions, in the early days of the major religions, is evidence that they WERE understood at the time, and so potentially contain wisdom.

 

The religion's complete refusal to accept evidence.

 

Maybe unbalanced but equally true.

God is mentioned a lot in the bible but that doesn't make it the lead character; Shakespeare has had the odd word on that subject, but do we doubt his ability to teach wisdom through stories? But then his books are still understood.

Edited May 7, 2017 by dimreepr