Theistic Scientists

[Iggy]

But it can dismiss things that cannot even be defined, even more so when there isn't a lick of evidence for it.

No doubt, an incoherent idea doesn't bode well for the idea, but I see shades of gray even in that. Democritus introduced the idea of an atom, for example, long before it was a coherent or testable idea. He debated the properties and structure of atoms with his contemporaries, and as far as they knew it would forever be a fuzzy metaphysical question -- like you say about debating whether He-Man or the Hulk is stronger, or how many angels on the head of a needle.

 

So I guess I'd say it can be a benefit for science and humanity to have someone introduce into the lexicon, and advocate the existence, of a poorly defined, speculative, and untestable thing.

 

For example, at least we have evidence that "stones" exist. That puts the philosophers stone conjecture on a much more secure footing than god(s). Likewise, at least we have evidence that combining elements often lead to new or different elements... again lending credence to (or increasing the likelihood of) the philosophers stone.

 

Additionally, science is not dismissing god(s). While you are correct that there is no evidence for god(s), it is a possibility. Even I stipulate that. I just find it so exceedingly unlikely that it's quicker (and probably more accurate) to assume god(s) don't exist and that they are a product of human imagination and culture.

 

Likewise, I don't dismiss god(s) "solely on the basis of a lack of evidence," that's just ANOTHER reason to dismiss it. I also dismiss gods for lack of a coherent and testable definition... A criteria that is at least met by your philosophers stone.

I think we're in pretty good agreement. Assuming that God doesn't exist, at least, makes sense to me as well. I don't assume he does. I, nevertheless, have no way of knowing if God (a deistic god that created the universe let's say) is more likely than some other explanation. So, I respect people who believe differently...

 

and above all, I think it is a question that needs investigated scientifically rather than being addressed with faith.

 

 

The observations never proved that the scriptures were wrong. If you are implying that scripture states that the Earth is at the center of the Universe(though it technically is, as well as all things in the Universe are by Hubble's law), then you are completely wrong. It doesn't state anything of the sort.

 

It says that God fixed the earth on a foundation so that it was firm and immovable. The idea, which was quite reasonable at the time, was that everything in the universe could move (especially things in the sky) but that the earth was different because it was immovable. This has been squarely falsified. If you want to start a thread I'll give verses and stuff.

[Unity+]

It says that God fixed the earth on a foundation so that it was firm and immovable. The idea, which was quite reasonable at the time, was that everything in the universe could move (especially things in the sky) but that the earth was different because it was immovable. This has been squarely falsified. If you want to start a thread I'll give verses and stuff.

Well, you might as well put the verse here since this thread is already screwed up.

 

 

No the Earth orbits around the Sun, you might be able to justify making the claim that the sun is the center but clearly the earth is not...

I never said that the Sun orbits around the Earth...if you read my post clearly you would notice what I was getting at.

[iNow]

So I guess I'd say it can be a benefit for science and humanity to have someone introduce into the lexicon, and advocate the existence, of a poorly defined, speculative, and untestable thing.

I'd agree with this statement if you'll allow one slight amendment. I agree that it's generally good to introduce those things if they are untestable, but simply because they are untestable "given today's existing technology."

 

I would not agree, however, that it's generally good to introduce those things if they are inherently untestable... untestable regardless of what technological progress is made.

 

In most cases, people say god is untestable by definition, and if that's truly the case then I cannot agree that introducing it as a concept in science is in any way, shape, or form beneficial (unless you're discussing psychology or societal beliefs and cohesion, etc.).

 

 

I think we're in pretty good agreement. Assuming that God doesn't exist, at least, makes sense to me as well. I don't assume he does. I, nevertheless, have no way of knowing if God (a deistic god that created the universe let's say) is more likely than some other explanation.

Completely on the same page with you here, too. Edited September 27, 2013 by iNow

[Moontanman]

Well, you might as well put the verse here since this thread is already screwed up.

I never said that the Sun orbits around the Earth...if you read my post clearly you would notice what I was getting at.

 

 

It doesn't really matter, the sun orbits the Milkyway, the Milkyway has complex orbital motions in relation to the Local Group, there are groups of galaxies that do not move away from us, the Earth is clearly not in the center of anything...

[WWLabRat]

It says that God fixed the earth on a foundation so that it was firm and immovable. The idea, which was quite reasonable at the time, was that everything in the universe could move (especially things in the sky) but that the earth was different because it was immovable. This has been squarely falsified. If you want to start a thread I'll give verses and stuff.

 

There's not a single verse in the bible that states that Earth is the center of the universe. That belief came about from the astronomer Ptolemy and his Geocentric model of the universe. The church then picked this up and started professing it because there were no other theories at the time and this fit the evidence. Later the aspect of Earth being special was brought about and finally, Galileo was forced to renounce his teachings of a Heliocentric model because the church wanted Earth to remain important. So please, by all means, present us with this nonexistent verse that says the Earth is.

 

On another note, technically in the current model of an expanding universe, every point in space is the center of the universe. So at the same time it is justifiable in saying that the Earth is. But then again, so is the sun, the moon, Jupiter, Pluto (poor dwarf planet...), and even Alpha Centauri.

[Moontanman]

 

There's not a single verse in the bible that states that Earth is the center of the universe. That belief came about from the astronomer Ptolemy and his Geocentric model of the universe. The church then picked this up and started professing it because there were no other theories at the time and this fit the evidence. Later the aspect of Earth being special was brought about and finally, Galileo was forced to renounce his teachings of a Heliocentric model because the church wanted Earth to remain important. So please, by all means, present us with this nonexistent verse that says the Earth is.

 

On another note, technically in the current model of an expanding universe, every point in space is the center of the universe. So at the same time it is justifiable in saying that the Earth is. But then again, so is the sun, the moon, Jupiter, Pluto (poor dwarf planet...), and even Alpha Centauri.

 

 

No, it does not suggest that, it is demonstrable that every point in space time is not moving away from every other point, gravity overcomes this tendency in groups of galaxies... only in parts of space that do not have enough gravity to clump are all points moving away. At some point in the future all matter outside the local group pull of gravity will disappear over the observable horizon but that matter will not expand due to the pull of gravity so in effect not every point in the universe is moving away from every other point. ...

[Iggy]

There's not a single verse in the bible that states that Earth is the center of the universe.

 

I didn't say that the bible says anything about the center of the universe. Please stop doing that. It's starting to feel like you're doing it on purpose.

Well, you might as well put the verse here since this thread is already screwed up.

 

1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."

Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

[WWLabRat]

To say that all things in the sky are movable but the Earth isn't is to say that the Earth is the center. Imagine a top spinning, only in this scenario, it stays in the exact same spot. In order for it to be unmoving, yet everything else move, it would have to be at the center of the spinning top. If it were anywhere else, then matter from the other heavenly bodies would collide or pass by the Earth.

 

And as for the verses you quoted, context goes a long way. So does the proper translation. In each of these the word "fix(ed)" is said more in the way of being established, not hammered to the floor. So if you look at it with this translation, each of them show that Yahweh has set things as they are supposed to be and nothing will be able to change that. All of these verses also draw from dogmatic law that God is infallible. Because of that they can say with "certainty" that the Earth is unable to be changed.

[Iggy]

To say that all things in the sky are movable but the Earth isn't is to say that the Earth is the center.

The former does not imply the latter.

 

Imagine a top spinning, only in this scenario, it stays in the exact same spot. In order for it to be unmoving, yet everything else move, it would have to be at the center of the spinning top. If it were anywhere else, then matter from the other heavenly bodies would collide or pass by the Earth.

Rotation does not imply spherical symmetry. You can spin every point around any point in any shaped object of any number of dimensions and no points will intersect the center of rotation. Translation: the top's handle isn't the center of the top.

 

I may have to step away from these tangents you're doing as I am extremely busy.

 

[WWLabRat]

I said the center of the top, not the handle. The Earth being the handle would have made me state that the earth is on a separate plane from the rest of the matter. Rather saying that it is the center of the top insinuates it being on the same plane. And thus, with it being in the center on all axis (x, y, and z) it would not be able to rotate in any direction without the Earth remaining at the Origin (coordinates 0,0,0). This is true even if all the other matter were on planes other than the one the Earth lies on.

 

I don't see how these are tangents. My statements have been in line with previous comments focused on the celestial position of this planet.

[Iggy]

I said the center of the top, not the handle. The Earth being the handle would have made me state that the earth is on a separate plane from the rest of the matter. Rather saying that it is the center of the top insinuates it being on the same plane. And thus, with it being in the center on all axis (x, y, and z) it would not be able to rotate in any direction without the Earth remaining at the Origin (coordinates 0,0,0). This is true even if all the other matter were on planes other than the one the Earth lies on.

 

You don't understand. I'm proving this statement wrong: "To say that all things in the sky are movable but the Earth isn't is to say that the Earth is the center."

 

I'm using your example of a spinning top as a counterexample. If the universe is the shape of a top, and earth is in the handle, then everything moves and earth isn't at the center. A rotating sky doesn't imply a spherically symmetric sky

[WWLabRat]

 

You don't understand. I'm proving this statement wrong: "To say that all things in the sky are movable but the Earth isn't is to say that the Earth is the center."

 

I'm using your example of a spinning top as a counterexample. If the universe is the shape of a top, and earth is in the handle, then everything moves and earth isn't at the center. A rotating sky doesn't imply a spherically symmetric sky

Perhaps saying a top gives the wrong impression of what I'm trying to convey. A gyroscope would be a more accurate representation of my previous statements.

Imagine the earth is located at the point where the center bar (brown/copper) meets the golden disk. At that point is the center, the Origin (0,0,0) and all other matter (other planets, stars, etc), as viewed in the ancient world, is scattered in various directions and at different distances from the Origin. Are we all on the same page here about the imagery? Relative to Earth, or the Origin, all other celestial bodies are orbiting the earth. I could turn the above image on its side and still be able to say the same. Regardless of what way the Earth is rotating, all other bodies will appear to be orbiting the earth, which to an observer on earth would then appear to make it the center of the universe.

 

So the only way for an ancient observer, who didn't have the technological advances that we do today, to be able to understand where we are in the solar system is to say that we are at the center. This is because if we placed the earth in a location other than Origin, say (5,3,9) then anything they could view would have to be moving along the same trajectory and thus nothing would appear to move at all, so long as it was moving at the same speed. The Earth would be moving in an elliptic around an Origin.

 

So, as I stated before, the only way for the earth to be stationary would be if a Geocentric Universe were an accurate observation. As we all know, the earth isn't the center of this solar system, let alone the Milky Way Galaxy. The solar system is in orbit around an origin at the center of this spiral galaxy. Imagine how much matter would have collided with this planet if Earth was stationary in it's position in the Milky Way...

 

I'm not saying that we are at the center of the universe, just that to an observer in biblical times the world as they knew it would have appeared so.

[Iggy]

Perhaps saying a top gives the wrong impression of what I'm trying to convey. A gyroscope would be a more accurate representation of my previous statements.

 

 

Imagine the earth is located at the point where the center bar (brown/copper) meets the golden disk. At that point is the center, the Origin (0,0,0) and all other matter (other planets, stars, etc), as viewed in the ancient world, is scattered in various directions and at different distances from the Origin. Are we all on the same page here about the imagery? Relative to Earth, or the Origin, all other celestial bodies are orbiting the earth. I could turn the above image on its side and still be able to say the same. Regardless of what way the Earth is rotating, all other bodies will appear to be orbiting the earth, which to an observer on earth would then appear to make it the center of the universe.

 

So the only way for an ancient observer, who didn't have the technological advances that we do today, to be able to understand where we are in the solar system is to say that we are at the center. This is because if we placed the earth in a location other than Origin, say (5,3,9) then anything they could view would have to be moving along the same trajectory and thus nothing would appear to move at all, so long as it was moving at the same speed. The Earth would be moving in an elliptic around an Origin.

 

So, as I stated before, the only way for the earth to be stationary would be if a Geocentric Universe were an accurate observation. As we all know, the earth isn't the center of this solar system, let alone the Milky Way Galaxy. The solar system is in orbit around an origin at the center of this spiral galaxy. Imagine how much matter would have collided with this planet if Earth was stationary in it's position in the Milky Way...

 

I'm not saying that we are at the center of the universe, just that to an observer in biblical times the world as they knew it would have appeared so.

 

I understand geocentrism, Labrat. We weren't discussing a particular ancient model. They had Heliocentric models too. You may have gotten lost in the conversation.

 

 

I said,

 

"[the bible] says that God fixed the earth on a foundation so that it was firm and immovable."

 

In post 555 you replied:

 

"There's not a single verse in the bible that states that Earth is the center of the universe. "

 

Which is something you keep doing. You keep disagreeing with things I never said. My reply was very simple:

 

"I didn't say that the bible says anything about the center of the universe."

 

In order to explain you offer:

 

"To say that all things in the sky are movable but the Earth isn't is to say that the Earth is the center."

which isn't true. It may be true in an orrery, but that assumes the earth is at the center... you aren't showing that earth has to be in the center, you're assuming it is.

 

Put the solar system anywhere in a sphere and rotate the sphere around the solar system. To say that all things in the sky are movable but the Earth isn't is not to say that the Earth is the center of the universe.

[Unity+]

 

I understand geocentrism, Labrat. We weren't discussing a particular ancient model. They had Heliocentric models too. You may have gotten lost in the conversation.

 

 

I said,

 

"[the bible] says that God fixed the earth on a foundation so that it was firm and immovable."

 

In post 555 you replied:

 

"There's not a single verse in the bible that states that Earth is the center of the universe. "

 

Which is something you keep doing. You keep disagreeing with things I never said. My reply was very simple:

 

"I didn't say that the bible says anything about the center of the universe."

 

In order to explain you offer:

 

"To say that all things in the sky are movable but the Earth isn't is to say that the Earth is the center."

which isn't true. It may be true in an orrery, but that assumes the earth is at the center... you aren't showing that earth has to be in the center, you're assuming it is.

 

Put the solar system anywhere in a sphere and rotate the sphere around the solar system. To say that all things in the sky are movable but the Earth isn't is not to say that the Earth is the center of the universe.

Simply stating that the Earth is immovable doesn't mean that it is the center.

 

Also, immovable could have multiple interpretations. It could mean immovable from it's current orbit without a giant object hitting it(and the science involving this). It could mean anything, whether being literal or figurative.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Unity+

[WWLabRat]

The translation that Iggy was referencing said that the earth was "fixed". Fixed gives the connotation that it is stationary and isn't moving. As in fixed to the floor.

[Unity+]

The translation that Iggy was referencing said that the earth was "fixed". Fixed gives the connotation that it is stationary and isn't moving. As in fixed to the floor.

Wait, is it what he interpreted it as or an actual translation?

[WWLabRat]

There are different translations, some more accurate than others. The bible was originally translated to Latin, which is also what the mass had been in. Then when the Vatican II came about, the mass, prayers, etc were all translated to English, but it was put on a rush. Because of this many of the translations are the fly by type that doesn't portray the depth of everything being said. Because of this, last year and into this year, the Catholic church has done an overhaul of everything to get the translations to be more accurate.

[Iggy]

Simply stating that the Earth is immovable doesn't mean that it is the center.

 

Are you saying this to me? That is exactly what I've been saying. LabRat said that immovable means in the center, and I've been telling him no.

 

Perhaps you were addressing him.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Iggy

[pears]

 

1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."

Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

 

All those references are from poetry. Is it fair to claim something in a poem is an assertion of scientific fact? They're not science papers but the declaration of a poet (from whose point of view the world does seem fixed). In fact if you want to be scientific about it, the earth IS fixed (in the poet's inertial frame )

[Iggy]

 

All those references are from poetry. Is it fair to claim something in a poem is an assertion of scientific fact? They're not science papers but the declaration of a poet (from whose point of view the world does seem fixed). In fact if you want to be scientific about it, the earth IS fixed (in the poet's inertial frame )

 

While Chronicles is a history book, I do take your point. The language could well be idiomatic... Taking it seriously could be like hearing "Abraham was on cloud nine", and thinking that the bible says Abraham could fly.

 

 

By the way, LabRat, you said the bible was "originally translated to Latin", but one way we know the oldest Latin copies (the Old Italic) came from Greek (from the Septuagint) is because they contain literal translations of Greek idioms. So, it went... Hebrew -> Greek -> Old Latin -> New Latin (the Vulgate) -> English.

 

It's a wonder there aren't more translation problems.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Iggy

[pears]

Chronicles is a history book but the bit you referenced is a poem within it

[Iggy]

Chronicles is a history book but the bit you referenced is a poem within it

 

Or a song, yeah, I should have looked it up

[John Cuthber]

Psalm 93:1 etc says "The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is established, that it cannot be moved."

 

But Foucault's pendulum shows that the earth does move- it rotates.

Now, if just one of those lines said it the earth wast stationary and another line somewhere said it moved then you could make a case for the description being poetic rather than literal.

However they all agree on the "fact" that the earth doesn't move.

 

That's a problem for religion- it kept clearly saying something that was wrong.

[doG]

Because of this many of the translations are the fly by type that doesn't portray the depth of everything being said. Because of this, last year and into this year, the Catholic church has done an overhaul of everything to get the translations to be more accurate.

 

I'd like to mention that translations are a secondary to problem to the fact that what is written in the first place is hearsay, hand-me-down rhetoric that already lacks depth of meaning and accuracy. Translations just distort the story even further...

[John Cuthber]

One could say that it doesn't matter whether we know if the distortions are due to translation, poor recording, deliberate distortion or whatever.

Once you can show that some bits are wrong, you have shown that all of it is untrustworthy.

 

Even if some bits of the (various) scriptures were correct by divine inspiration, you wouldn't know which bits were right and which were wrong.

 

So you would have to find some other method for distinguishing those options.

That's what science does.

So, since they are partly wrong, and entirely unreliable, what use are they?