Present Evidence Here II

[Baruch]

Whatever you reckon there, sport.

I do reckon.  For many decades now.  But it is better to find someone smarter than myself, listen to what they have to say, and then draw my own conclusions ;-)  With the Internet (or a library) I have access to millions of people smarter than myself.

For example I have been studying the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, in a volume with wonderful commentary in English.  Book II verse V ... the commentary there gave me additional insight into Jesus' incarnation (as a mystical idea).  You never know what you will find, unless you look.

[Gregory]

The Bible has not one word to say about knowledge.

[Baruch]

The Bible has not one word to say about knowledge.

Depends on what the meaning of "is" is - Bill Clinton

[Newtonian]

The Bible has not one word to say about knowledge.

Yes it does - depending on translation.  For example:

John 17:3
This means everlasting life,+ their taking in knowledge+ of you,* the only true God,+ and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.+

NW  ref. footnote"

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/1001060046/141

Or, “their knowing you.” Gr., hiʹna gi·noʹsko·si se.

The word "knowledge" is found 172 times in the King James Version of the Bible (KJV)

Romans 1:20 shows that the study of the "things made" will reveal much about God's qualities.   Note that the study of things made involves all branches of scientific study.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV) "Prove all things."

[trdsf]

Certainly the study of "all things" has revealed a physical reality that at no point requires appeal to a divinity to make it work.  And if you are exhorted to 'prove all things', then you have an obligation to understand the nature of proof.  It requires independent demonstration, not faith and waving an ancient book around.

As ancient books go, I prefer Euclid's Elements -- those proofs are both rigorous and independently verifiable, and don't require faith.

[aitm]

Yes it does - depending on translation. 

And there you have it. In other words...make up shit instead of what it really says.

[trdsf]

Yes it does - depending on translation.

Well, then, let's have the originals.

Oh, right.  Those don't exist.  Only translations of translations of copies of copies of copies.  There are no complete texts that pre-date ca. 200-300 CE, which means they're at best copies of copies with no way to verify their accuracy -- or that the originals were written two or three centuries after the alleged "events".

[Newtonian]

Certainly the study of "all things" has revealed a physical reality that at no point requires appeal to a divinity to make it work.  And if you are exhorted to 'prove all things', then you have an obligation to understand the nature of proof.  It requires independent demonstration, not faith and waving an ancient book around.

As ancient books go, I prefer Euclid's Elements -- those proofs are both rigorous and independently verifiable, and don't require faith.

Agreed.   However, some popular scientific beliefs require blind faith - such as at the Big Bang our universe was created from nothing.   This violates both the law of conservation of matter and energy  as well as the scientific principle of cause and effect.  Yet many scientists believe this - I don't btw. 

The Divine Name Jehovah has the Hebrew verb for "to be" in the causative sense - thus a primary definition of this name is "He causes to be"   Clearly this is in harmony with the principle of cause and effect but specifies that rather than an infinite number of past causes and effects back for infinite past time, there is a First Cause.

The blind faith of some scientists stops them from researching the cause of the origin of our universe.

Btw - some scientists believe in an infinite number of universes - also on blind faith.

You are touching on another many faceted subject - Intelligent design vs. blind chance.   For example how our universe and planet are fine tuned for the existence of life - notably life on the surface of the earth. This involves precise scientific measurements such as the strength of the 4 primary forces of physics.  I think this subject deserve a separate thread -  but in which forum section of this forum?

On your last point - how did the elements come to exist?   Besides hydrogen and lithium, don't they require supernovas?

But how did stars come to exist?   Didn't they require a fine tuned expansion rate of our universe?   See Isaiah 40:22,26.

And don't the laws governing our universe (Job 38:33) require a lawgiver?

[Baruch]

Certainly the study of "all things" has revealed a physical reality that at no point requires appeal to a divinity to make it work.  And if you are exhorted to 'prove all things', then you have an obligation to understand the nature of proof.  It requires independent demonstration, not faith and waving an ancient book around.

As ancient books go, I prefer Euclid's Elements -- those proofs are both rigorous and independently verifiable, and don't require faith.

Not religious faith.  Being convinced of the axioms (which were amazingly good considering ...).  Hence Plato's attempt to extend that to all human knowledge (and failing).  There were small defects in Euclid that weren't corrected until after 1800 CE.

[aitm]

The Divine Name Jehovah has the Hebrew verb for "to be" in the causative sense - thus a primary definition of this name is "He causes to be"   

The name Thomas also means twin. But yet...I am not. You must be a complete nut job to think your idiocy has any weight.

[Baruch]

The name Thomas also means twin. But yet...I am not. You must be a complete nut job to think your idiocy has any weight.

Twinning is a divine conception (twins were regarded as prodigies in paganism).  Helen vs Clytemnestra.  Castor vs Pollux.  The idea of being a human-divine pairing was popular religious drama in Harran in pagan and later Christian times.

[aitm]

Then....I am a god. All hail me.

Send me 150.00 bucks and I will put in a good word to me.

[Baruch]

Then....I am a god. All hail me.

Send me 150.00 bucks and I will put in a good word to me.

I do, we are all demi-gods (though not per Harran religious drama).  You owe me 200 tetradrachms of Antioch (you could pawn that Holy Handgrenade of Antioch).  Can't even kill a bunny rabbit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM9Bynjh2Lk

[aitm]

Monty was the best.

[trdsf]

Agreed.   However, some popular scientific beliefs require blind faith - such as at the Big Bang our universe was created from nothing.   This violates both the law of conservation of matter and energy  as well as the scientific principle of cause and effect.  Yet many scientists believe this - I don't btw.

Then you're wrong.  The Big Bang is an OBSERVATION, not a faith-based position.  And it didn't come from nothing.  Fact is, we don't know what triggered the Big Bang -- science does not have the blind arrogance to assert facts, it states observations.  What triggered the Big Bang is an active area of research.

Also, there's no such thing as the nothing you pretend the Big Bang came out of.  There are always quantum fluctuations, even in a spaceless space.  You can't have nothing -- the Uncertainty Principle is clear on that.