Divine Inspiration and Biblical Inerrancy

,    »  -   189 Comments
Divine Inspiration and Biblical Inerrancy: The Failed Hypothesis

The following is not intended to be a comprehensive examination of Christian apologetics. It is a highlight of the most popular apologetic techniques that the author has encountered for explaining errors and problems with the biblical text in order to maintain the belief in biblical inerrancy and divine inspiration.

The Bible, comprising both the Old and New Testaments, is the primary religious text for humanity's largest religion. It is the number one bestselling book of all time, having been translated in to virtually every language and distributed to nearly every culture around the world.

It is consulted daily by millions of people for inspiration, guidance, comfort and instruction. Many who revere the Bible believe its writings to have been inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, the God of Judaism and Christianity. The words of the Bible are the words of this God. It is without error because the God which inspired the words of the Bible can not err.

But is an inerrant Bible really what we find when we read its pages? Is the claim of Biblical inerrancy, a text completely without error regarding all matters upon which it speaks, scientifically, historically and theologically clear and accurate? Or when we read the Bible do we find the text at odds with expectations created by the assertion regarding its divine authorship?

Watch the full documentary now

203
6.77
12345678910
Ratings: 6.77/10 from 31 users.
  • Johny Murgas

    Useless.
    There is no Invisible Man.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/GJU4M6SPS4C2SCFP3SIWYMU4LU Stephen

    You have just made-up a word that doesn't mean ANYTHING - INNERANCY is not a word!!!!

  • over the edge

    Stephen
    "INNERANCY is not a word!" you might try researching a claim before making a statement.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    [Carl: I watched this in its entirety, before making this comment, whether I managed to pay full attention is debatable :-/]

    Seems like a helluva lot of work to argue against people who'll just insist black is white till they are blue in the face. They are, after all, unreasonable for a reason that seems amiss to this programme maker: the greatest story ever told, can't just be a great big pile of steaming hot story. Can this have been made for anyone else?

    If I want to believe something, and you don't want me to...all I have to do is not believe you, how can anyone argue with that?

    I would hope this guy, Drew?, puts his efforts in to something more worthwhile for his energy.

  • Keith Rodgers

    This is like asking a Jehovah's Witness, "Who are the Scholars that translated the original Hebrew into today's English?" They cite their being Anonymous so as to not take "Credit" as also those who write the Watchtower and the Hundreds of books they produce.

    Anyone who is offered a Bible study is actually studying a Book of theirs that explains the Bible just as their many "Author-less Books do." A person is supplied a Book, what to read from that book, then a question from "Them" to be answered only from what information is Supplied in that book.

    To answer outside of their supplied "Materials" is called Apostasy and Independent Thinking, a disfellowshipping offense. There is no personal freedom to chose "what to believe in but what you are demanded to believe."

    You could sum it up in the way they say Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed as explained by the JW's for (Homosexual relations) yet Lot's Daughters after "Having Escaped" got Lot Drunk had SEX and bore children through Incest." So how is Gay worse the Incest?"

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/ABN37MIPRDMRW3UX3U3LJOVLSA manfruss

    Religion without Science is superstition, and science without religion is materialism.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    Science and religion is double materialism (desire for possession), science with individual spirituality is freedom of research in all fields.
    1i

  • tomregit

    I am an atheist/antitheist without a gram of "spirituality", yet I am able to lead a moral existence through logic, reason, science, and humanity. My inspiration is not divine.

    Materialism is a belief that the physical universe is all there is and there is no supernatural component. This is not a bad thing. Using it to mean a desire for riches is quite another thing and I don't think manfruss or you have understood the distinction. Simply making a statement that you find clever does not make it true.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mercenarry-ForHire/100000621480223 Mercenarry ForHire

    Why has so much effort gone into this?

    A month ago i heard a person say to a couple "The reason why the churches are disappearing is because people don't truly believe and are being infiltrated by communists."

    Weird.
    The only reason i can think of right now is that the maker of the video is trying to highlight.. oops i just read the description.

    Why don't i erase this and redo my comment into a better phrased blah blah blah? Because im drunk,drawing on photoshop and i like to self-correct when i can if i can.

    Kudos to everyone. *drinks vodka*

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=557338393 Deborah Moderate

    exemption from error : infallibility

  • tomregit

    OK everyone, enough already. Over the edge is not supporting the statement, he is disagreeing with it. Look at the " " around the statement; this signifies it is from the previous poster, "Johny Murgas", who's statement has been refuted multiple times.
    Now everyone; Read the posting carefully before you respond. Failure to do so enhances neither your credibility or reputation.
    Sheesh!

    Edit: Sorry "edge", I know you can defend yourself, but they were driving me batty.

  • tomregit

    lol If you can't be right, be drunk; or at least funny.

  • over the edge

    tomregit
    thanks. i step away for a minute look what happens lol

  • Johny Murgas

    If there was an invisible man things will be different. God is usually used as a fantasy/science fiction , literally unseeable by magical or technological means; maybe there is no GOD YET; And if there's no God yet, why create one.

  • Johny Murgas

    The Bible we know are jewish apocryphal writings, and they where Inspire by older Believe Systems.
    The conceptions of God are Anthropomorphized, meaning God is the representation of your own Divinity; older believes systems before judaism understood this concept, Religion was more advance before the Jews Christians & Muslims F$$ it up.

  • Carl Hendershot

    So I ran a value check on the total time : ~ all of the users below and it seems -no one watched Divine Inspiration and Biblical Inerrancy in its entirety. Some as myself skipped around and finally gave up. Others gave it about a minute and somehow they seem to have the best understanding of what they said they just watched but did not. But really there is nothing more to ponder when it comes to your own personal beliefs. You are entitled to your own.

  • Johny Murgas

    that's because is the same story for 3k years.

  • over the edge

    Carl Hendershot
    "So I ran a value check on the total time : ~ all of the users below and it seems -no one watched Divine Inspiration and Biblical Inerrancy in its entirety." that's a pretty bold statement. so none of the posters watched if before (it was published last October)? you know for sure that non of us get advance notice of upcoming documentaries? also the comment time is rounded off after the first hour so how did you know i only watched one minute. you are implying something about myself and a lot of other posters that there is no way you can back up.

  • tomregit

    Well....it's directed to me so here's an answer......but.
    Frankly, I have no idea what the heII you're talking about.
    Are you drunk too?

    Q- "If there was an invisible man things will be different."
    A- If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts when hopping.

    Q- "And if there's no God yet, why create one."
    A- There is no god. I haven't created one.

  • Johny Murgas

    I do not drink...
    I spoke to soon and I was a little defensive for no reason, I apologize!

    and you not making any sense with your answer either. Trying to answer question like these makes no sense. If my comments got refuted with out any logical comeback comments why even make a comment.
    And there is genetically engineered frogs maybe not with wings yet, but that'll probably happen before invisibility!

  • AprilOneal

    I haven't watched this'n yet, but I do have a response to the description, and it goes like this.... The following, is the result of a close personal relationship with God themselves. The Bible is a text which DOES not err, not "CAN not err." Get it right. It is without err because we as human beings are 100% God in every way. Whether or not we agree with each other, we are right (as far as opinion goes anyway). Drunk or sober. Stoned or square, we can each determine correct from incorrect on a whim. If only we learn to follow our instinct, we could potentially obtain perfection (possibly without refraining from "sin"). The truth that every death, every life, every sin, every abortion (everything) is within God's will, can reduce human suffering by realization alone. What will you realize next? You love your job? heh heh, well.. I love lamp, dummy. "Is the claim of biblical inerrancy... ... ... accurate?" Answer: Well, it's more of a matter of opinion. Do you believe the killing of a man is "to err"?? Depends on the man right? And whether or not HE believes he has sinned by slaying other guy. In the words of QOTSA, "Come back another day, and do no wrong." That is, unless you believe what you're doing is wrong and do it anyway, then, you may be in for a hellishly rude awakening. The divine authorship of the Bible is only at odds with skeptical individuals interpretations of the actual meaning. Hopefully this will help some use their imaginations to delve with more involvement into the valuable book which guides so many to peace and happiness.. away from doubt and fear. Interpret for yourself without being indoctrinated by others' opinion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/glen.hale2 Glen Hale

    You will never have peace while you have Religion...we will never have peace.

  • SaintNarcissus

    I don't even need to delve very far into this. There are Christian scholars who agree with all these hair-raising criticisms. Once again, another atheist triumphantly takes down fundamentalist Christians without noting that there are many non-fundamentalist Christians who recognize all the inconvenient historical facts about the canon, and nonetheless find it worthwhile to follow the way of Jesus Christ, while holding scripture up as an imperfect though important document.

  • SaintNarcissus

    I guess my point is, that there are Christians - John Shelby Spong is the best example that comes to mind - who are in fact Bible Skeptics, and they are far more intellectually astute than the maker of this video who wastes paragraph after paragraph of verbage. If you want to get a scholarly version of Biblical skepticism read Spong and don't waste your time.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Beaton/100000940529089 Terry Beaton

    The Bible contains many beautiful truths, and could be a wonderful source of guidance if interpruted with a liberal, loving heart. Unfortuneatly, so few people get beyond their less than perfect cultural biases to find it's true value for mankind. America will never be humble enough to turn the other cheek, nor think it noble when someone else does. That's 'weak' and that ain't right.

  • robertallen1

    I certainly refuse to turn the other cheek and I don't consider it noble, but rather cowardly and wishy-washy, when someone else does.

  • dewflirt

    Sláinte! *drinks schnapps* ;)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Beaton/100000940529089 Terry Beaton

    Innerancy is indeed a word. I just looked it up. Don't you check out your own silly claims before you print them.

  • robertallen1

    Why don't you learn to spell? It's inerrancy.

  • robertallen1

    Where have you been? Visiting maternity wards? At least one other person has asked about you?

  • fewoptions

    my 8 yr old bro asked his teacher - if god created everything who created god?? his teacher never answered and swiftly moved on. i laughed alot when he told me this....when are ppl gonna wake up to this nonsense. even my 8yr old bro smells something fishy hahaha. i totally agree with the comment aslong as we have religion we will never have peace and unity.

  • sakib bari

    Funny Osama Bin Laden had the same view about Islam..

  • sakib bari

    You CANNOT use an anomaly to negate an argument...The people you are describing represent a very small portion of Christianity(Scholars themselves are rare,Christian scholars even more I can only imagince how many scholars who happens to be Christian and a sceptic....

    Priest pedophiles are an anomaly and should not be used as an argument against Christianity ...Don't you agree?

    It is similar to how I cannot use the argument car accident deaths as evidence for why cars should be banned..Car accidents just like sceptical Christian scholars or Priest who have a thing for boys are an anomaly

    "Once again, another atheist triumphantly takes down fundamentalist Christians without noting that there are many non-fundamentalist Christians"

    Pardon him for not addressing a minor group of Christians....

    That is a two way street ...... a chicken and an egg argument,since there has been thousands Christian documentaries that do not address any of these issues??

  • robertallen1

    So what is your point?

  • dewflirt

    Not far wrong Mr Allen, still keeping an eye on my young mothers and have also had an ex foster daughter staying with us unofficially for a few months. She had a bit of a panic about leaving the care system. She turned 18 a few weeks ago and needed to be home for a while, maybe just needed fluffy socks and cuddles, who knows? All's well that ends well, I think. I hope your season has been warm, rosy and dripping in tinsel :)

  • SaintNarcissus

    Sakib, from where I sit, theologically liberal Christians are not an anomaly. It is a robust movement and group of people. What is your data to suggest that we should be categorized as anomalous? Certainly I'm frustrated with the blindness and silliness of the more fundamentalist strains. They happen to be adept at making themselves publicly known and therefore seem to more of a majority than they truly are. Again, please explain your data before making broad statements. You say you "can only imagine how many scholars..." well are you doing any more than imagining based on your selected sources of influence, such as this documentary?

    As far as the two way street, I agree. I wish there were more such even handed and biblically skeptical documentaries from Christians. However, I'm happy to say that this in part is because such people write BOOKS instead of make internet documentaries. There are lots and lots of scholarly books by Christians that do address these issues. I'm sorry they haven't taken the time to splice together bits of gregorian chant and pretty music in video-editing software in order to satisfy your quota.

    Like it or not, the reality of global, or North American, Christianity is simply not as reducible as it is convenient for Richard Dawkins, you, the maker of this documentary, or anyone else to believe. Just as with fundamentalist biblical literalists, the real truth is much more complex and nuanced than the soundbyte-ready version.

  • Jeremy Hughes

    Reference this: /watch?v=zpOtABlLbuw @ youtube

    Enjoy : )

    I don't even have words for individuals that purposely mislead and deconstruct reality for fun, it's really quite pathetic.

  • over the edge

    dewflirt
    happy new year dew. don't you go disappearing on us without notice. some of us start to worry ;)

  • over the edge

    Terry Beaton
    i wasn't claiming it wasn't (see quotes around claim) i was quoting another poster and stating he was wrong.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    Why don't you check the claims of the poster who is checking the claims before quoting the claims of the poster who is making the claims, that wasn't posting the claims that you were checking, before checking what the poster claimed, before posting a claim? :)

    {sorry, couldn't resist}

  • dewflirt

    A very happy new year to you also Edge :) Your worry is lovely if unnecessary, I can't stay gone for long! Here is a good place, one of my favourites. My thanks to all ;)

  • robertallen1

    Sounds like a simple thing to do.

  • robertallen1

    Well, one way or the other, you listen to your Uncle Over the Edge.

  • dewflirt

    Certainly will, received and understood! I'll see you all tomorrow. For now I have sleep to catch up on. Sweet dreams all :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/melissa.kio1 Melissa Kio

    This program at first maintains such a neutral stance, you often wonder...what is this guy trying to convince us about what he believes.

    Finally the first point is made, revealing the answer to the question.

    The point does this by claiming to understand why some people may find it hard to take the bible as being without error. Which quickly turns from what seems neutral, to when the mask is lifted, becomes seen in judgement.

    Further claims go to say doubt in the Bible may arise to many in the form of CONTRADICTIONS:

    "Beside the chief of Solomon's officers which were over the work, three thousand and three hundred, which ruled over the people that wrought in the work." 1 Kings 5:16.

    AND

    "And Solomon told out threescore and ten thousand men to bear burdens, and fourscore thousand to hew in the mountain, and three thousand and six hundred to oversee them." 2 Chronicles 2:2.

    Asking: How many officers oversee the building of Solomons temple? 3,300 officers or 3,600?

    Perhaps the contradiction lies in those who they themselves maintain what a contradiction is.

    If either verse is read without the other, only then is there contradiction, and even that contradiction would be hidden.

    So that all things are revealed, and the word is kept holy, both are required to heal the contradiction, like a puzzle.

    There were 300 chief officers to oversee the 3,300 officers, who were not chief among them.

  • tomregit

    In frustration I posted an appeal to read carefully the post by "edge"' with the hope that it might end the many people trying to "correct" him.
    Did it help? Nope.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    :-) I know, I see the same elsewhere too; one little mistake over a flippin glass of water and some ice blocks! lol

    I didn't lose my DigiCool, just some venting fun.

  • robertallen1

    Sounds like gibberish.

  • Lui Chaosillator

    haha. religion.

  • robertallen1

    So you have a close personal relationship with "God themselves." Somehow, I don't believe you. As for the bible not erring, there's the whole story of creation in Genesis, not to mention Isaiah 40:22, both of which were cited numerous times in the documentary which you have not watched, but yet feel competent to comment on. Says a lot about the level of your intelligence.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    I don't need to run a check on some total time to know that most people won't be able to last 1Hr:52 minutes of this stuff. I myself lasted 7 minutes.
    To me, the bible is the least interesting book to read ever and this doc falls in that same category.
    1i

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    I know the distinction and chose to use the one i used.
    There are 3 choices, you believe, you don't, or you don't know. The later part of my phrase is in support of those who don't know and wish to research.
    As for me, i don't know, i dig like a dog.
    1i

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    "The Bible is a text which DOES not err, not 'CAN not err.' Get it right."
    - consider this:

    Jo, does not lie. (meaning Jo, as a rule, tells the truth.)
    Jo, can not lie. (meaning Jo, is incapable of lying.)

    So the 'can not err' was more accurately akin to the intention of the piece.

    "If only we learn to follow our instinct, we could potentially obtain perfection (possibly without refraining from 'sin')".

    - what is sin if not imperfection?

    Here's an bible inerrancy (not in the documentary), which is not a matter of opinion: Adam and Eve have two children, Cain and Able. Cain kills Able and is banished from the garden of eden. But he protests about how he will be persecuted by the 'others'. Who are they? And rather than god saying, there is no-one else, says anyone who hurts you will be hurt seven times worse themselves.

    So now it's a mythical story that has bits left out?

    Ah, 'to err is human'.

    There is a philosophy that begins with the premise that we all know, in principle at least, right from wrong. Simple thought experiments proves this wrong very quickly, and the resulting branches of ethics & moral philosophies are still not in agreement today.

    The bible, however, suggests (as do you) that none of this matters because as long as we feel right about whatever we do at the time, that's good enough; even if we work out later we were wrong. Because god will forgive us. The biblical problem being there is no moral ethic to think about any consequences? None.

    How can it be that we humans can create a more ethically moral system, through simple philosophy, than a divinely created bible? Because it's not divinely created.

    Ah, 'to err is human'.

    And finally, "Interpret for yourself without being indoctrinated by others' opinion." It is here, in these few words, that you give yourself away as a Stoic:

    The Stoic philosopher Epictetus posited that the greatest good was contentment and serenity. Peace of mind, or Apatheia, was of the highest value. The "unconquerable will" is central to this philosophy. The individual's will should be independent and inviolate. Allowing a person to disturb the mental equilibrium is in essence offering yourself in slavery. If a person is free to anger you at will, you have no control over your internal world, and therefore no freedom.

    I know you will argue against all of this, but you could do worse than read philosophy: you, in your stoicism, could end up reading the bible.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    @ Tomregit. That's interesting Tom. Does Materialism include dark energy and dark matter? If not it is an almost blind 'ism' to the possibilities, reducing the universal view to a mere 7% of the whole. If it does include it all...it is beyond all known physical, and thus not material. How say you on this?

    I think if I had only 7% of each of my senses and mind, I would be mislead and mistaken so [much more] often, as to not be able to make much sense at all of the world around me. How then, are we to make assertions of the universe or even existence?

    This is not to suppose that if we discovered what dark energy is, that we would suddenly understand the vast majority of the big questions. Not at all. Just that in its absence, we can only be certain that we can not.

    So, in the darkness that is our lack of awareness and understanding, why is there not room for spiritualism?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    @oQ, Socrates: "I know that I know nothing". Meaning of course, that one cannot know anything with absolute certainty but can feel confident about certain things. So in a way, philosophically, there isn't 1) belief, 2) not belief 3) don't know...there is only "don't know". Let me run with this...

    So saying 'I believe' is akin to saying 'I don't know' [with absolute certainty]. I like this very much. It's humbling if nothing else.

    Religion is based in faith, but not fact ; Religon is based on belief, but not knowing.

    This is, interestingly, why religious people say they believe in god or jesus, etc. and we don't here them asking "Do you know God?"

    But as if without realising it, they are making a statement closer to 'I don't know', than they are to 'I know', which I find rather amusing, having only just worked it out.

  • Imightberiding

    I suspect the last question in your comment was rhetorical. Just for sh#ts & giggles, & a brief moment presuming it wasn't a rhetorical question & you really wanted an answer, I would respond to your question with yet still another question that parallels/duplicates your initial question: (are we confused yet?)

    How is being a healthy, normal, well adjusted human being worse than incest or a rapist? Simple answer. NOT! A loving, adult relationship of mutual respect regardless of sexual orientation is not even in the same category of a destructive behavior such as incest or rape.

    These concepts & principles are nothing more than bent, religious ideas that unfortunately are still to this day adhered to. It is far beyond rational & unfortunate that the "rational" thinking of Christians worldwide is so clouded by a few brief verses in an antiquated text that although edited, compiled, interpreted & published by men is maintained to be the infallible word of God. Notice the capital "G". This denotes non other than the belief in many false gods of the heathen but ultimately the belief of the one & only omnipotent god of Abraham, Isaac & so on.

    "I believe it, God wrote it, that settles it!" What complete moronic thinking. "Blah! Blah! Blah! Nananananana! I can't hear you!" Until these people start to think critically or even begin to have an understanding of independent thinking & pursue a secular education outside their own religious studies & circle jerks they will continue to put forth such nonsense as homosexuality is worse than anything you can imagine.

    "Love the one you're with!"

  • Imightberiding

    Nicely done. Unlike me commenting on your reply to Stephen, you didn't even have to be bothered with words.

    Well done.

  • SaintNarcissus

    Thanks. Not sure what a drunk ignorant Atheist who gets laughs the easy way instead of by being funny adds to the argument. Are you suggesting that I am purposely mislead and deconstruct reality? If you would be interested in a genuine human exchange I'd love to discuss that with you, but you clearly know everything about me already, so what would be the point?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/ASDQV2FNSOD47TLHVIB2XNUHHU Phoney

    Moot doc, most intellectual Christians don't believe in a currently inerrant bible. They worship a God, not some cosmetically perfect x page'd uber-holy book.

    It seems very basic, which bible would you suppose some Christians are saying is perfect, ESV, KJV, NIV or NASB? You who speak as if there is one homogenous bible speak showing your ignorance.

    Peace.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    Seem to say that Cain had do it with Eve as she is the only female left.
    That might have been the only time it was right for one woman to have two men and not feel bad about it. lol
    1i

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    I think if someone spend 11(or 12yrs) in school and come out with a diploma then goes on to spend an other 3 in college and come out with a diploma and then goes on to spend an other 4 or more in a university and come out with a diploma...that person is entitled to research whatever he/she fancies...it is an earned right.
    If that person wants to research the immateriality of being which in essence has been considered the opposite of science, that right is still valid.
    It may be the door that opens the unknown for the late Socrates and every one else.
    1i

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    The problem with religion is that is keeps spiritualism under shackles even more so than science.
    1i

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    ...and if the universe has dark matter why not a being have dark matter?
    1i

  • robertallen1

    Where does 7% come from?

    There's no room for spiritualism because there is no proof of the existence of a spirit.

  • S M

    The term 'Intellectual Christian' is a funny one as you have to suspend almost all logic and genuine intellectual thought in order to believe in such a deity to begin with.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    dark matter 23%
    dark energy 72%
    atoms 4.6%
    that's for today
    according to wiki
    1i

  • robertallen1

    But not as science.

  • robertallen1

    Come to think of it, it is an oxymoron.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    The travelling salesman's car was stuck fast in the red gumbo. FInally, the salesman persuaded a passing farmer to unhitch his horse from the wagon and pull his car out. This was done easily and the salesman patted the horse and said,"Wonderful. Thank you very much." Replied the horse, "I'll have you know that I wasn't always a work horse. I won a great many races in my early youth." "Good heavens," said the salesman, "a talking horse." and he asked the farmer, " How much do you want for him?" Said the farmer, "I'm a good church man mister, and there's no way i could sell him to you. He's just an out and out liar. He never won a race in his life!"

    You all have a good day!
    1i

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    which says you are against freedom.
    The science of yesterday is not the science of today is not the science of tomorrow....but all in all science is the search of the unknown.
    1i

  • robertallen1

    The empiric nature of science admits only naturalism and that's it.

    As you lack even a basic scientific education, you have no business dictating what science should be about.

  • Giacomo della Svezia

    I think Robert is referring to the limits that science has set for itself. If a scientist crosses these limits, he is no longer working scientifically, however interesting his field of study may be.

  • Giacomo della Svezia

    In a way, maybe.

    "I know that I know nothing" is an incorrect statement. I am aware - therefore I know - that I exist (even though it may be only temporary). Therefore I know at least one thing for absolutely certain.

    "I believe" can be interpreted in two very different ways:
    "I think I know something and have reasons for this" or "I have accepted someone else's story as absolute truth and I don't need proof".

  • Giacomo della Svezia

    Moderators, it seems the link 'Check out the Recent Comments' isn't working any longer. Or is it me and my computer?

  • systems1000

    Many people like to make a lot of noise about the old tired line of love,peace,charity,moral behavior ect.But how are we to know if they actually practice what they preach?The only way we could know for sure is if they were being closely monitored 24/7 which can,t be done.If they new that they were being watched that for sure they would be on their best behavior.But what do they do when they think that no one is watching?God(pun intended) only knows.Words that come only come from the mouth but not from the heart are short lived.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    @ robertallen1:
    "Where does 7% come from?"
    My figure of 7% was an old approximation that I firmly recall being touted around, around 2003. Clearly the figure is changing (as oQ's post of the breakdown shows), but a lot has been discovered in the 10 years since after all.

    Perhaps I should have said something more like everything we can detect, in physical matter and energy, makes up a very small fraction of the whole universe and what scientists tell us needs to be out there. That view seems to have remained the same.

    "There's no room for spiritualism because there is no proof of the existence of a spirit."
    I know better than to tangle with you on this, but that rarely stops me in my pursuit of new perspectives. I have no proof.

    Science allows for theoretical conjectures, and postulations to form a foundation for further enquiry and research. Goldbach's Theorem, concerning prime numbers for instance, is not a proof but a theorem yet we happily use it a 'given'. Plenty of evidence for it helps.

    I have some evidence, perhaps, and can create theoretical postulations from it, and that creates room for the possibility without proof.

    To say there is no proof so there is no room for it, also rejects much of cosmology and other sciences' scientific research. Conjecture (backed up with evidence) remains conjecture. But science allows room for it. That's my point. I have chosen my words very carefully, in consideration of your might in this regard. My only intention is to learn and to clarify what I've learnt, not argue.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    @ Giacomo della Svezia, the "I think, therefore I am" arguably later became "I am, therefore I think", therefore I know at least one thing for absolute certain at the very least falls short of knowing, if not fails. Nice try though!

    Both of your interpretations of 'belief' are fine (as far as I can tell), but neither are knowing, as I was asserting. So why such a loose 'maybe'? Mmm?

  • Achems_Razor

    Not you or your PC. A glitch from recent comments.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    I don't dictate anything to anyone, i post an opinion.
    You, on the other hand, think the world should follow your standards.
    Not so...get out of your house, city, state, country and you may see a world of differences.
    1i

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    Limit is right. I try my best to live with as few limits imposed by others, as i can.
    1i

  • robertallen1

    Without anything to demonstrate how it was computed, the 7% figure is arbitrary and hence meaningless.

    The proposition that every even number greater than two can be expressed as the sum of two primes is called the Goldbach Conjecture, not the Goldbach Theorem because in the approximately 300 years since it was propounded, it has not been proven, thus it is hardly a given. .

    Conjecture backed up by enough evidence does not remain conjecture, but graduates to theory. Conjecture backed up by nothing remains conjecture or nothing. Science allows conjecture based only on naturalism (i.e., hard evidence), thus the "spirit world" is not a fit subject for scientific investigation as by nature it is not empirical and hence there is no way to investigate it.

    P.S. What other type of conjecture is there other than a theoretical (theocritical?) one?

  • robertallen1

    I think therefore I am, I think.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    I'm sure if it was alright for Einstein to imagine what it would be like to ride on a photon of light, scientifically, and subsequently came up with E=mc², then it's okay for you break the molds too ;-)

  • robertallen1

    Once again, from your posts, both in this incarnation and your erstwhile one, you have clearly displayed a wilful and flagrant ignorance of the nature and workings of science. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you not only by me, but by others. As such, you have no business dictating what it is and the direction in which you believe it should go.

    no idea as to what science is, only what you think it should be.

  • robertallen1

    What you manage to live with is irrelevant to academic study.

  • robertallen1

    And as long as you don't try to pass it off as science, but rather science fiction or science fantasy, that's fine.

  • Achems_Razor

    I am waiting for "Schrodinger's cat" to come to fruition. An thought experiment. But then he is a theoretical physicist after all.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    same here!
    1i

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    There is mathematics, physics, cosmology and astronomy that demonstrate how it was computed. Measurements and observational influence have demonstrated the existence of this missing 'stuff', the accuracy of the arrived at figure is mostly likely conjecture though.

    You fell in to my Goldbachian trap...I have you now Waa-haa-haa (joking) Yes it's a conjecture, not a theory, but with all the hard observable evidence supporting Goldbach's Conjecture (and none disproving it), it has not graduated to a theory.

    Obviously, because neither he nor anyone else has presented any satisfactory 'theory' as to why this is the case. A theory must at least propose a theory.

    Conjecture does not necessarily insist on any theory (as in Goldbach's case) nor anything more than observational evidence ...until, that is, something (anything) contrary is observed to overturn it. Agreed?

    You say 'spirit world'...I'm not supposing a shred of observational evidence for a spirit world, or reincarnation, or life after death, or any such thing. I would rather suggest our universe is part of a fish's eye than that. This kind of thing would be in the realm of speculation.

    So you would say, no doubt, there is no room in science for speculation? But I would have to disagree, based on our severely inhibited view of the whole. Indeed I would have to insist that because of this limited view, the speculation is as necessary to scientific discovery, as the random mutations have been to our own evolution.

    Conclusion: Rightly or wrongly, hit or miss, there is room at least, in our universe for us to speculate a larger presence or connectiveness or whatever, of all things albeit under a pseudoscience (without evidence or basis) term called 'spiritualism'. That's all I propose, nothing more.

  • robertallen1

    Just what is this "mathematics, physics, cosmology and astronomy" demonstrating how the alleged 7% was computed? " . . . the accuracy of the arrived at figure is mostly [sic] likely conjecture though" renders this percentage meaningless, if not nonsensical.

    " . . . but with all the hard observable evidence supporting Goldbach's Conjecture (and none disproving it), it has not graduated to a theory." And it never will. While empiricism forms the basis of science, it is the bane of mathematics and all the hard observable evidence in the world will not supply a logical (mathematical) proof to the Goldbach Conjecture or any other mathematical conjecture or question. The best that can be hoped for is the discovery of a logical proof elevating the Goldbach Conjecture to the Goldbach THEOREM. A mathematical theory is something else and why you even bring up the concept of theory is puzzling in its irrelevance.

    Conclusion: One can speculate about anything (and what conjecture has to do with randum mutations is beyond me); but in the end, proof, whether logical as in mathematics or empirical as in science, is all that counts--and by its nature, spiritualism does not fit into either category.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    Absolutely, so bringing this full circle perhaps then:

    Speculation, though not science, may be scientific tool.

    Making my statement too vague and misleading:

    "So, in the darkness that is our lack of awareness and understanding, why is there not room for spiritualism?"

    and yours...

    "There's no room for spiritualism because there is no proof of the existence of a spirit."

    ...dare I say, well intended, but drastic?

    How about this then:

    "With so little awareness and understanding, there is much room to speculate. But with no observable evidence, speculation can and must remain outside science, as just that."

  • robertallen1

    "So, in the darkness that is our lack of awareness and understanding, why is there not room for spiritualism?" Because it is no different than a god of the gaps.

    No, because this does not apply to mathematics which relies totally on logical proof, not observable evidence. See preceding post.

    P.S. If you're interested, I have what might be considered a simplistic approach to proving the Goldbach Conjecture. However, I make no claim to originality (it's so simple that I would be surprised if no one had ever thought of it), viability and most of all success.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    "Just what is this 'mathematics, physics, cosmology and astronomy' demonstrating how the alleged 7% was computed?"

    Well...the rate of spin observed at the outer edges of the galaxies, suggested the amount of dark matter required to match observations. While dark energy causes the expansion between galaxies. Mathematics, physics, cosmology and astronomy are all implemented in suggesting the proportions needed to match the observations.

    Although the figures may not be accurate, I don't see what you mean by this making them nonsensical and meaningless?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    Yes indeed I'm interested in your proof! What you should have said however, is that you've found the proof, but there isn't much space in this comment area to include it here, as a Fermat type intrigue. Tut, tut.

  • robertallen1

    What does the inability to observe a certain type of matter have to do with the percent of our overall knowledge?

  • robertallen1

    "If you're interested, I have what might be considered a simplistic approach to proving the Goldbach Conjecture. However, I make no claim to originality (it's so simple that I would be surprised if no one had ever thought of it), viability and most of all success." Now, where did I claim, as did Fermat, to have found a proof? I find nothing intriguing about intrigue.

    P.S. I agree with Dr. Wiles (although I do not presume to place myself at his level or even the level of the humblest mathematician), that the mathematics of Fermat's day was insufficient to prove his famous conjecture penned early in his life, hence the term "Fermat's last theorem" was for two centuries a misnomer on two counts which Dr. Wiles et al. reduced to one. Now, which famous mathematician refused to work on a proof of Fermat's conjecture on the grounds that the whole thing was frivolous?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    "what conjecture has to do with randum [sic] mutations is beyond me" - not conjecture, speculation. Random mutations being a type of natural speculation. Hardly a comparison requiring rocket science intellect.

    You did a good job of differentiating investigative techniques of science from math, through epiricism and logic. I like that. I often intermingle the techniques when I probably shouldn't, but I am foremost, a computer scientist so I can probably be forgiven for that (every program I've written has used logic and experiments with logic to get the things working and tested).

    Nicely, succintly, unconfrontationally put.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    Ah...you didn't claim a proof...must have got myself over excited!

    I read Andrew's book - no way Fermat knew 4th dimensional hypercubes (or whatever it was, that Andrew borrowed in the end), fascinating and inspiring for me to this day how he locked himself away and applied himself to the task. I can't remember the famous mathematician you refer to, and won't resort to pretending by looking it up on google. But I think there were many indeed. As a guess I would say...Rhieman (sp)?

  • robertallen1

    As I understand them, random mutations are the mutations that occur randomly in a genome. What this has to do with "natural speculation," whatever that is, is beyond me.

    While computers are indeed logical, at least in a binary or countable sense (as a matter of fact, all they can really do is count), they are incapable of employing the "creative" logic necessary to engage in a purely mathematical proof. On a basic level, how would a computer "know" or be able to figure out how to prove that there are an infinite number of primes? (Simply counting primes would be unproductive). As a matter of fact, how would a computer know what was infinitely large or infinitely small? How would it know that the limit of 1/x as x becomes infinitely large or small is 0 whereas there is no limit to 1/x as x approaches 0? How would it know that the summation of 1/x is unbounded while the summation of 1/x^2 is bounded unless it were previously told? In other words, I don't believe it's an intermingling of techniques, but rather that the logic you employ in programming which I call an "empirical logic" perhaps differs significantly from the logic of pure mathematics.

  • robertallen1

    No, it was certainly not Bernard Riemann whose famous hypothesis is related to both Fermat and Goldbach, but believe it or not, it was Gauss.

    Do you mean Dr. Wile's book or Simon Singh's? As long as it wasn't Marilyn Vos Savant's.

    P.S. Dr. Wiles is one of my few modern heros, for he and his minions showed the world what scholarship really is all about.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    I don't for a millisecond suggest a computer uses, implements, understands anything other than simple logic, I suggest that as a programmer of them, I do.

    However, I shall think about what you said because I may have something to add later.

    [edit: How do we know a set is infinite? We don't get stuck counting. Likewise a computer can trigger events (like stack overflows), giving the ability to time out and check itself, or perform a function. Sounds trivial, but this goes beyond it's ability to count. It brings the ability to make decisions. Given the right decision making skills... like abstraction, reasoning and probability switching (0-5 not 0 or 1) then it is likely that things like fuzzy logic and neural type networks can produce some interesting analysis of problems. Combine these skills in a way that can produce/simulate curiosity, and instantly the machine comes to life. I think often about how to implement and write software using these types of machines and that's my assertion anyway. I've been working on this for years (as a hobby). The trouble being that it is easy to switch on curiosity, it's not so easy to control it or stop it running away with itself. I've discovered a mechanism to do this, to control it. But the comment area here is too small to explain it. ]

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/polarjoa Jo McKay

    a good film to go to sleep by...

  • http://twitter.com/bkfViking123 Bryon Franzen

    God wrote the ten commandments on stone...think he wrote a novel through divine writers? I think the hot desert sun beating down on the bald skulls of man wrote the Bible.

  • robertallen1

    @DigiWongaDuke

    Which book is that?

    At least this time they knighted the right person.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    I checked, it was Simon Singh's book, sorry, was a long time ago.

  • Giacomo della Svezia

    DigiWongaDude,
    First I perceived my own thoughts, then came the logical conclusion that I have a self-consciousness and hence came the knowledge/certainty that I exist. I have no doubt about this and there's no reason why I should doubt it.

    You're right about your assertion about belief, but I wasn't arguing that. I think the different meanings of the word are important.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    Agreed. And it is known as Descartes Proof of Existence. "I think, therefore I am". The other philosophy was adopted by Ayn Rand from Descartes, with existence as the irreducible primary. "I am, therefore I think". Pedantic b*llocks, that doesn't affect the original 'proof', just deepens the interpretation.

    Ok, so apart from that, what have the Romans ever done for us, I mean, "I know that I know nothing".

  • robertallen1

    And an excellent book it was, don't you agree?

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    But perhaps there are others?
    1i

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    I think, therefore i am, would imply that i am first a thought.
    I am, therefore i think, would imply that i am first material (and only).
    Very different origin, actually which ever is right changes the whole world.
    1i

  • Giacomo della Svezia

    I think you're right about Ayn Rand being wrong: to be does not imply the capability of thought.
    Maybe even some animals have self-consciousness (although the mirror-test is disputable), but they lack the capability of abstract thought.

    Well, they gave us sewers. I mean, well, apart from the knowledge we exist we know nearly nothing for certain, therefore I'd say Socrates was right.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    In my opinion, Ayn Rand was making allusion to humans (only). Even someone in a comatic state seem to be thinking if not communicating.
    1i

  • Giacomo della Svezia

    That's what makes all this so speculative: are eeg's in any way representative for thought processes? It at least seems not.
    It is possible that a technology for measuring thought and consciousness (separate things, I think) will be developped, but I'm convinced that currently there is none.

    If Ayn Rand meant to say "I am self-conscious, therefore I think", then, speaking from my own experience, he forgets that to become self-conscious requires thought. It took a lot of thinking before I realised my existence.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    If we are thoughts than we can imagine/dream the natural/physical world. An egg would be imaginary so would the body (including our self), earth, universe, past, present and futur.
    If we are body than thoughts are what we have and the physical what there is (only).
    I don't take a stand, i stand to search.
    Of course science (so far) says we are physical only because that is what science is based on. Spirituality says we are both. I stand in the middle, i don't know for sure and i welcome both until.....
    Ayn Rand was a woman.
    1i

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    It took a lot of thinking until you realize you realized this reality.
    We have not realized our full existence yet.
    Good day to you, i am off to work...that is my reality now.
    1i

  • Giacomo della Svezia

    To some, everything we see is a product of our imagination. That is too bold a statement to me, so I go for the idea that everything we can perceive with our 5 senses (6 if proprioception is included) is of a temporary nature, therefore it contains no absolute truth. However, science is one of the few things we can rely on, and I enjoy reading about every discovery that makes me think.
    I'm waiting for the day science and spirituality will meet, for I'm inclined to think it's possible.

    About Ayn Rand: I forgot the person behind the name, now that you mention it I remember. Thanks. : )

  • dewflirt

    Not sure I'd like to be comfortable with death, I might not appreciate life enough if I was. It's that little pinch of apprehension, knowing that this is it, that makes being this side of the turf all the more precious ;)

  • robertallen1

    By nature, science and spirituality can never meet.

  • systems1000

    Liked your semi-retort,it reflects realism.I can only say this (with the risk of sounding claquic) when the student is ready the teacher will appear.All the best in your quest.

  • systems1000

    This statement sounds like its being made from a young healthy man with many years yet to live.Its been my experience the more comfortable we can become with death,actually the more comfortable we become with life,We are not all lucky enough to die out right,thus the longer we must linger the more time our regreats and imagination has to terrorize us.Link this up with intence physical pain and you,ll have a recipe for insanity.Hope you can avoid it.

  • Giacomo della Svezia

    Science will not change its limits, but technology and scientific discoveries and the growing insight that comes with these might make it possible, though I agree it doesn't sound likely.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZMK6YNWJACHQ5CRCJW5TNYFURI KsDevil

    The narrator seems to use the same intellectual 'because I said so' metholologies the apologists use. Perhaps this documentary is intended to target those who are heavily into questioning their belief system and require a familiar 'voice' to follow to the other side.

  • Achems_Razor

    Science and spirituality to me will never have a marriage, as they say, philosophy bakes no bread.

    All things in the future can and will be explained by science, it is basically a given.

    When mainframe "quantum computers" come into the fray, everything probably will be explained by bits and bytes that you can take to the bank. Spirituality only gives us convoluted maybes which are neither here nor there.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    Truly special, and ...easier to read than I expected!

    I was reading another book at the time too..."Jesus lived in India" (came out around the same time), and "Conversations with God"...and "Angela's Ashes"... good grief were these all around the same time?? My Point? They were all interesting and captivating reads, but Sir Wiles' journey of discovery was the one that was truly on another level.

    1) Hope you found Simon Singh's documentary link below. His breaking down at the beginning is one of the most priceless moments in a documentary I've ever seen.

    2) Also check out my edit of my post that begins "I don't for a millisecond suggest..." re computer logic.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    Yes, they gave us sewers, and education, and Monty Python's "Life of Brian". I think you got that one, therefore you pass. ;-)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    @oQ, thanks for that, hadn't seen it before. It has been proved though, officially, but this video says not for some strange reason? This kind of disinformation happened many times in the years that passed. On more than one occasion I found myself being caught by a headline stating "Wiles' proof, disproved", as though for some it was too hard to accept that the puzzle was finally solved, or was so complicated there had to be an simpler proof. People are fickle, and considering Andrew Wile's efforts and tumultuous journey to arrive where he did, often cruel too.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    She, Ayn Rand, has had a quite fascinating, sinister influence of economics and business. Ever wondered where the name of the Rand Corporation think tank came from? And many, many more.

    Be sure to check out "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace" in the Editor's Picks if you haven't already.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    Indeed it bakes no bread. Haven't heard that in a while. As it was defined to me in a wonderful fiction called "Sophie's World", philosophy is not about finding the right answers, it's simply about asking the right questions.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    True. But true peace would be without conflict. What kind of life would we have without any conflict?

    Imagine reading a story or watching a film where no conflict is introduced. Pretty boring. Conflict can be as simple as becoming hungry. I'm hungry so I must eat is a conflict, breaking the peace.

    This is something I feel strongly about. People need to accept conflict as a necessary and liberating and wonderful aspect part of life. Death being the biggest conflict of all (to strive for survival). Imagine if we lived forever, with no death creeping up. Would we strive at all?

    Conflict creates. Conflict resolves.

    Contentment is not something to arrive at, or discover, on a life long journey. It is a fleeting moment like that after a good meal, or making love. Conflict breaks or erodes those moments, and for good reason: if all we knew was contentment, we wouldn't know what it was.

    I can have true peace in death, it's not welcome while I'm alive.

  • robertallen1

    I saw the documentary when it first came out.

    Your edit did not address my questions directly. Were you asking the question about infinite sets, and by extension sequences, series and functions, rhetorically?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    Yes I was asking it rhetorically, and your questions don't require addressing, because they are correct. My edit was simply to propose a peek at how it may not be the case for much longer.

  • robertallen1

    I mentioned it earlier, but have you read Marilyn Vos Savant's book on Wiles/Fermat? While Dr. Singh's book is informed, Ms. Vos Savant's smacks of Oprah, Anne Coulter and Sarah Palin all rolled into one. As examples of the scope and bredth of Ms. Vos Savant's "analysis," she takes Dr. Wiles to task for having used hyperbolic functions in his proof (somehow she's gotten it into her mensa-like head that they have no place in the proof) and while admitting that 2,000+ mathematicians the world over have scrutinised and verified Dr. Wiles' proof, she has her doubts--this from someone whose only mathematical background consists of a high score on an IQ test--well, so much for IQ's, IQ tests and mensa in general.

  • robertallen1

    Rand is short for Research and Development.

  • robertallen1

    I don't believe this is the type of conflict or peace that Glen Hale was talking about--so he's right. We can do without religion.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    With a name like that (surely that's a pen name?) I think I'll give it a wide berth; no I haven't read her. Like I said below, there was a trend for this at the time. Perhaps as feeble attempts to bathe in his glory somehow, who cares. IQ? Mensa? Yeah...exactly. An irrational logic dipstick meets an exclusive membership club with benefits.

    (I was offered dubious Mensa membership, for a monthly fee. I declined.)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    I agree with Glen Hale (hence I liked his post). We don't need it. Was just trying to show real examples of the common misconceptions surrounding the pursuit of "true peace". We need conflict. We need insecurity (another misconception). Balance and moderation (anti Ayn Rand) of things is necessary, with exceptions for excellence and self expression allowed (pro Ayn Rand). But, in my view, 99.99999% of extremism tends to have negative overall consequences: the pursuit of true peace, as I explained for example. If this is semantics then I agree, and I'm simply stirring the semantic pot.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    If you say so. But the exceptionally bright, free thinkers employed there without restriction to expression or intervention, clearly has a nod to Ayn Rand written all over it - not suggesting that's a bad thing, just pointing out the proliferation of her ideas.

  • robertallen1

    Pushing for the admission of something which cannot by nature be empirically proved flies in the face of science. It's like allowing astrology into astromomy, numerology into mathematics or alchemy into chemistry. Now, what about that don't you understand.

    Once again, you lack either the background or education to make anything approaching an intelligent statement about what should or should not be included in science. Not only is your ignorance wilful, but prideful and disgusting as well.

  • tomregit

    Sorry I'm a little late in replying; I've been busy.

    DWD. "Does Materialism include dark energy and dark matter?"
    Me. It certainly seems likely, but no one can be sure without knowing what it is composed of or if it actually exists exists.

    DWD. "I think if I had only 7% of each of my senses and mind, I would be mislead and mistaken so [much more] often, as to not be able to make much sense at all of the world around me."
    Me. That is just silly and I know you're smarter than that (or not that obtuse). You conflate not knowing something with losing most of your mind and senses.

    Do you know the source of the statement, "Science without religion is materialism"? It comes from religion; Baha'i in fact. It certainly did not mean material wealth in this context which is what I tried to convey to oQ and manfruss. Materialism IS the belief in a physical universe without a spiritual component and it is the only logical meaning in this context. To think and say otherwise completely misses the point.

    DWD. "Religion is based in faith, but not fact ; Religion is based on belief, but not knowing."
    Me. How laughable! Religion is all about claiming to know a universal truth and demanding belief and obedience from it's followers. It is conservative and dogmatic to it's core. Science on the other hand goes through periodic revolutions because it does not claim to know eternal truths. Our better understanding of nature and the universe is in a continual state of flux leading to a clearer understanding through the harsh environment of competing ideas and peer review. The path is seldom direct, but it's the best chance we have of understanding anything.

    DWD. "So, in the darkness that is our lack of awareness and understanding, why is there not room for spiritualism?"
    Me. There is no room in science for spiritualism. However, if you want to gather your crystals, commune with Ramtha, rattle you rosary, pray to Yahweh, or any other spiritual practice in your search for truth......by all means, go right ahead.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    @tomregit...
    Tastaaay, ok let's fire em up...

    "You conflate not knowing something with losing most of your mind and senses.

    That's true, I might not know water is made up of atoms, but that doesn't prevent me from perceiving an ocean. Forgive me if that's how it came across. Instead then, consider yourself 100% intellect and your dog is 7%. Explain, for as long as you like, however you like...that you are not Napoleon Bonaparte.

    Likewise, our concepts would be relative in comparison.

    "Religion is all about claiming to know a universal truth and demanding belief and obedience from it's followers"

    That's fine, no problem in agreeing. You are talking from the perspective of the whole. I'm much more narrowly referring to the individual's experience of faith. Whatever motivations guide the whole is of no contradiction here.

    If you are suggesting that all forms of spiritualism infect dogma, then I would have to disagree and point to a Buddhist monk, living in solitude and in pursuit of knowing his mind, through meditation and words that make no sense until they do, on the road to enlightenment and pursuit of happiness.

    If you want to come at this very contrast from the angle of science!, discovery!, progress! Then I'll come at it from a different purpose of existence.

    Purpose of is existence is about having offspring to keep the genes... No! not all people can have kids (not THE purpose of existence). The purpose of existence is to experience! and grow! We differ then, on purpose of existence. Pointless to argue that here on a spiritual documentary comment section... (oh, ok then)

    "[science] is the best chance we have of understanding anything."

    Generally, the sciences have a lot to answer for, a lot to be proud of, and a lot that would leave much to be desired - global warming's affect on humanity is a nice chunky one! You'll have to look past the obvious in that one before you see the problems.

    I do not think, all things considered, that science deserves all our eggs in its basket. A good example of why is the fact that scientists do not take, or hold themselves responsible for their discoveries. Nor should they. But they don't get all the eggs. ;-)

    If someone, anyone wants to 'rattle a rosary' then more power to them. The mind is a powerful aphrodisiac, and they could well be experiencing a better existence for that rattling. Who am I to say? Because I know it's not real and doesn't work, and has no basis in science? Shame on me if I did. Each to their own, each to their own.

  • tomregit

    DWD. "Purpose of is existence is about having offspring to keep the genes... No! not all people can have kids (not THE purpose of existence). The purpose of existence is to experience! and grow! We differ then, on purpose of existence. Pointless to argue that here on a spiritual documentary comment section... (oh, ok then)"
    Me. Since I do not believe that there is a "purpose for our existence" I cannot understand why you say we differ on what that purpose is.

    DWD. "Generally, the sciences have a lot to answer for, a lot to be proud of, and a lot that would leave much to be desired - global warming's affect on humanity is a nice chunky one! You'll have to look past the obvious in that one before you see the problems."
    Me. I never claimed science was perfect and a panacea; just far more promising than religion, faith, and spirituality as a means further mankind's knowledge.

    DWD. "I do not think, all things considered, that science deserves all our eggs in its basket."
    Me. I never suggested that. I still have no faith in faith.

    DWD. If someone, anyone wants to 'rattle a rosary' then more power to them.
    Me. That's what I said, is it not?

    DWD. "Each to their own, each to their own."
    Me. Are you advocating apartheid?
    See how easily words are misinterpreted. ;0)
    I've said more than enough on this on this subject and will end my part in the discussion. However I welcome any reply. Unlike some, you seem capable of civil dialogue.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    Fair dues Mr Regit.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/alronvitis norlavine

    @robertallen1
    Don't you mean 'astronomy does not have it's roots in astrology'? Otherwise the context is all over the place 'like a mad woman's breakfast' as we say here in the Antipodes.xx

  • robertallen1

    I do.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    @oQ : "It takes people's logical mind to advance science, but what is logic today may have been foolish in the past and it will be for the future too."

    I get your point, but let's just clarify your terminology in an amusing way. I don't think logic is the right word here, understanding is. Logic is a tool of understanding, as is common sense. Two great tools indeed for understanding are logic and common sense. They are of course quite different, if not opposing. Can we define common sense logically, or logic through common sense? I'm still trying! Equally can we use logic to define logic? Or common sense to define common sense? What a ridiculous quandary! What tools can we use?!

    Surely we can define them? Perhaps using a dictionary? But even that isn't without a certain amount of circular ambiguity with one inferring the other, especially for anyone without prior understanding. All I've ever managed to do is use examples.

    Here's a good common sense statement:
    "Common sense, it turns out, isn't that common."

    Extremely logical people tend to have a shortfall of common sense. My common sense statement could easily appear illogical - in English grammar is might be called a paradox (a statement that appears to be gibberish at first glance, but that has meaning).

    Stick a computer geek (of which I am one, but an exception to the rule) in to a bar with some beautiful women, and watch the attempts at social interaction we commonly take for granted. Upon his utter failure to do so, and excusing himself to go to the bathroom, you could well find him pulling on the door that clearly says "push".

    Likewise, people with extraordinary common sense can be tripped up with simple logic in no time.

    Science, therefore, tends not to advance from our logic nor common sense (both of which can be painfully lacking given the right scenario), but instead science advances from understanding, and that is what is always subject to change.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    Does one advance something while being content with understanding it as is? The word itself says under standing.
    You accept something by understanding it but what is needed to open a new door, one not dared opened before or one never even imagined before? The use of creative logic and an uncommon sense.

    Science has looked up with the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope, has looked down with nanometer microscope but science won't look within because it has been claimed as the business of religion.
    I say the hell with religion. What is religion other that a mowed path you crawl on your knees and on which you can't stand aside independently?

    You are right undestanding is always subject to change but it takes' people's logical and uncommon mind to make those changes.
    1i

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LK6B2HGMK4EHZ6YJ3I6WFKY77U DigiWongaDude

    @oQ, indeed. Change comes from unreasonable people doing unreasonable things. Not the only reason of course, but one at least.

    There are sciences that look within. Behavioural Sciences, Physiology, Psychology... but what they find and where they look is not the 'within' you speak of. How would you define that 'within'. Can you point the way?

    The bond between a mother and her new born baby? The elation of experiencing laughter through tears? These are not outside the realm of science. But the tools of science quickly become inadequate, when compared to the tools of our own understanding. Science can and will only do what it says on the tin. But there is more to life and existence than the contents and instructions of a tin.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    I think the power of our awareness has been in isolation, captive in the hands of religious dogma.
    For one example, the speed of thought may be faster than the speed of light but how can this be researched? The speed of sound was understood, , the only way to approach the speed of thought is to create experiments that will validate a silent the speed of light is being apprehendedconnection between people.
    I am not saying i have it mapped out. I do understand why there is reticence in researching the *unnatural*, but it is too easy to throw it all in the same bag with astrology, the unicorn or religion.
    I will write more tomorrow if the flow comes, if time permits or if my grand son doesn't come around and grab all my attention.
    Mondays are my days off...no bread, no pasta, just me and freedom for doing what i want.
    1i
    When i wrote: "the speed of light is being apprehended" I did not question that the speed of light is accurrately known (every body knows that, even me), i was searching for a verb that would state that the speed of light had been in question at Cern. I admit i hadn't read Cern's official confirmation that Neutrinos can't beat the speed of light.
    Thanks WigiDonga (lol)

  • AntiTheist666

    Biblical Inerrancy

    I too could only manage 7 mins of this (and that seemed like a lifetime!). However, if anyone else can put up with the desperately dull monotone narration and the cheesiest of PowerPoint graphics, please let me know if it was any good. Breath, holding, not.

    @ oQ

    “ I do understand that when a student is ready the teacher appears.”

    How right you are :-)

    From Beyond good and Evil.

    “Whoever is fundamentally a teacher takes all things seriously only in relation to his students—including even himself”.

    @Giacomo della Svezia

    “If Ayn Rand meant to say "I am self-conscious, therefore I think", then, speaking from my own experience, he forgets that to become self-conscious requires thought. It took a lot of thinking before I realised my existence.”

    I’m not a fan of Ayn Rand but at least she was interesting, check out some the interviews she has on youtube, worth a look for her views on love alone. Objectivism however, is only part of the story...

    Also from Beyond good and Evil.

    “Knowledge for its own sake,—that is the ultimate snare which morality sets: with that one gets fully entangled once again in morality.”

    Descartes’ cogito presupposes that there is an I, that there is such an activity as thinking, and that I know what thinking is...

    "When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible: for instance, that it is _I_ who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking--that I KNOW what thinking is. For if I had not already decided within myself what it is, by what standard could I determine whether that which is just happening is not perhaps 'willing' or 'feeling'? In short, the assertion 'I think,' assumes that I COMPARE my state at the present moment with other states of myself which I know, in order to determine what it is; on account of this retrospective connection with further 'knowledge,' it has, at any rate, no immediate certainty for me.”

    Friedrich Nietzsche

    The Crucified One

  • docoman

    G'day 6's. I smiled when I saw your name again, good to see you're still around mate. :)
    I found the narration to be a cure for insomnia. :) Three goes at it, still haven't seen it all.

  • docoman

    I think there is a scientist that 'looks within'. A Proctologist. ;)

  • AntiTheist666

    @docoman

    G’day and nice to you here too mate. Three goes eh? I admire your determination. You can’t give up now surely? Don’t forget gOD loves a trier!

  • Debra LeCompte

    You are a person I would like to engage in conversation. We frequently have dinner parties and talk far into the night.... Are you anywhere near Houston, Texas?

  • russ williams

    So many "scholars" commenting here; I'll bet most of which have never even opened a Bible, much less read any of it, then pronounce themselves experts on what it does and does not say. I feel sorry for all of you in this category.

  • Pysmythe

    You're probably right that there are some here whose level of actual expertise may leave a lot to be desired, but I can assure you that there are several others who would be more than able to go up against you chapter and verse in any debate you might care to put to them. Perhaps you should try cluing the rest of us in sometime on precisely what the bible does and does not say, and I'm sure they'll make their way to you in short order.

  • mycial

    I agree with you. Religion separate us from each other they tell us that this person is evil because they don't think the way we do. Don't speak with the sinners just pray for them while the most brain washing is done by them.

  • Teresa Sumrall

    Humans tend to believe in almost anything in order to avoid facing the
    fear of death and think for themselves. This is a good documentary for people coming off religion and needing to decompress.

  • Carl Hendershot

    Honesty is what counts. ;)

  • Carl Hendershot

    It is why I get paid in things you should learn how to do.

  • Carl Hendershot

    VALID~Thank you.

  • over the edge

    thank you for addressing absolutely nothing in my post

  • Carl Hendershot

    You are very welcome.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dhunter.sanchez D Hunter Sanchez

    Ha ha. Make sure the child takes logic 101 when he gets to college. Only finite, contingent beings require a cause. When humans speak of "God" we are speaking of an uncreated being who is not dependent upon anything outside of him/herself for their existence. You would do well to consider Aquinas' five ways.

  • robertallen1

    Aquinas knew no more about the existence of a god than you do. What he wrote is merely a cop out for a belief in an entity the existence of which he could not prove and which is by definition unknowable.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dhunter.sanchez D Hunter Sanchez

    The idea of God includes the ability to reveal him/herself to finite limited creatures. By the way, Aquinas arguments convinced a number of people.

  • robertallen1

    So what? Hitler's arguments convinced a larger number of people.
    How do you know so much about a being whose existence you cannot prove with hard evidence and which by nature you can know nothing about?

  • Luke B

    I strongly disagree with the message of this text. Apart from misinterpreting somewhat Paley's watchmaker argument, this documentary does not seem to understand the fact that the bible is allegorical in places. To put truth in the form of allegory is a way of stimulating exploration, both of oneself and the world around us. To be offered everything on a silver platter would mean taking everything that we have been given for granted.
    Furthermore, the bible is divinely inspired, although it must be remembered that it has been put in human words, which are imperfect, meaning that perfect truth is impossible. A prime example of this is the use of the word 'days' in Genesis; time was created by humans as a way of measuring, like a kilogram or an inch. The word 'day' does not necessarily mean 'day', but rather a period of time between one thing and another, between the darkness and the light. In this way, the word 'day' is used perfectly correctly.
    This documentary is an abuse of reasoning, for the religious and atheists alike.

  • hisxmark

    There is some truth in the "Bible', and some nonsense. I think you should use your best judgement to discriminate. But to some it is just another graven image, to be placated with sacrifices (usually of money in these times) but never to be examined critically.

  • SaludoVencedores

    The producer fails to understand the genius of the Bible: It perfectly communicates all of the truth needed for those who seek it, and perfectly provides the material needed for those who seek to reject it and, more importantly, its author. With even a modest understanding of the nature of God and the nature of man and God's plan for him, one can't help but smile at this solemn-toned "analysis".

  • coryn

    "Priest pedophiles are an anomaly and should not be used as an argument against Christianity ...Don't you agree?"

    You must be joking! If priests are God's servants on earth, and God is Omniscient and therefore knows the priests are active pedophiles, that would mean God knowingly inflicts lifelong suffering upon the child victims, while letting the priests off scot-free. You can't be serious.

    This is a beautiful example of a human willingly accepting the power of belief over reason. "There is no antidote for religion mixed with mother's milk", is how Robert Ingersoll put it.

  • coryn

    "The genius of the Bible?" "It perfectly communicates all the truth needed.....?"
    You can't be serious?" Yes, it certainly would help if 'God' and/or God's Son, Jesus would simply 'show up' and take charge. Indeed, they are the latest incarnations of the thousands of gods and goddesses who have preceded them. But first, to my mind 'God' needs to explain why the Hebrews were given one 'Holy Book', while the Muslims and the Christians were each given different 'Holy Books', which contradict the other two. The Hebrew Bible reads like a manual for a genocide, originally led by Moses, (who had previously killed an Egyptian), and Joshua, who, following God's advice, proceeded to cut off 40,000 foreskins of his men, with flint knives, to prepare them for battle. Right, those without infections that is..... But the battle goes to the Lord, since: ".... the Lord hurled large hailstones down on them from the sky, and more of them died from the hailstones than were killed by the swords of the Israelites."
    So, I am to believe that a 'God' first creates humans that just don't measure up, so He drowns them with a huge flood that He creates. He then selects Joshua's group to give the spoils of His genocidal adventures to, and Joshua himself tells the Lord "O sun, stand still over Gibeon......", and the sun "stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day."
    Saludo, this is fiction, face up to it!

  • SaludoVencedores

    See. It has perfectly provided the material you need to stay exactly where you are.

  • coryn

    Whatever that means...... Look me in the eye and tell me that if you were a 'God' you would create creatures such as us, suffering for hundreds of thousands of years with rotten teeth and dying in childbirth before You showed up to commit genocide on an innocent group of itinerant goat herders, in an obscure corner of the world to give us a jump start on doing it right and finding our way to 'heaven'. Surely you wouldn't populate a planet with sentient beings that all had to eat each other to stay alive, usually uncooked but still warm. And they call us made in the 'image of God'?

    So, what is it you're trying to say…..

  • SaludoVencedores

    It means that the Bible is not a work designed to convince people of a belief in God. Quite the contrary. It IS, however, a work that reveals His plan and will to those who DO believe, or sincerely SEEK to believe. (Prov 8:17)

    It may not be 'fair' in your eyes, but it is a well known, established principle of the things of God (including Biblical text) that:
    1 Cor 2:14 “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.”
    So it is perfectly understandable that you should be repulsed by some of the quasi-historical references found in the OT.

    Where you are is here, on a discussion blog, disparaging the God of the universe.

  • coryn

    Yes, I prefer reality to fiction, and encourage others to do the same. You prefer myths and fictions that "... are discerned only through the Spirit". Well, I've read history, and I've read the religious writings of many belief systems, none of which can agree apparently because each religion has a different "god". And that has historically lead to a whole lot of killing, and if 'God' says that's what He wants, His Believers do it!
    Perhaps you can tell me why your 'God' created three different religions with three different 'Holy' books, and the Jews and the Muslims and the Christians have been killing each other ever since.

  • SaludoVencedores

    My God didn't create any religions. Men did. God simply(!) manifested Himself in Christ to teach us what He was after -- your heart and mind and spirit -- so that you and He could have constant communion and so that He could make Himself known to others through you.
    The best introduction I've seen to this reality is Dallas Willard's 'Divine Conspiracy', which I recommend to you if you sincerely want to understand.
    In the meantime your model of God as puppeteer, pulling our strings depending on His whims, is just wrong, and so cannot lead you to any valid conclusions.

  • coryn

    Interesting, God didn't create any religions you say. Then was it those 'other' gods that created all those bad religions around the world? No, I've learned it's man who creates gods and goddesses, not the other way around. Well then, did He create more than one Bible, such as the Torah, and later the Bible and then the Koran? The difficulty for me is that every Christian tells me something different, and each believes his version is truth. Sort of like the way Christians splinter into different churches and denominations when they don't agree upon something, then fight and kill each other, like in the 30 Years War. Yet you don't consider God to be a puppeteer, even though at Joshua 31:3 He agreed to "...cross over ahead of you. He will destroy these nations before you. and you will take possession of THEIR land." Yes, we knew that the Jews had stolen the land they were to settle on, and killed all the natives, in fact the Christian God appears to do a lot of killing, as opposed to other gods, the peaceful gods of India and the far east.

    It's true I can't understand the contradictions in the Bible, such as when God promotes Moses to headman in spite him killing an Egyptian, since at Lev 24:21 God says ".... but whoever kills a man must be put to death. You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born." God certainly is a puppeteer it appears, He's even got angels that killed 185,000 men n one night,

    And yes, truthfully it bothers me that children are taught this fiction as something that really happened. My religious brainwashing began when I was 6 years old in the Methodist church, and lasted far too long. If you were at all interested I would recommend George H. Smith's excellent book to you, "Atheism - The Case Against God", so I won't. For whatever reason you are a true believer, I'm sure of that........ I just wish you all would leave the kids alone, and let them discover the real world.

  • SaludoVencedores

    You can overcome and undo your 'brainwashing' and hatred if you sincerely desire it for yourself, and simply ASK. This is His promise.
    Or not. Nobody is going to coerce you. Your choice.
    We started this with you attacking my point about the 'genius' of the BIble... for its varied audiences, by which I stand. I've offered what I can in a forum of this type, and I wish you all the best.

  • coryn

    I had hoped you might have some real evidence of the supernatural, but instead of answering any of my questions you simply tell me I need a voice in my head that tells me God is this and God is that, but you submit no evidence, zero, nada, niente, nothing but smokescreens. I've done my time Saludo, 70 years of searching, but never a vision, or a voice, nothing but silence……..

    I exist as a counterweight to your wishful thinking, suggesting to all that a study of myth and religion will quickly reveal thousands of gods and goddesses that humans have created over the thousands of years of evolution. Religion has had it's chance. We know now that each human group invents it's own gods, and a nirvana or heaven for one's final resting place. There is no evidence for any of it……

    My suggestion to all is to keep reading and studying, and don't let religion stop your quest for understanding.

  • SaludoVencedores

    I second coryn's recommendation to keep searching/reading/studying. But please do so in a sincere search for the truth, not simply a desire to buttress your preconceived opinions. And in doing so, please don't neglect Jesus' words in the NT. Read them, and challenge yourself: "How could what He's telling me to do be possible? What would have to happen to me in order for me routinely to live as He says I should?" Asking yourself these questions can change everything.