Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » I just got baptized - Yea!

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
I just got baptized - Yea!
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

There's not a lot of room to show the advancement of knowledge for something that was just discovered.

So what was discovered? That the universe had age? That it had size?

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

It was discovered that the universe was incredibly huge (solar system), then this kept getting pushed further and further back to the size of the Milky Way Galaxy, then other galaxies etc. What equivalent is there in the Bible (errata published by God)?

The only way Trump is going to be involved in a landslide is if the land surrounding the White House collapses into the Earth's core. -- bamccaig

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

So what was discovered? That the universe had age? That it had size?

Well before the 20th century it was believed to be no bigger than half the solar system, the earth at the center, and everything else spinning around it. Of course there are several variations on that theme. And before that it was just earth, and "stuff" above.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

It was discovered that the universe was incredibly huge (solar system), then this kept getting pushed further and further back to the size of the Milky Way Galaxy, then other galaxies etc. What equivalent is there in the Bible (errata published by God)?

Equivalent to what, specifically? My alarm clock instructions have no information on the size of the Universe either; that makes it no less valid. I don't think you've really understood anything I've said up to this point; I was originally talking to JL.

Well before the 20th century it was believed to be no bigger than half the solar system, the earth at the center, and everything else spinning around it. Of course there are several variations on that theme. And before that it was just earth, and "stuff" above.

I'm glad our understanding is increasing; I don't see what that has to do with our universe increasing. Aside from a metaphorical interpretation.

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

I'm glad our understanding is increasing; I don't see what that has to do with our universe increasing

I don't think I said the universe was actually getting bigger (although it is).

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

I don't think you've really understood anything I've said up to this point; I was originally talking to JL.

Which happens all the time! Tis what science is all about.
Metaphorically, sure. :)

Noun

* S: (n) metaphor (a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity)

Science isn't metaphorical, it's hard evidence or it's not science.

And my link referred to the known size of the universe, not the cosmological expansion.

The only way Trump is going to be involved in a landslide is if the land surrounding the White House collapses into the Earth's core. -- bamccaig

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

Science isn't metaphorical, it's hard evidence or it's not science.

You'll notice I wasn't referring to science specifically. Obviously science isn't metaphorical. ::) Want to jump into anyone else's conversations?

I don't think I said the universe was actually getting bigger (although it is).

Which is why I said the comment was metaphorical. I said it, and you said "Which happens all the time!" Why are we still talking about it again?

I knew I shouldn't have posted in this one. >_<

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

You'll notice I wasn't referring to science specifically.

What were you referring to, specifically? It looked to me like you were implying science is merely an "opinion".

The only way Trump is going to be involved in a landslide is if the land surrounding the White House collapses into the Earth's core. -- bamccaig

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Which is why I said the comment was metaphorical. I said it, and you said "Which happens all the time!" Why are we still talking about it again?

I dunno. It sounded like you misunderstood.

append:

If you recall I said this:

Just our idea of the universe has expanded.

I did not say the universe expanded. I said our idea of it has expanded. The idea. Not the universe.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

If you recall I said this:

And if you'll recall, that's not what I responded to with "metaphorically, sure." now is it? :)

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

And if you'll recall, that's not what I responded to with "metaphorically, sure." now is it? :)

Its about the only thing I can think of that I said that could possibly have been misconstrued as saying the universe was expanding.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Neil Black
Member #7,867
October 2006
avatar

I took his "metaphorically" comment to mean that scientific advancement caused human knowledge about the universe to expand (a metaphorical expansion of the universe), but the actual physical universe was not expanded by our increased understanding of it.

If my interpretation is wrong, please correct me.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Maybe I'm stupid, but that doesn't seem like a metaphor to me. Saying your knowledge of something has expanded is not any kind of metaphor for the thing itself expanding.

But then I never did learns mah english propers like (though I did have a rather high reading comprehension level back in the day, though I have to really concentrate to see it these days, or I misread :( )

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Neil Black
Member #7,867
October 2006
avatar

I don't know, I don't think it's technically a metaphor, but I can understand how someone would use the word metaphor to mean that.

EDIT:

Also, I could be reading it entirely wrong.

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

I think your use of the word "idea" is what's confusing me. The universe has a definition. If something exists outside of observable reality, or in some supernatural way, the definition of the universe will not suddenly encompass it. The things that are normally designated as "supernatural" by various religions, theologies, philosophies, etc. are generally such a paradigm shift that they would forever be thought of as separate even if they were ever proven in a natural, scientific fashion. They would not just suddenly become "normal". Does that make more sense?

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

We can barely detect neutrinos, and certainly can't see them, yet we don't consider them anything other than normal.

The only way Trump is going to be involved in a landslide is if the land surrounding the White House collapses into the Earth's core. -- bamccaig

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

We can barely detect neutrinos, and certainly can't see them, yet we don't consider them anything other than normal.

Keep backing me up Arthur, keep backing me up ...

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Evert
Member #794
November 2000
avatar

The universe has a definition. If something exists outside of observable reality, or in some supernatural way, the definition of the universe will not suddenly encompass it.

That's arguing semantics, which is not very helpful.
The word "planet" originally referred to "wandering stars", where a "star" was one of these immobile unchanging lights in the night sky. As opposed to "sun", which wsa the big bright fiery thing in the sky during the day.
Now we know that stars are not immobile and unchanging: stars are formed, stars disappear. And along the way, they change. We know our sun is just another star. We know that the planets are spheres of gas or stone that orbit the sun, and that the Earth is just another planet. And we now know that there are planets orbiting other stars.
None of those fit with the "original" definition of those concepts. Should we not call the sun a star or the Earth a planet because those terms were introduced before the thing it referred to was fully understood? Of course not. That's called progressive insight; scientific truths are not set in stone, immutable for all time.

EDIT:
Not quite a peer-reviews source, but Wikipedia gives several possible definitions for the term "universe", which may or may not be interchangeable, depending on how inclusive you want to be and what the nature of said universe actually is. One of these is

Quote:

The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists

which is certainly the definition I would have given. By that definition, it encompasses any existing dieties.

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

Evert said:

That's arguing semantics, which is not very helpful.

It was basically semantics to begin with, I suppose. No one has really said anything I didn't already know, so clearly I'm being misunderstood. Main point was that you'll never find natural proof for something generally deemed supernatural, by definition.

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Evert
Member #794
November 2000
avatar

Main point was that you'll never find natural proof for something generally deemed supernatural, by definition.

Two comments about that.
The distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" has not been defined. To me (and I'm not trying to give a water-tight definition here), "natural" means something along the lines of "following directly from the laws of physics" (our understanding of which is incomplete). Thus, a stone falling when dropped is, a house being built is not, although the principles on which the foundation of the house is laid and the plans according to which it is built and kept standing follow from said laws of physics. Supernatural, then, means something along the lines of "not following directly from the known laws of physics, possibly as a consequence of deliberate action by a sentient being". There are two aspects to this: the first is the limitation of our understanding of the laws of physics (contrast with the earlier definition of "natural"), the second part is the analogue of catching things like a house being built under the same umbrella term "supernatural".
In that understanding of the term "supernatural", there is nothing inherent in saying that what today is called "supernatural" might not be understood as "natural" tomorrow. I'm sure a medieval peasant would consider this aluminium box I'm typing on a very supernatural thing indeed. Doesn't that make the definitions very pliable, so you can fit everything in? Doesn't that invalidate any arguement to reject a supernatural explanation? Not quite, enter Occam's razor: you don't introduce a new concept (say, a diety, or a new law of physics) unless you have to.
I know it's a tired old example, but before it was understood as a natural phenomenon, thunder and lightning were considered supernatural (that distinction is of course more modern). Again, the distinction is not set in stone, immutable for all time.

Second point. Were I to look for proof of, say, the existence of a god, I don't care whether that proof is considered "natural" or not. All I care about is the proof, not the form it takes.

Scientifically speaking though, I'm not interested in that particular question: the burden of proof is not on me to show that God does not exist (which is impossible to do anyway; at most you can say that you found no evidence to the conterary), rather the burden of proof is on those who make the hypothesis that God does exist: to show that it's more than a convenient way to explain away anything we (or they) do not (yet?) understand.
And then finally, if such a proof were found, why would that not imply that this "god" is therefore part of "nature"?

So, long story short, I don't buy the "you can't reason about supernatural things because they're supernatural" argument.

blargmob
Member #8,356
February 2007
avatar

{"name":"602388","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/1\/61b399bfdc8bf5c12c86574de83e8ec6.png","w":1920,"h":1080,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/1\/61b399bfdc8bf5c12c86574de83e8ec6"}602388

---
"No amount of prayer would have produced the computers you use to spread your nonsense." Arthur Kalliokoski

Mark Oates
Member #1,146
March 2001
avatar

you'll never find natural proof for something generally deemed supernatural

It would be my conclusion then, that anything supernatural has no relevance to reality (as it does not affect it). Either that or the supernatural conveniently skirts producing evidence that is provable.

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

Evert said:

So, long story short, I don't buy the "you can't reason about supernatural things because they're supernatural" argument.

I'm glad to hear that, because I didn't say you couldn't reason about them. We do that all the time on this forum alone, clearly. ;D

Quote:

does the supernatural conveniently skirt producing evidence that is provable?

I don't get the "skirting". Do you feel as though anything particularly supernatural has an obligation to drop by and set up a Wikipedia page?

Jesse Lenney: You base your beliefs around things you find poetic? I'm not following.

It would be my conclusion then, that anything supernatural has no relevance to reality.

Something that can't be proven via scientific means has no relevance to reality, gotcha.

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Quote:

does the supernatural conveniently skirt producing evidence that is provable?

He explicitly states that, though not so harshly. I'll spend my time with stuff that might possibly be proven (and much more interesting besides) such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact

Very interesting if you put a bit of thought into it.

The only way Trump is going to be involved in a landslide is if the land surrounding the White House collapses into the Earth's core. -- bamccaig

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

video

A disturbing mix of scary and funny. ;D



Go to: