tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post5471558532946010853..comments2023-12-02T02:26:05.528-08:00Comments on JimPintoBlog: Science vs FaithAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10670437428300830000noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-18024374344478344552015-12-09T21:57:49.900-08:002015-12-09T21:57:49.900-08:00To Anonymous November 23, 2015 at 7:11 AM
In your...To Anonymous November 23, 2015 at 7:11 AM<br /><br />In your reply you have given some names who did not have formal education e.g. Bill gates, Steve Jobs, Wright Brothers, Benjamin Franklin, Graham Bells, Thomas Edison etc. But can you give any quotes from their writings that will show that they also believed like you that math and physics are wrong?<br /><br />In your reply you have answered one question, but not the other one: how do you come to know that the environment of earth is filled with oxygen and nitrogen molecules?uchitrakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09317803821391979129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-82043409015366235062015-11-23T07:11:56.521-08:002015-11-23T07:11:56.521-08:00For : uchitrakar November 18, 2015 at 1:45 AM
Cl...For : uchitrakar November 18, 2015 at 1:45 AM<br /><br />Clearly more and better definitions are needed. But instead of trying to define I will try to give some examples. Take Newton's First Law - an object in motion will continue in motion in a straight line with constant velocity. Have you ever seen such an object on earth or in space? No, never. Thus Newton's laws are all false. In the same way if you investigate Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, you will find they are also wrong. Real numbers and money (which is a real number also) both are false. Using something false, you cannot create anything true.<br /><br />None of the following famous people of USA, pioneers of our modern society, can be considered formally educated – Bill Gates (software), Steve Jobs (software and hardware), Wright Brothers (Airplane), Benjamin Franklin (business man, scientist, politician, revolutionary), Graham Bell (electrical communication), Thomas Edison (electrical power) etc. So math and not even education are necessary to produce engineering products. Something is used in engineering, and engineering is working, does not mean that the things used are correct. Engineering is full of patches and kludges, created out of trial and error. For more detailed examples take a look at the blog site https://theoryofsouls.wordpress.com/<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-46686316027044309382015-11-18T01:45:07.795-08:002015-11-18T01:45:07.795-08:00Dear Mr. Anonymous of November 17, 2015,
...Dear Mr. Anonymous of November 17, 2015,<br /> There are some major inconsistencies in your thought. In one place you have written:<br />"Math is all wrong. Real numbers are not objects of nature. Therefore real numbers are false. You cannot create anything that is true using something that is false. Therefore all of math is wrong. Since physics uses math, physics must also be wrong."<br /><br />Again in another place you have written:<br />"Vedas say the following: Just like the environment of earth is filled with oxygen and nitrogen molecules, similarly the entire universe is filled with (1) root material and (2) root cause."<br /><br />Now my question is: How do you come to know that the environment of earth is filled with oxygen and nitrogen molecules? If you think that physics must be wrong, then the part of physics that has provided us this information must also be wrong. So you do not know with certainty as to whether the environment of earth is actually filled with oxygen and nitrogen molecules or not, because this knowledge of yours has come from physics that, as per your view about physics, must be wrong. Still you are pretending as if you know with certainty that the environment of earth is filled with so and so.<br /><br />The second inconsistency is that you are commenting in a blog. That means you are using a computer, and you are also using internet. All these inventions have been made possible by a physics that, as per you, must be wrong. And you have also commented that "You cannot create anything that is true using something that is false". So do you think that the computer/mobile phone/whatever it may be and the internet that you are utilizing for commenting in this blog are all false? Or shall we have to believe that the person who is commenting here in the pseudonym of Anonymous is himself/herself false?uchitrakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09317803821391979129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-9085446638025210062015-11-17T18:13:18.967-08:002015-11-17T18:13:18.967-08:00"Is there a God? Can you provide your own def..."Is there a God? Can you provide your own definition?" - Vedas say there is no god. All religions also say there is no god. We are only interpreting them in a specific way to satisfy the money power. Remove money from the world God will vanish and truth will come out.<br /><br />Vedas say the following: Just like the environment of earth is filled with oxygen and nitrogen molecules, similarly the entire universe is filled with (1) root material and (2) root cause. This root cause is called soul. Soul creates all objects using the root material. Every object in the universe is created by its individual soul by using the root material. Thus you are created by your soul and I am created by my soul. Thus there is no creator who created the universe. Therefore god can be your soul. If you replace the word God by your soul in Bible or Gita you will not find any inconsistencies. On the contrary they will be understandable and meaningful. We have modified Vedas and Bibles to fit need for money power in a wrong way to confuse people.<br /><br />Math is all wrong. Real numbers are not objects of nature. Therefore real numbers are false. You cannot create anything that is true using something that is false. Therefore all of math is wrong. Since physics uses math, physics must also be wrong. The same is true for money. Money is false, free, and abundant at its source which is the central bank. We cannot create anything true using something false like money. Take a look at https://theoryofsouls.wordpress.com/ for many examples and more details.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-56528327963474580162015-11-14T18:21:21.816-08:002015-11-14T18:21:21.816-08:00It can be shown that God is neither good nor evil....It can be shown that God is neither good nor evil. A God who cannot do any good to others cannot be properly called good. But in order to do good to others first of all there will have to be others. So a good God is always bound to create others, and thus he is not fully free. A fully free God is not bound by anything. He has the freedom to create. Similarly he has the freedom to not create. But a good God cannot have the freedom to not create, because in order to do justice to his own good nature a good God is always bound to create others, and thus he is not fully free.<br /><br />In the same way it can be shown that neither an evil God can be fully free. An evil God cannot be called evil if he cannot do any evil to others. But in order to do evil to others, first of all there will have to be others. Thus an evil God is also always bound to create others in order to do justice to his own evil nature, and thus he cannot be fully free. Thus a fully free God can neither be good nor be evil. He will be beyond good and evil. Being neither good nor evil he can freely decide whether he will create or not. There will be no binding for him that he will always have to create others.<br /><br />A universe created by a God who is neither good nor evil will also bear the traits of its creator; it will also be neither good nor evil. That means in a universe created by a God who is neither good nor evil there will always be good as well as evil. uchitrakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09317803821391979129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-18200273829499129702015-11-12T21:18:26.794-08:002015-11-12T21:18:26.794-08:00THE PROBLEM WITH EVIL: Evil with no god = game ove...THE PROBLEM WITH EVIL: Evil with no god = game over. Since all rational people recognize the existence of both massive evil and ongoing good, evil is not a proof against god but rather a part of the evidence for the existence of god; massive god.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-45583659769578452042015-10-12T20:05:04.783-07:002015-10-12T20:05:04.783-07:00(continued from the previous post)
Now only one qu...(continued from the previous post)<br />Now only one question remains to be answered: "If God created the universe, then who created God?"<br /><br />This question has already been answered here:<br />http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/76/85<br /> <br />Now I want to personally thank Mr. Jim Pinto for allowing me to express my thoughts in his blog.<br /> (concluded)uchitrakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09317803821391979129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-56304076428398014232015-10-12T00:05:40.255-07:002015-10-12T00:05:40.255-07:00(continues from the previous post)
But the story d...(continues from the previous post)<br />But the story does not end here. A very serious objection has been raised against our concept of The Whole by a famous American atheist who, as per Richard Dawkins, is one of the America's leading atheists. His objection is that as per our definition The Whole is neither in any space nor in any time, and therefore it is a self-referential body. Being a self-referential body nothing meaningful can be said about it. We cannot even address it by very simple words like 'it', 'that' etc. Any meaningful dialogue about TW will only be possible if, and only if, this TW is within some context that is beyond or higher. This means that it cannot be that there will be only The Whole, but that there will also have to be something else along with The Whole. That means The Whole cannot be the sole existent, something else must always have to accompany it. This objection must have to be addressed properly before we can arrive at any conclusion regarding the existence of God. <br /><br />Here I will have to say that science has given full support to our concept of The Whole. By showing that the total energy of the universe is zero science has also shown that our concept of The Whole is scientifically correct. Being neither in any space nor in any time The Whole is a self-referential body, and the objection is that there cannot be any meaningful dialogue about a self-referential body. But with the help of the general theory of relativity it can be shown that only a self-referential body can have zero energy. Einstein's general theory of relativity has shown that space, time and matter are so interlinked that there cannot be any space and time without matter. Similarly there cannot be any matter without space and time. There is also a famous quote of Einstein on this: "When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." Again from Einstein's special theory of relativity we come to know that matter and energy are equivalent. So instead of saying that there cannot be any matter without space and time, we can also say that there cannot be any energy without space and time. Now we have already shown that The Whole is without space and time. But we have also shown that there cannot be any energy without space and time. So The Whole cannot have any energy. As soon as we will say that The Whole is within some context that is beyond and higher - say within some higher space and time - we will find that its total energy cannot be zero. This is because if the total energy of The Whole remains zero in this condition also, then which energy will justify the existence of this higher space and time? This is further because we have already seen that there cannot be any space and time without energy. So if the total energy of the universe is indeed zero, then The Whole can in no way be within any higher context. Thus the objection raised against our concept of The Whole is invalidated.<br /><br />Logically also this objection can be invalidated. As soon as we will say that The Whole is within some context that is beyond or higher, we will find that it no longer remains The Whole. That means for The Whole to be The whole, it can never be within any higher context.<br /> (to be concluded)uchitrakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09317803821391979129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-34578730037619372582015-10-11T00:46:32.308-07:002015-10-11T00:46:32.308-07:00(continued from the previous post)
Here physicists...(continued from the previous post)<br />Here physicists will say that there is a physical explanation as to why time and distance acquire null value for light, and therefore no supernatural explanation is needed here. This physical explanation is that the speed of light is a universal constant. Speed of light (c) appears in Maxwell’s equations. As Maxwell’s equations are laws of science and as laws of science are invariant in every frame of reference, so the speed of light will also have to be invariant in every frame of reference. In this way the speed of light has become a universal constant. Being a universal constant this speed remains the same in every frame of reference, irrespective of whether this frame is moving or stationary. The speed of light emanating from the headlights of a moving car is the same as the speed of light emanating from the headlights of a stationary car. As one car is moving and one car is stationary here, so space and time will have to bend sufficiently in order that the speed of light can remain the same both in the moving frame as well as in the stationary frame. And in case of a frame moving with the speed of light, this bending of space and time will be infinite, absolute. This is the physical explanation offered by the scientists for the exceptionally extraordinary things that happen only in case of light. <br />But…Yes, there is a ‘but’ here. Light is not a conscious entity. Being not conscious light cannot take decision about itself. It cannot decide its own fate. So it is not light that has decided that it will move with the same speed in every frame of reference, whether moving or stationary. Therefore if we find that speed of light is a universal constant, then we can conclude that this must have been caused not by light itself but by something else other than light. As light ultimately goes beyond space and time due to the fact that its speed remains the same in every frame of reference, so whatever may be the cause of it, this cause cannot lie within space and time. An entity lying within space and time cannot cause another entity, also lying within space and time, to go beyond space and time. It is logically impossible. So this cause must lie outside space and time. This cause lying outside space and time is God. <br />uchitrakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09317803821391979129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-14411834348967697062015-10-10T20:40:13.794-07:002015-10-10T20:40:13.794-07:00(continued from the previous post)
So, what is the...(continued from the previous post)<br />So, what is the way out? Is there no way for us to know as to whether TW exists or not? Yes, there is at least one way out. If this TW has kept a proof of its existence in something created, then from the presence of that created thing in this universe we can come to know that TW exists. We have already seen that there can be only one TW, and that there can never be any second TW. So all the attributes of TW are actually unique, exclusive attributes of TW only. Nothing else other than TW can possess any single attribute of TW, and TW possesses all these attributes simply because it is TW. If we ask: what caused TW to have all these attributes, then the answer will be: this cause lies within TW itself. The definition of TW is such that in order to be a proper TW, it must always have to be spaceless and timeless, and there can never be any exception to this. TW being spaceless and timeless by definition other attributes of it will necessarily follow. In that sense we can also say that TW is self-caused. Nothing else other than TW can be self-caused in this way. So if we now find that something else other than TW (say X) also possesses some of the attributes of TW, then from this we can conclude that X has received these attributes from TW only, because these are the sole, exclusive attributes of TW. So the fact that X possesses some of the attributes of TW will prove that The Whole exists. <br />So our next question will be: is there X in the universe? Happily the answer is: yes. This X is light. Like everything else in this universe light is also within space and time. In spite of that light goes beyond space and time, because both space and time become non-real, non-existent for light. For light even infinite distance becomes zero. A scientist has written in a blog (Science 2.0) that for light our universe is 0 mm thick. At the same time we should not forget that time totally stops for light. So light has the two properties of spacelessness and timelessness that are the sole, exclusive properties of TW only. Not being TW we cannot say about light that it is self-caused. So it must have been caused by something else, and this something else can only be TW. So the fact that for light both the values of time and distance become zero proves that there is a God.uchitrakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09317803821391979129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-1314422743343510822015-10-09T20:23:25.984-07:002015-10-09T20:23:25.984-07:00(Continued from the earlier post)
It can...(Continued from the earlier post)<br /> It can also be shown that TW will always be one. TW being The Whole will engulf everything, and thus there will be nothing else left outside of it that can be another TW. So as a result there can always be only one TW.<br /> It can also be shown that TW will be all-pervading. If there are two TWs, then none of them can be all-pervading. Because if one TW is all-pervading thus occupying all the space, then where will be the space left for the other TW? So in case there are two TWs, then none of them will be all-pervading. But as we have already seen that there can be only one TW, so it will be all-pervading. <br /> It can also be shown that TW is non-composite. The main reason as to why TW cannot be composite is that there is no space at all outside of TW where the mutilated portions of TW can be thrown away or dumped, because there is no space outside of TW. So TW cannot be mutilated at all, and not even an infinitesimal part of this TW can be separated from the main body of TW. This is because after separating that infinitesimal part of TW from its main body we will find that we will have to keep that separated portion at the very same place from where it has been separated, because there can never be any extra space available at all to dump even this infinitesimal part of TW, and thus all our attempts to mutilate this TW in every possible way is always bound to become a failure.<br /> Thus it can be shown that simply by default TW will always be spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without a beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite.<br /> Thus the very definition of TW lets us know as to what are the various attributes of this TW. But from its definition alone it is not possible to know as to whether this TW actually exists or not.<br />uchitrakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09317803821391979129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-73370041556482477042015-10-09T20:21:29.812-07:002015-10-09T20:21:29.812-07:00In my first post here (October 3, 2015) I have wri...In my first post here (October 3, 2015) I have written:<br />"God is said to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite." <br /><br />It can be shown that all these various attributes of God are actually the attributes of The Whole.<br /><br /> Concept of The Whole<br /><br /> The Whole (TW) is defined in this way: it is that which contains within itself everything that is there. So by its very definition there cannot be anything outside of TW, because we have already defined it as that which contains within itself everything that is there. So whatever will be there will be within TW only and thus there cannot be anything outside it. So if we say that there is something outside of TW, then it will no longer remain TW, because in that case there will be something outside of it. Thus it will be contradictory to claim that there can be anything at all outside of TW.<br /> (In the same way a universe can also be defined. If we define the universe as a collection of all the things that exist, then by definition there cannot exist anything outside of the universe, because we have already defined it as the collection of all the things that exist. So whatever exists exists within the universe. But here, we are not concerned about the universe at all; rather we are concerned about The Whole only.)<br /> Before proceeding further I should say that the above is just a definition and nothing else. No claim is being made that TW actually exists, or that it has the slightest possibility to exist.<br /> As there cannot be anything at all outside of TW, so there will be no space, no time, no matter, simply nothing outside of it. Thus we can say that TW is neither in space nor in time. This simply follows from its definition itself. TW being neither in space nor in time will thus be spaceless and timeless. Being spaceless and timeless it will also be changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite.<br /> TW being placed neither in space nor in time cannot change at all. Change can occur either in space or in time. So TW cannot change, because it is placed neither in space nor in time. Being not in space we cannot say about this TW that it was 'there' before, and that it is 'here' now. Being not in time we cannot say about this TW that it was 'this' earlier, and that it has become 'that' later on. So there can never be any question of change for TW.<br /> TW will also be deathless, immortal. This is because death is also some sort of change. I am very much alive at this moment, but at the very next moment I may die. For TW this very next moment will never come, because TW is not in time. Therefore TW can never cease to be. <br /> Now it can be shown that TW which cannot change at all will also be unborn and uncreated. An entity that is created comes into existence from non-existence, and so for it once there was a change, and thus it is not changeless. So TW, for which no change can ever occur, can never be created. It will be uncreated.<br /> Similarly it can be shown that TW, for which no change can ever occur, was never born, because being born means coming into being from non-being. This is also a change. So TW, for which no change can ever occur, will also be unborn.<br /> It can also be shown that an entity for which no change can ever occur is without any beginning and without an end. It is everlasting. Something beginning to exist means change, and existence of something coming to an end also means change. So for an entity, for which no change can ever occur, there will be no beginning and no end; for it there will be neither any coming into existence nor any going into nonexistence.<br /> (To be continued)uchitrakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09317803821391979129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-63768531183501992552015-10-04T20:04:10.383-07:002015-10-04T20:04:10.383-07:00One more reason can be given on the basis of which...One more reason can be given on the basis of which it can be argued that God is not purely imaginary. We say that God is spaceless and timeless. So, if such a being does really exist, then it can be shown by simple logic that his existence in this universe will imply the relativity of space and time. This is because space and time are non-real, non-existent for that being, whereas for us human beings space and time are very much real, existent. So the same space and time have two different values for different beings. For God their values are zero, whereas for us they have non-zero values. Thus, if such a God does really exist, then space and time cannot have any absolute value. They cannot have the same value for everybody, they can have only relative value. Special theory of relativity has also shown that space and time are indeed relative. So, if STR is scientifically correct, then there is no justified ground for discarding mystical experience as a mere hallucination, because mystics have repeatedly and unanimously reported that both their senses of space and time were gone when they have met God.uchitrakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09317803821391979129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-55883443760272688422015-10-04T07:54:37.701-07:002015-10-04T07:54:37.701-07:00Uchitrakar:Thank you for your insightful and beaut...Uchitrakar:Thank you for your insightful and beautiful comments. I have read and keep reading many times.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10670437428300830000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-26662115475824974292015-10-03T22:05:01.009-07:002015-10-03T22:05:01.009-07:00God is said to be spaceless, timeless, changeless,...God is said to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite. If God does not exist, then there will be no one about whom it can be said that he is spaceless, timeless, immortal etc. <br />So God does not exist means nothing is timeless in this universe. If nothing is timeless, then why was it necessary for science to explain how anything could be timeless? This is because in special theory of relativity it has been shown that at the speed of light time totally stops.<br />By denying the existence of God science is denying the existence of any parmanent state of timelessness in this universe. In spite of that science has shown how a state of timelessness can be reached. Is it not self-contradictory on the part of science?<br />Science has shown how it is possible to be in a state of timelessness. But a state of timelessness is at the same time a state of deathlessness as well, because in a timeless world change can never occur and because death is some sort of change. So by showing how it is possible to be timeless, science has also shown how it is possible to be immortal. If no being in this universe is immortal, then why was it necessary for science to show how anyone can be immortal?<br />God is said to be immaterial. As per believers God is the source from which everything has originated. If the source does not contain any matter, then the outcome (the universe) as a whole cannot contain any matter. By showing that the total energy of the universe is zero, science has also shown that the total matter of the universe is indeed zero, because STR has already established that matter and energy are equivalent. <br />In this way it can be shown that science has explained the very God whose existence it has vehemently denied. If God is purely imaginary, then why was it necessary for science to explain an imaginary God?<br />uchitrakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09317803821391979129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-17269917534348767532015-06-30T08:30:04.510-07:002015-06-30T08:30:04.510-07:00John:
Sorry it has taken me so long to answer you...John:<br /><br />Sorry it has taken me so long to answer your email. I was involved in a large web design project and had very little time for much else.<br /><br />I of course agree that Christ's teachings were based on love and respect. However, the Church who considers Christ equal to God (or the same as God) obviously has never followed Christ's teachings.<br /><br />I am not sure what you mean by the statement "how can you expect Creationists to feel it fair that evolutionary philosophy is loaded into the science class." Since Creationists do not accept evolution but instead use religious beliefs to explain life on earth, Creationists should have no say as to what goes on in science class.<br /><br />Yes, everyone can have a personal world view, but this view has nothing to do with science or any other rational topic. And one's personal view cannot be forced on anyone else - as ISIS is trying to do in the Middle East and in Africa.<br /><br />Concerning atheism, it is NOT a philosophy. It is just a belief that there is no God. Nothing more or less. It so turns out that my philosophy is Objectivism. Based upon the principles of this philosophy, any faith-based belief such as belief in God is not considered a rational belief. Objectivism is basically a positive philosophy with an entire ontology, epistemology and morality as part of its teachings. Atheism is a very minor part of the philosophy.<br /><br />Your statement "Christianity is absolutely NOT anti-science" is not entirely true. Christianity varies from liberal to conservative. There are many conservative denominations that are anti-science wanting to stop the teaching of evolution, wanting to ban stem cell research, wanting to prevent abortion, and so on. Books have been written on this.<br /><br />As you say, "It really is dead simple: If it is amenable to the scientific method and can be demonstrated by experiment - then it is science - and I have no objection," thus all faith-based beliefs by Christians or any other religion cannot be science, and should be completely removed from all science courses and scientific literature including children's books on science.Stan Liebermannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-48457403015598107732015-06-15T06:31:44.128-07:002015-06-15T06:31:44.128-07:001. Are you atheist, agnostic or religious?
Bi...1. Are you atheist, agnostic or religious? <br /> Bible believing Christian<br />2. Is there a God? Can you provide your own definition? <br /> Yes. He is the creator and sustainer of all things. He is the savior and redeemer for all those who come to Him in Faith. He has revealed Himself to mankind as the “Father”, “Son” and “Holy Spirit”. He entered into His creation in a very personal way thru His Son – Jesus of Nazareth who is called the Christ. <br />3. If you are atheist, how do you explain your belief? N.A.<br />4. If you are religious, is your belief “faith-based”? <br /> No. Faith-blessed. All creation declares the glory and personhood of God. All true observable facts gathered with our human senses drives to only one reasonable conclusion. I am faith-blessed as a Christ follower.<br /> Is religion more than just a set of rules? Depends on the Religion, I suppose. Christianity is based on a personal, intimate relationship with the God of this universe. He has provided us with an instruction manual in His love letters to the Human Race. You may find those love letters and instruction manual interwoven in our Bible.<br />5. If you are agnostic, are you satisfied with simply not knowing? N.A.<br />6. Is there a difference between religion and spirituality? <br /> I suppose so but haven’t really thought about it. Non-Christian Religions are an effort to either approach God on Man’s merits or replace God with some Man-made substitute. Spirituality can mean many things to different people – I would urge anyone seriously considering a spiritual quest to start with the Bible and believe what it says.<br />7. What’s your view of the Pinto Quest to find a bridge between Science and Religion? <br /> No need to find a bridge between Christianity and Science. All true science discovers what an All Powerful God has already created or is already sustaining.<br />8. Please provide comments and suggestions to help with my quest. <br /> Read the Bible and believe what you read. I humbly quote a Bible verse for your examination: Hebrews 11:6 “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” If you are interested, I would start in the New Testament with the Gospel of Matthew or perhaps in the Old Testament in the Book of Genesis.<br />Tim Sheerennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-25930772638507863102015-06-11T08:15:26.770-07:002015-06-11T08:15:26.770-07:00Continued from previous comments (above).
7. What...Continued from previous comments (above).<br /><br />7. What’s your view of the Pinto Quest to find a bridge between<br /><br />Many years ago, when we lived in Austin Texas and were members of a very progressive Jewish congregation, we heard a sermon on reconciling the theory of evolution with biblical text. It stuck with me, and I still remember it, nearly 30 years later. The basic premise is that Creation was divine intervention in the natural process of evolution; in order to move evolution in a more holy direction. <br /><br />Personally, I am fine without the bridge. It is possible practice a religion and learn lessons of life from its holy books without literal interpretations. The Bible is a brilliant history of human nature (so is Machiavelli’s “the Prince” for that matter). <br /><br />(Prior to moving to Austin, I lived in small town Georgia working as a project manager for a consumer products company. My manager was an avowed atheist, struggling to live in Bible-belt Georgia. On a particularly frustrating day, when the plant maintenance superintendent had spent much of the morning trying to proselytize me, my atheist manager told me that he belonged to a group called Agnostic Social Society Holding Only Logical Explanations. I’ll let you figure out the acronym.)<br /><br />8. Please provide comments and suggestions to help with my quest.<br /><br />Okay, here’s what I see as the problem. Religious conservatives, working hand-in-hand with big money interest groups and their puppets in Congress, have made science denial into a tenet of faith; and they’ve done it because it’s profitable. <br /><br />Imagine the impact that new earth creationism has had on extractive industries. If you believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, then you shouldn’t be worried about running out of natural resources. God will replace that oil whenever he sees fit; it doesn’t take millions of years for fossil fuels to be created from organic matter. There is money to be made by making conservationism the opposite of religion. Imagine how much profit there is to be made if we all believe that bank regulation is anti-Christian. How about the belief that organized labor is anti-Christian? <br /><br />Biblical Capitalism - The Religious Right's War on Progressive Economic Policy:<br />http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/2/1/132159/0192<br /><br />The concept of free-market economics and resistance to all forms of government regulation being biblically-mandated dates back to the early 20th century and the beginnings of the labor movement. The term “Fundamentalism” comes from a set of books called “The Fundamentals” which was supposed to describe the basic principles of Christian living. I would have to look up the name and affiliation of the author, although I do recall that the books were written at a seminary in California. The work was funded by Lyman Stewart, an oil company CEO. Ritchie Tabachnicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-20676279535065397012015-06-11T07:34:00.681-07:002015-06-11T07:34:00.681-07:001. Are you atheist, agnostic or religious?
I prac...1. Are you atheist, agnostic or religious?<br /> I practice a religion but I am agnostic<br /><br />2. Is there a God? Can you provide your own definition?<br /> I have a conscience. That is my definition<br /><br />3. If you are atheist, how do you explain your belief?<br /> I’m not an atheist. <br /><br />4. If you are religious, is your belief “faith-based”?<br /> I belong to a religious denomination, but I wouldn’t call myself “religious” <br /><br />Is religion more than just a set of rules?<br /> A set of rules is a good start. If practicing a religion doesn’t make you a better, more sympathetic, and ethical person, it’s not doing you any good. I admit that rules don’t necessarily contribute to being a better person, for example, I doubt that avoiding eating pork makes me a more ethical person, but if they can stimulate conscience, then rules do serve a purpose<br /><br />5. If you are agnostic, are you satisfied with simply not knowing?<br /> Yes. <br /><br />6. Is there a difference between religion and spirituality?<br /> Yes. They are clearly not mutually exclusive, but people can adhere to principals of spirituality and belief in a higher being or higher purpose, without a specific religion. <br /><br />7. What’s your view of the Pinto Quest to find a bridge between<br />Science and Religion?<br /><br />See next post below - additional commentsRitchie Tabachnicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-69768294703707687332015-06-11T06:52:47.484-07:002015-06-11T06:52:47.484-07:00Hi Stan
I am hoping you will read through this an...Hi Stan<br /><br />I am hoping you will read through this and maybe see a lot more depth to the Giordo Bruno example.<br /><br />Christ's followers were never instructed to put people to death for their beliefs. They were instructed to love their enemies. They were expected to respectfully REASON with others, and to simply walk away from those who were not open to receiving the Word. Does this sound anything like what happened in Bruno’s case? <br /><br />Wikipedia states that Bruno has been considered a martyr for science - this is most unfortunate, as this makes it look like the REAL church is anti-science. Nothing could be further from the truth. <br /><br />Modern science was born among men of God. (Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Lord Rayleigh, John Ambrose Fleming, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, George Stokes, Sir William Hershel, Gregor Mendel… the list goes on for quite a bit)<br /><br />Back to Bruno - The fact is that Bruno appears to have been an original thinker with a brilliant, inquiring mind. What happened was not religion bashing science, but rather the corrupt leadership enforcing their dogma in the interests of preserving their position of authority so that they could continue riding the gravy train that they had established using religion as a tool to suite their own ends!<br /><br />Now test your objectivity: Today is hardly any different - we just have a different crowd enforcing their dogma, dominating education and the media, they have been known to derail the careers of otherwise successful scientists though their growing practice of rubbishing people solely for their views on origins. People not unlike Newton, Pasteur, Kepler, Faraday, Maxwell, you get the picture - who were also all Biblical creationists. You want to rubbish these great giants of science?<br /><br />Just as I would not have sided with the Catholic Church during Bruno's time, I would HOPE that you would not want to side with the dictating Atheists in our time. You certainly would not be happy if the Creationists were loading Bible stories into the science classes – how can you expect Creationists to feel it fair that evolutionary philosophy is loaded into the science class?<br /><br />In this earthly existence, a personal world view is an inalienable right that Christ himself recognised.<br /><br />You get all types of people in churches. Many are not even Christians. The real “Church” (true followers of Christ) is actually a far smaller crowd – some of which may not even attend a regular “formal” church gathering.<br /><br />I am certain that get all types of atheists too – I only take issue with those atheists who believe that they have some ordained right DOMINATE over the (tax-funded) education system and force their philosophy down my child’s throat in the name of “science”. (I would not at all object to my child having exposure to different philosophies and takes on origins , but these do not belong in the same classroom as physics, chemistry and biology - this is downright pernicious)<br /><br />Christianity is absolutely NOT anti-science.<br /><br />It really is dead simple: If it is amenable to the scientific method and can be demonstrated by experiment - then it is science - and I have no objection.<br /><br />John from Durban, South Africanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-4115807459451825982015-06-10T16:59:36.226-07:002015-06-10T16:59:36.226-07:00PART B:
Your " ADDRESSING THE “SCIENCE-RE...PART B: <br /><br />Your " ADDRESSING THE “SCIENCE-RELIGION” ISSUE HEAD-ON" paragraph is rife with leading questions and false statements. I'm at a loss which one to tackle first. This may convince some 8-year olds ... but barely.<br /><br />" We should return to calling a spade a spade - Evolution is conjecture, not<br />science ".<br />Wow, your falsely equating of evolution and conjecture, and then hold biblical fairy tales out as the better solution, is nothing less that mind boggling and intellectually dishonest.<br /><br />" Our problem is that atheists demand that their religion be called science..."<br />Reading any decent book on the subject will show you that A-theism, i.e. lack of religion, is not in any way a religion, and has nothing in common with "religion". Your well-worn attempt to redefine the word for your own creative uses is symptomatic of the weakness of your arguments.<br /><br />"... and the masses have been foolish enough to submit to this."<br />The irony, when the religious make a claim about others that so clearly describes their own deficiencies. In this and other writings, I've often noticed that religious writers have tried to turn the chairs, and have adopted the words of the opposition in a feeble attempt to gain credibility. It's not working well for me, but it may indeed be working on the already afflicted.<br /><br />FINALLY, you are generally equating atheism and science. Transparently, because ALL religions abhor and attack atheism and see it as an easy, common 'enemy', anything that can also be painted as 'by atheists' is easily equated to 'from the devil' and 'bad. A dangerous foundation upon which to build a society. Although many scientist may be atheists and vise versa, which I claim is a good thing, there is no one-on-one relationship. Claiming such a relationship is another rust spot on your creaky armor.<br /><br />Note to Jim Pinto, and an appendix: Why am I so blunt, and not show more 'tolerance'?<br />Well, tolerance is not needed when we agree with someone. It is needed only when we disagree. If we disagree and accept that the disagreement is not worth arguing over, we practice tolerance. And when we disagree to such an extent that we cannot accept the other's position without gagging, we say so- and we don't mince words, lest a weak response be misread as somewhat agreeing.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-53219032146264310802015-06-10T16:58:56.565-07:002015-06-10T16:58:56.565-07:00John from Durbin:
A few opposing comments. I res...John from Durbin:<br /><br />A few opposing comments. I restricted myself a selection of your statements. One can take issue with almost every sentence, for its content as well as its logical deficiencies, and use of re-defined words that fit your claims. <br /><br />" Modern science was born among men of God.". We know that everybody pretty well had to claim to be religious. Not being religious was a fatal error for many, thanks to the religious overlords. So yes, anybody from history that we are allowed to know, was claimed by religion. Others were silenced, often brutally and permanently, and their books burned.<br /><br />" People not unlike Newton, Pasteur, Kepler, Faraday, Maxwell, you get the picture - who were also all Biblical creationists. You want to rubbish these great giants of science?"<br />Aha, naming names....so people a few hundred years ago claimed to believe in creationism. Hardly surprising given the previous paragraph, AND the fact that no other options had generally been made available. There is no need to 'rubbish' those great thinkers, but we do need to be careful not to assign attributes from today's mindset and make erroneous claims to pursue new club members. <br /><br />" I only take issue with those atheists who believe that they have some ordained right to <br />DOMINATE over the (tax-funded) education system and force their philosophy down my child’s throat in the name of “science”."<br />Question: do you also take issue with believers who would indoctrinate their (and my) children with their religious dogma? And, do you REALLY equate things like evolution with 'dogma'? Methinks more reading is required in books other than that 2000 year old one.<br /><br />"I was once an atheist."<br />Of course you were - you were born that way - we all were. You became religious through indoctrination.<br /><br />" Is there a God – Yes, absolutely."<br />Which of the many, many claimed gods exists? Or do they all exist? Why is yours 'the real thing', and all the others are not?<br /><br />"... Atheists are free to reject the Genesis account,..." <br />"... Creationists should ALSO be free to reject Evolution .."<br />You are desperately trying to equate fact and fiction. I get it: you do not believe in evolution, although (look it up) it is a proven condition. You should know, probably DO know, that evolution does not attempt to answer the origins of life. Evolution does not answer all kinds of things, but what it addresses, it does so just fine. Creationism on the other hand, by whatever name you'd like to anoint it as acceptable, is a bogus and religious driven fairy tale.<br />There is a long list of things that science cannot yet explain, and it may never be able to. That does not give us license to assign a religious explanation - especially as over the decades and centuries, science has drastically shortened the list of things that religion used to be able to claim as 'divine' and true. You however, and people like you, grab onto that as-yet-unknown, and hitch your religious wagon to it, all the while condemning little children all over the world to a future of false expectations and broken promises.<br /><br /> PART B to follow....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-43990866866663838022015-06-10T16:41:09.505-07:002015-06-10T16:41:09.505-07:00DNA transcription and translation is isomorphic wi...DNA transcription and translation is isomorphic with Claude Shannon's original definitions. See Hubert Yockey's work and his book "Information Evolution and the Origin of Life" Cambidge U. press 2005. Detailed explanation of this is available on the specification at www.naturalcode.org.Perry Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07264774554017491338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-84684171109408899052015-06-10T16:27:53.604-07:002015-06-10T16:27:53.604-07:00To Perry Marshall:
You are using the word "c...To Perry Marshall: <br />You are using the word "code" as if it applies equally to DNA and software code. That is a logical trap, and it appears you are using that little bridge to prove your creationist 'point'.<br /><br />Please have a look at: <br /><br />http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/dna_when_code_not_code<br /><br />You may want to think again before publishing that book.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1719650308494063095.post-30015385348372625332015-06-10T14:23:12.879-07:002015-06-10T14:23:12.879-07:00This should be of interest to you and your interes...This should be of interest to you and your interesting quest.<br /><br />How Science Affects Your Life:<br />http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20150601/science-in-everyday-life/Jose M Umananoreply@blogger.com