Science Vs Religion

I think it's time we distance ourselves from faith.

Is there a God? There might be. We might also be living in the Matrix. But it's not something that should alter the way we live our life. There are so many different religions and all of them are so unique. The real question is why humans are so fascinated by the concept of a higher power. I believe this is because humans are trying to convince themselves that they still have control of reality. We need to accept that we are still in the dark and there may be orderings in the universe we do not yet have the ability to comprehend. We shouldn't assume anything. Instead, we should be ambitious in finding the higher answers to reality.

Religion gives us morals? I grew up in a Christian community. I used to be Methodist myself. Many people didn't use literal translations. They used religion as a metaphor. A guide for life. We should use reason as our guide for morals. Not old scriptures. Do the rules we have now actually make sense? We need to constantly question this.

Science

@nestlequick: If distanced from faith, you have no foundation for the assumptions about the cosmos and any possible essence beyond: epistemology is denied existence thus the philosophy or strategy that structures the sciences disintegrated and even the greatest existentialist who you obviously identified with, Jean Paul Sartre, has nothing; such a stance as having denied the labors of brilliant philosophers involved with atheistic existentialism that scholars such as Albert Camus sought transcended in status from Nietzsche's nihilism. James W. Sire wrote a good book on this subject titled The Universe Next Door: Sire's text that defended Christian theism from strong positions such as Sartre's existentialism who one of my dad's college professors who served the United States as a general learned from face-to-face: My dad's college professor who taught a senior seminar in metaphysics at Ripon College studied under Sartre in Sartre's apartment within France, and my dad taught me about existentialism. :-) Eventually, I began having doubted existentialism: Having advanced philosophies throughout history required that phil students doubted their teachers such as Aristotle's doubt of Plato's views on governance with a contrast between Plato's aristocracy having involved significance in totalitarian views and Aristotle's responses in part based on his ideal mean.

Theoretical physics gives us plenty of possibilities that are not based on such lofty presumptions as an omnipresent intelligence. There is nothing in science that indicates that thought can exist anywhere but within the structures of a living brain. To assume anything else is to leave science and pander to superstition.

Please excuse me for the late edit: Thoughts generate brainwaves, and brainwaves radiated from the body move in to any outward and inward pos relative to the body's position. Therefore, thoughts may exist outside of the body. That said, many stronger positions may offer contention other than naturalism that depends on having limited the scope of the world to the assumption that humanity may not know what we did not live with since birth in large part due to genetics and the rest with our local foci in nature. Atheistic naturalism argues that God can exist as a set of morals, but not with a personally relatable character or a character with consistence: Albert Einstein believed in a god of mathematical laws as his form of pantheism. The scientific method is based off the exegetical method in tradition found in theological studies: If no applications result from possible hermeneutical transformations, then the exegesis likely shall qualify or already has qualified as unreliable and impractical as eisegesis.

Brainwaves are not though. Think of brainwaves like body heat - excess.

And understand how the brain works: thought is chemical, not electrical. The electrical charges are the synapses firing to communicate with other neurons. The actual computation is chemical, within the soma. Each neuron receives many connections FROM other neurons, but can only communicate TO one other neuron. The electrical impulses are the communication between neurons, not the thought process itself. It is within the soma that the actual work occurs, chemically.

If human thought were electrical, we would be capable of thinking a hell of a lot faster.

@br0kenrabbit: Sir, please check my edit: I apologize for the late edit once more. With regard to the electrical dependency on the chemical reactions, the dependency having involved the relation of electromagnetism may help professionals within the field of neuroscience as the inverse function of magnetism opposite to your view on chemical reactions and the very same view with many others on the human body more in future research such as when magnetically-powered systems shut down the human brain's functions within effective ranges. We used the same strategy for our posts that stood opposite to one another.

Not really, theres still much we dont know about biology and the universe, to the point where many notable scientists like carl Sagan dont deny the possibility of a god or the afterlife. And the more ive learned about science the more plausible the idea becomes.

Yes, this is because the neurons must be able to communicate with each other. A single neuron is as effective as a single CPU gate. But whereas in a CPU the gate is open or closed by a secondary electrical impulse, within the brain it is a chemical reaction that decides if the gate is open (pass to the next neuron) or closed (terminate).

Eisenstein used the word GOD as a metaphor, such as when he commented on quantum uncertainty by proclaiming "God does not play dice." He was here not referring to a supernatural being, but rather the physical laws of the universe (though he was wrong on this point of quantum uncertainty).

You can definitely detect EM signals from a CPU, but without knowing what the gates themselves are doing you are never going to work out what the CPU is actually doing without knowing the position of every gate (open/close).

Brainwaves are a byproduct, and although they can tell you if that part of the brain is active, and how active, it cannot tell you what it is actually doing. We can deduce some things from the location of the brainwave, but again we can't know exactly what is being processed.

What you're referring to is the conflict thesis, which is outdated and now widely rejected by most academics. The relationship between science and religion is far too complex to boil down to such a simplistic question. It's a false dichotomy.

@br0kenrabbit:

You may notice computer activity above the hardware level by studying the logical level: The CPU gate arrays in Von Neumann architecture computers allow for the basic input-output function with the arithmetic-logic unit translations to each level of layered network architecture. This is my field. The latest research in favor of the human mind as a computer limits the human brain to calculations rather than an organ with the capacity for evolving with transformation during a single lifetime such as neuron changes related to IQ when having studied rigorously with a good foundation in logic, reason, pathos or emotional arguments,and epistemology for a strategically founded basis for the sciences. Thomas S. Kuhn discussed this evolution in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as paradigm shifts. Before neuroscience, neurology involved studies of the human condition with brain regions found directly-associated with other parts of the body such as research by Vilayanur S. Ramachandran in Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind written by Ramachandran: In days closer to today, neuroscience pros applied a magnet to a human being's head in a NOVA special on the neuroscience, and you may watch NOVA episodes free online so you may observe the results of that deed. You may find Ramachandran's text at a cost of approximately twelve dollars on Amazon. This research supports the position that today's available research on human thought and feeling with more relevance than thought insufficiently covers the topic of the question of God's existence.

Here, here! Cheers, pal.

You basically reiterated what I had already said in the first part of the above. But to the summarize: brainwaves are not records of thoughts, only neural activity.

Presuming deity without evidence is contrary to the scientific method. You cannot simply paste 'God' over every unknown and defend that position with empirical evidence, because there is none. You may as well suggest a loaf of bread created the universe, because there is no way to prove otherwise.

This is the folly of presumption without evidence. Theoretical physics are still based in known physics, but are simply applied to situations where all variables are not known. This allows the mathematical models to be ran, to see if what is known is applicable or negated by the math. It isn't simply theory applied blindly, as in the case of deity.

Have we not been having a conversation? I did not have a problem with having reiterated any part of your part in our conversation while having done so got the job done. However, I did not reiterate what you said when I specialized my speech about computer science and neuroscience. Kierkegaard already dealt with the leap of faith when he attacked the dead theology of the dead Lutheran church in his writings. Also, you shall need a specific instance of my presumption of God with the knowledge that I went through a catechism since childhood before having accepted my faith in the Christian God. Do you have any? No. :-) As an analogy I will say that theoretical physics without objective moral standards reads like the New International Version of the Holy Bible in contrast to the poetry of the Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible: There remained value in the logic of the physics, but the physics remained without applications because I doubt that any organization large-sized, middle-sized, or small-sized desired the poor repute of an organization without ethics or morals in contemporary times.

Thats not really what i was talking about. Thats religious storys that dont even accepted science at all. "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed." - carl Sagan.

How does moral standards get into a conversation about physics? Physics has nothing to do with morals. Morals are the result of evolutionary pressures and societal needs. That's biology and social sciences, not physics.

And I know the Bible. I've studied it in all three original languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic). The English translations are terrible.

For instance, Nephesh does not mean some immaterial part of you that continues after bodily death, though it is often (not always) translated as 'soul'. It actually means 'to breathe', as an aspect of being alive. This is why the early Christians (who understood the OT as they were Jewish) believed a physical resurrection necessary for an afterlife: you do not exist without your body.

And then you get all the parts that were edited out in Translation. I'm going to post the same verses twice here.

This first time, is the KJV unaltered:

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. For the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.

Now, same verse, but I'm reverting all the proper nouns back to their Hebrew form:

When El Elyon gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the people according to the number of the sons of El. For Yahwehs portion was his people, Jacob his alloted inheritance.

Here we see El, (this guy) dividing the world among his sons, who numbered 70. Yahweh was one of these sons, as was Ba'al. But the above is just the beginning of this story arc. It continues, but we will jump right to the exciting part (I am reverting all proper nouns to their Hebrew):

El presides in the great assembly, he rendered judgement among the Gods. (Yahweh now speaks:) "How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked? (You should) Defend the weak and fatherless, uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed, rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. The Gods know nothing. They walk about in darkness, all the foundations of the Earth are shaken. I said, You are Gods, you are all Sons of El Elyon. But you will die like mortals, you will fall like every other ruler. Rise up, O El, and Judge the Earth! For all nations are your inheritance.

Many people claim that "Gods" here refer to human rulers, but there cannot be a more incorrect reading of the Hebrew.

אלהים

That's the word of importance here. . The other passages where it is used are Psa 89; cf. Deut 32:8-9, 43; Psa 58:11 1 Kings 11:33 Deut 32:17

All beings indicated by that Hebrew word share one thing in common: they do not inhabit the human (physical) realm. We also find else where 'Sons of God' (Sons of El in the Hebrew) are very obviously divine beings. Example: Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7-8

Psalm 89 5-7 removes any doubt. Verse 6 reads:

For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord?

The Hebrew translated to Heaven here is:

בשׁחק

Which means: Clouds.

What human princes are in the clouds?

Anyway, the story arc is one of Yahweh and the other sons of El. Yahweh returns to El to proclaim that his brothers are shirking their duties. This is why he says "all nations are your inheritance" to El, the father, because the father owns what the sons own. And we know from Duet. posted above that "Yahweh portion is his people", so it is obviously not Yahweh being addressed here (he's the one doing the addressing) because at this point Yahweh has only the Jews.

That's just one of what I like to call the 'hidden stories' in The Bible. Another of my favorites involve Asherah, the female consort of El, and later of Yahweh. Strangely, most English version omit her name entirely. We know Asherah was associated with Yahweh becasue her symbol, the 'pole', was in the Temple within the Holy of Holies. 2 Kings 23:6 reads:

He took the Asherahpole from the temple of the LORD to the Kidron Valley outside Jerusalem and burned it there. He ground it to powder and scattered the dust over the graves of the common people.

So...if you really want to understand what is going on here, you have to leave The Bible and turn to extra-biblical sources. Namely, the Canaanite religion. When you do so, you'll first notice A LOT that seems familiar. Then when you get further into it, it becomes obvious that Judaism is both an amalgamation and evolution of earlier religions.

Which...destroys the whole 'divinely inspired' idea.

Unless, of course, you want to cover your eyes and ears and pretend all of the above doesn't exist.

Russel's argument. That's basically what he's saying here.

This is one of my favourite videos/speeches/narrations of all time... it's perfect.

Damn I miss Carl Sagan.

Yup. He was as much a philosopher and poet as he was a scientist. A remarkable man, indeed.

Yep... it almost brings a tear to my eye listening to that speech. We need more people like him nowadays, more than ever.

Physicists throughout societies have led entire generations into increasingly complex worldviews such as the Ptolemaic worldview to the Copernican worldview. General Norman Scwarzkopf, who led all coalition forces in the Gulf War said about leadership, "Leadership is a combination of strategy and character. If you must be without one, be without the strategy" (Daft 2016, p. 407). When challenges existed in a society, throughout history leadership had been and has been required with ethical and moral clarity. Physics without a discussion on moral and ethics for a worldview is objective as existentialism and without God faces the threat of retreat to nihilism from a century before post-Great War Germany and that monster of a man, Hitler. I noticed that your position agreed with existentialism but not the logic of the law of the Torah. When applied to the study of the Holy Bible or having studied the Bible in all three of the most aged in accordance with historians, archaeologists and excavators, and theologians as you clearly have and I have as well, you shall see the relevance of morals and ethics in science. The sources that you trusted for Canaanite religion that showed similarities with the traditions of the Holy Bible likely agreed with the archaeological-based positions that scholars strived for: Archaeology-based research has definite reliability, but not in often cases having discussed legitimacy of the Holy Bible in favor the logic, morals, ethics, or evidence of the HolyBible. That remains the way that the Israeli scholarship has been with the most power since mid-twentieth century. In terms of angels, you may also look to the book of Daniel who the writers of the Authorized King James Bible said of a man, "His body was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude" (10:8). The translations by James Strong in Strong's Concordance matched the materials described by the scholars who wrote the Authorized King James Bible before Strong wrote Strong's Concordance. However, I agree more with the Institute for Scripture Research on the name of the god who I consider my abba: I linked to a discussion on accuracy of God's name in previous versions of the Holy Bible and the Ivrim name of Jesus the Christ in this post, here. I did not ever consider violators of the Biblical law, statutes. and the Decalogue found in the Torah as legitimate models for future and utterly other laws compatible with laws, statutes, and the Decalogue found in the Torah; the ethics and morals of Jesus the Christ greatly fulfilled the law for me and many who I know and love as my family around the world.

In terms of whether or not the stories in the Holy Bible have any evidence and validity thus deductive truth, we may look at the texts from inverse perspectives: Evidence found throughout history supported the logic of the Bible. The books of the Holy Bible translated well to symbolic logic and inductive logic for specific examples of ethics and morality that serve as the foundation for scientific study that has informally existed for thousands of years. However, the logic only lasted in usefulness in the same way that a laser pointer with the power capable of a threat to airplane pilot job performance comes with the legal restriction as this not allowed: The societies that base their ethical framework on Biblical principles have throughout history been the longest lasting such as Great Britain, France, the United States of America, and many other parts of the western world because of the epistemology of the Bible. That is, both the deductive and empirical, and the inductive and logical truths of the Biblical Scriptures have guided many ladies and men through successful generations in various societies. The first hospitals, the first orphanages, the first Sunday schools, and many other firsts in societal histories had been due to Christians who lived their faiths. Simply having calculated the validity of a scientific proof remains good, but not proficiency in organizational theory and design without morality and ethics. Or worse, having chosen that stubborn grip that holds onto wrong ethics with an acceptable income and job security differentiates from complacency!

Reference:

Daft, R. L. (2016). Organization Theory & Design(12th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

We?

The nice thing about this is that you can do what you want, and I can do what I want, and that guy over there can do what he wants. In any case, I feel like an atheist telling people to get over religion is like a religious person telling people to stop being atheists. And I say that as an atheist. I don't have the answers either, and I'm sure as hell not going to give a lecture to people who are objectively better than me who also happen to be religious.

I'm less interested in guides than in results, less interested in causes than in effects. The fact is that there are good people who are both religious and religious, and bad people who are both religious and religious. BOTH cherish their ways of thinking and often state that they are guiding factors in them being good people. Me? I don't really care, man. You could believe in invisible pink unicorns for all I care, as long as the result is you acting like a better person. Whatever helps you to be a better person, have at it.

Note that the previous comment was NOT a comment on whether or not religion (in a broader social sense) does more harm than good. I'm talking about the level of the individual here. You do what works for you.

Are you familiar with the Deuteronomic Reform? How about the Priestly Source, the Dueteronomist, the Elohist and the Jahwist? If you're familiar with these, then you would understand roughly how and when Jewish polytheism became monotheistic. It's well documented in both archeology and historical texts.

The transition of the Jews from polytheists to monotheists occurred during the reign of King Josiah of Judah. This was ~650 B.C. so well after the establishment of Israel. Still, we know that the old polytheists stuck around, and are mentioned often in the OT, even in power over all of Israel as in my 2 Kings post above.

Your assertion that all differing names refer to the same god overlook one thing: These beings interacted with each other, as I showed in my previous post. I only posted the beginning and the end of the story arc, I did not post all the between because there is too much. It also overlooks the clear distinctions made between these individual beings, again as posted above. Why would Yahweh hold court against himself? This makes no sense.

And you completely neglect two-thirds of the world when you suggest that Christian nations are the most enduring. China, Iran, Egypt, Kanem, Siam, pre-Christian Frankish, Hittite, Kush...and then of course the pre-Columbian Americas had a few long-lasting empires. What you fail to consider is the politics: the Christian nations were among the most war-mongering, thus capable of spreading their influence. Do not attribute to God that which was established by the sword.

A lot of what you wrote above I cannot comprehend: your syntax is jumbled, with multiple subjects per sentence. I've replied to what I can comprehend.

Edit: And physics simply does not deal with ethics. Physics = science but science =/= physics. There are many sciences, most completely unrelated to the other. If you want a science that deals in ethics, you're going to have to go with biology, evolutionary biology, social sciences, etc.

Physics is about balls bouncing, not who made the ball.

Edit edit: Also, study the Ugarit texts. These predate anything from The Bible, and you should already be familiar with these concepts and stories because they reappear, slightly malformed, in Biblical text.

Some of us are guided by a unquenchable thirst for knowledge. I set about studying the Bible starting in the late 80's because I believed in it. However, I cannot deny what is before my eyes, and the more research I did on it, the more it became clear that all isn't as advertised. This lead me to other avenues and eventually the sciences.

I've now got 25 years of biology, evolution, genetics, astronomy, physics, astronomical physics, quantum physics...history...and so on under my belt. The librarians know me and have known me for years.

I would LIKE to believe in God and a harmonious afterlife, I really would. But, truth does not follow desire. I am forced to admit what I see, not what I want to see.

Wow, lots of 16 year olds here. Faith is a good tool for certain things but it should not be the foundation of our moral outlook. It should also not or be an entire guide for how we should live life. There are plenty of things you could do that are proven to be healthy. Live by that.

No one has made any personal attacks here, now is not the time to start. It's a great way to get your thread locked, though.

@nestlequick: lots of 16 year olds ?

I know at least 5 of the 8 posters in this thread are around 30 or over 30.

Mr Geezer, Jag 85 , Hrt Rulz 01 , SOedipus , and BrokenRabbit all have accounts created on or before 2006, if any of them were 16 it makes them 4 when they created their gamespot account.

I'm quite a bit over 30. :-)

I mentioned the Ugarit texts above, but I wanted to draw attention to something in particular. I'm taking it from here:

http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm

You really should read the whole thing, but at least read the below:

4. The Ugaritic Pantheon.

The prophets of the Old Testament rail against Baal, Asherah and various other gods on nearly every page. The reason for this is simple to understand; the people of Israel worshipped these gods along with, and sometimes instead of, Yahweh, the God of Israel. This Biblical denunciation of these Canaanite gods received a fresh face when the Ugaritic texts were discovered, for at Ugarit these were the very gods that were worshipped.

El was the chief god at Ugarit. Yet El is also the name of God used in many of the Psalms for Yahweh; or at least that has been the presupposition among pious Christians. Yet when one reads these Psalms and the Ugaritic texts one sees that the very attributes for which Yahweh is acclaimed are the same for which El is acclaimed. In fact, these Psalms were most likely originally Ugaritic or Canaanite hymns to El which were simply adopted by Israel, much like the American National Anthem was set to a beer hall tune by Francis Scott Key. El is called the father of men, creator, and creator of the creation. These attributes are also granted Yahweh by the Old Testament.

For instances, read KTU 1. 2 I 13-32 and compare it to many of the Psalms. Also, read Ps 82:1, 89:6-8!).

In 1 Kings 22:19-22 we read of Yahweh meeting with his heavenly council. This is the very description of heaven which one finds in the Ugaritic texts. For in those texts the sons of god are the sons of El.

Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith. All of these names are applied to Yahweh by the writers of the Old Testament. What this means is that the Hebrew theologians adopted the titles of the Canaanite gods and attributed them to Yahweh in an effort to eliminate them. If Yahweh is all of these there is no need for the Canaanite gods to exist! This process is known as assimilation.

Besides the chief god at Ugarit there were also lesser gods, demons, and goddesses. The most important of these lesser gods were Baal (familiar to all readers of the Bible), Asherah (also familiar to readers of the Bible), Yam (the god of the sea) and Mot (the god of death). What is of great interest here is that Yam is the Hebrew word for sea and Mot is the Hebrew word for death! Is this because the Hebrews also adopted these Canaanite ideas as well? Most likely they did.

@br0kenrabbit: Well you were studying the Bible in the 80s

Yup, yup. Now, wheer's muh teef? Oh, muh knees. Time for this geezer to go to bed. ;-)

I don't know if there is a God, NOBODY knows for sure.

One thing I do know is that organized religion is utter bullshit and just a means of exploiting and controlling people.

The sooner we do away with it and adopt secularism the better and then people can believe in what they want to believe in without bothering the rest of us.

@boycie: Your right that we dont know for sure, however we dont know for sure there arnt Flying Unicorns, Giant Fire Breathing Dragons, and any other shit you can make up.

I agree in a secular society we should be free to believe what we want to believe, but when people have idiotic believes they should not be free from criticism or mockery.

They are both faith based systems to explain the environment.

Neither are necessary but can serve as a system to test and explain phenomena in the prsuit of knowledge.

Both seek to explain the why's are wherefores on a philosophical level.

If you are an atheist you have a pretty confusing time trying to understand particle physics.

But if you are religious you create mental metaphors to explain cause and effect which is more perceived knowledge than abstracted metaphors describing wobbling ping-pong balls, neutrons, electrons, quarks, positrons etc and the massive gaping holes in the knowledge so that none of it all ties together and fits from the particle to the massive scales hence no unified physical theory yet or probably ever.

Science is too rigid in how it approaches existence and is reductive in it's scope.

Not to mention, consistently being wrong.

Bees, can't fly. Lolz.

@br0kenrabbit There is nothing in science that indicates that thought can exist anywhere but within the structures of a living brain. To assume anything else is to leave science and pander to superstition.

You are being reductive in your definition of intelligence. Octupi have 8 brains and squids have a donut shaped brain. Could an intelligence of multiple vibrating gas particles that effect their surrounding by chemical interactions working together be considered an intelligence?

Alot of the climate is effected mostly by it's vegetative fauna reacting to the environment and altering it by chemical process.

Could this be considered intelligence if not a self aware one?

PS. I get most of my understanding of the universe from Douglas Adams.

@npiet1 yes, a good scientist can't rule out god based on their own code of pure logic.

But I'm reminded of the South Park episode of the Church of Richard Dawkin verses some other guy or something in the future which made the point about absolutism and extremism and the pointlessness of being closed minded on a subject that alludes definition by definition.

As such, an unattainable goal given our constraints but the question is the wrong question or not a question at all.

They are two sides of the same coin and you can't have one without the other.

The question should be how can we live in harmony and why are we not?

@thehig1 when people have idiotic believes they should not be free from criticism or mockery

No. You should never make fun of people's belief's - it will only be you who looks a fool and it's f*cking rude.

Jesus himself said "The answer is a question."

I shall clarify any syntax issues that experienced while you read my post. For science, my usual standard for my written posts is the sixth version of the APA (American Psychological Association) standard that most recently became the standard for the APA because I utilized that standard for papers in my computer science major courses. When I started my computer science program at Regent, I thought my cohort would have used the IEEE (Institute for Electricians and Electrical Engineers) Standards Association format. Where did you have an issue with my syntax?

From my undergrad studies, I have an intermediate understanding of the Elohist and the Jahwist ideas. In response, I shall offer a theological response. Of perfection and imperfection, King Solomon (KJV) , the author of the book of Ecclesiastes, said, "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" (Ecc 7:29). In accordance to Strong's Concordance, the word יָשָׁר that you may pronounce phonetically as yaw-shawr translated to "upright" (See Exo 15:26, Nu 23:10, and Deu 6:18). Upright in this context is healthy with a strong right arm as a Psalmist wrote. A Psalmist (KJV) wrote as a song to God, "Thou has a mighty arm: strong is thy hand, and high is thy right hand" (89:13). Also in accordance with Strong's Concordance, "inventions" related to the Hebrew word חִשְּׁבֹנוֹת that with phonetic spelling you may "khish-shaw-bone" that means devices as also in the second book of Chronicles (26:15).

From the verse of Chronicles and of the Psalm, we may consider another field besides wisdom literature in poetry: mathematics. In a graphics system with at least two dimensions, negative infinity to positive infinity on the vertical axis has remained considered impossible with proof being the limit of Y as an object approaches zero from the direction of negative infinity or zero from the direction of infinity. People stand healthy and strong, and in many cases educated in ethics acceptable to systems of morals outside of their societies, but fail when presented with empirical evidence because of the limitations of human logic that has remained valued above pathos in theology and ethics discussions, and ethos in some cases of theology of ethics discussions such as Nietzche's will to power in contrast to Kierkegaard's leap of faith. Inventions may represent engine systems the same as said by King Solomon: In accordance with contemporary physics, no engine in the universe may have perfect efficiency. As people seek the undefined in terms of natural terms, they leave the consistency of character that the Lord God of Israel displayed throughout the history of the world particularly with loving Israel and hating the parts of Israel that limited Israel's success such as in the case of Achan's lust for world possessions, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah (Josh 7:1). Even in oral tradition, prepared plans for success then victory have remained a better concept of strategic thought than uncoordinated actions such as the oral history before the religious beliefs of the Canaanites who Israel defeated in conquest of war, but later attempted an integrated relationship with Canaanite gods. Having removed the relation of physics to ethics and morals, you effectively removed the personality and humanity of the logical and creative parts of the labors of physicists throughout history who in many cases such as Galileo, Copernicus, and Ptolemy--identified with belief in God, but diverged with the less complex models of the cosmos than their societal leaders accepted for governance and social control. As with societies during the life of Christ before the crucifixion, many saw war as the path the power. The Apostle Paul (KJV) said that those who govern represent a sword (Ro 13:4). I shall not defend the wrongdoings of anyone or everyone, but I shall say that a sharpened blade wielded by an authority worthy in honor and faith may display the ideal goal of governance: improving improvisation improvement.

Yes, I am in my twenties of age. Such a response from someone who has said so little in this conversation struck me as strange as well. I had another GameSpot account, BranKetra, that I created in two thousand seven A.D., but two-factor authentication of Google accounts with a lost phone prevented fast recovery of my GameSpot account. For nearly one month, I have waited for a response from staff about a recovery of my main account.

Edit: The length of wait time has been nearly one and one-half months for a response from GameSpot staff for a solution to my account recovery request.

Look how long your sentences and paragraphs are. Proper English syntax is as follows:

For paragraphs - One main sentence followed by a few supporting sentences. When the subject changes, new paragraph.

For sentences - One subject/predicate per sentence. Does not mean one word. JOHN AND I is a subject where RAN TO is the verb (predicate) acting upon the subject.

I can't make much of your last post. I think I'm following and then the subject completely changes mid-sentence. Something about mechanical objects not being 100% efficient (well, duh) and somehow that relates to God? I don't follow you AT ALL.

But for some reason what you posted brought to mind Judges 1:19. God could not overcome iron chariots.

Is there a god: It's impossible to answer
Is it LIKELY there is a god: No, not at all.
Is it possible any religion is true: No. Every single one of them has contradictions or prophecies that didn't become reality.

Everyone with half a brain can see those contradictions in their religion. But they chose to hold on to it because they don't know what to make with their life if there is no big daddy judging them. I'd love to live in a world without people following a 2000 year old book trying to influence modern society.

@br0kenrabbit: Sir, a quote shall help. Even though sentence length is not syntax, I shall help how I may.

syn·tax[ˈsinˌtaks]NOUN

1. the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language.

@branketra_2: I want to hear your opinion on the Ugarit texts.

Some rude posters have stopped by and looked for other posters for a moment of having laid with us who in actual truth contributed information worth having learned. If that continues much longer without correct moderator action, then I shall look elsewhere for this topic of conversation.

Edit: I do not even care that nestlequick made this thread: She or he, nestlequick, is arrogance.

Before that response, I need more information on where you and I stopped having communicated well and I want that fixed.

Right here is where I lost you:

People stand healthy and strong, and in many cases educated in ethics acceptable to systems of morals outside of their societies, but fail when presented with empirical evidence because of the limitations of human logic that has remained valued above pathos in theology and ethics discussions, and ethos in some cases of theology of ethics discussions such as Nietzche's will to power in contrast to Kierkegaard's leap of faith.

There are too many subjects and predicates within that sentence for me to figure out what's going on. And here:

Having removed the relation of physics to ethics and morals, you effectively removed the personality and humanity of the logical and creative parts of the labors of physicists throughout history who in many cases such as Galileo, Copernicus, and Ptolemy--identified with belief in God, but diverged with the less complex models of the cosmos than their societal leaders accepted for governance and social control.

Are you here talking about Galileo, Copernicus, and Ptolemy, or the governing mechanics of their time, or ethics and morals? There's one sentence there, where there should probably be a few paragraphs on each subject presented. As presented, I can't deduce one thought from the other.

But of course even scientists of old believed in God...abiogenesis and biological evolution were unknown at the time. That's like condemning Tacitus for not covering the American Revolution in his Histories: how could he?

@br0kenrabbit: In my explanation of people and health, I founded good mental health on sound and beautiful ethics and moral thought. In my response to you about personalities in physicists and thus in physics, I referenced the popular issue of God having a personality or 'a worse Christian personality' to contenders: the morals and logic of the Holy Bible have remained acceptable for deists, naturalists, existentialists, and atheists within the knowledge spheres of naturalism and existentialism, but not the personality of this God. When Tacitus wrote of histories, he looked to the past as members of the church have over generations of scholarship; Copernicus and Galileo looked forward from Ptolemy's worldview, but Ptolemy's worldview rather provided a less complex world information system than Copernicus'.

Science is progressive. The more we understand, the better equipped we are to learn more. It's like school: first you learn your ABC's, then you learn your spelling, then you learn your syntax, and only then can you read Shakespeare. You need an understanding of many concepts in order to read, and those concepts must be developed first.

Science is the same way. We started with nothing but what our eyes could see, our hands could manipulate, our ears could hear. Those are the only tools we had. Language had to come first. Then math. With math came tools to measure. From tools to measure came more complex math. From more complex math came better tools to measure, and then you could have disciplines such as surveying and planned architecture. From surveillance we got tools for observation, like the sextant. And then someone turned that sextant to the sky and thus began proper astronomy.

The truth of science does not just leap out in full recognition: it is developed and refined upon over time. Simple and incomplete concepts become complex and less incomplete. These things take generations. You can't expect the first man to pick up a microscope to instantly deduce all the working of the microbial world. We've had microscopes for centuries and we're still learning new things about microbes.

Knowledge is built, expanded upon, and avenues to knew knowledge are opened. Science is not a one-and-done thing.

In A Survey of the Old Testament, Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton described the syncretism of Canaanite and Israelite religions. Hill and Walton called this phenomenon syncretism in tradition, but not in the consistency of the character described by the Bible of the Lord God of Israel (John and Walton 2009) who humankind described in Biblical and extra-Biblical historical or theological accounts (pp. 51, 295, 589, 671). The grown theology of Israel includes lessons learned from having accepted conflicted theological concepts and having seen the results as the multiple period of Israel's slavery.

@branketra_2: Now, the Ugarit texts. Here's that link again.

Explain how the Ugarit texts, which predate the oldest books of the Bible, are an obvious source from which the old Biblical stories were drawn from. How are multiple Gods with their own names, their own separate followers, their own ethos...these names are mentioned in The Bible, considered to be just one God? It makes no sense unless you consider the Bible an amalgamation and revision of these texts, which again kills the whole 'divine inspiration' bit.