Absurd REALLY stupid stories in the bible.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
this is what is bothering you? that nobody has proven that a human can be brought to life by the sound of someone's voice? even jk rowling addressed that in harry potter, that the incantation of the spell can simply be a means to focus one's intent. kinda like you invite a caveman into your ferrari and say "start, mighty ferrari, your master commands it" w ther analogy, you break my legs and my arms, then ask why aren't i willing to kung fu you.

Flight is not analogous to raising people from the dead. We know flight is technically possible because we can look into the sky and watch birds fly, we don't see animals drop down dead and then spring back to life four days later.

Nothing is bothering me, you made the claim that your faith doesn't contradict science. Now unless you can find scientific evidence of someone being brought back to life by the command of a human voice I'm afraid your faith does contradict science.

Also, comparing a dog which has been placed in suspended animation to slow the death of it's cells at one of the worlds leading resuscitation centres to a man having died in a desert in the Middle East and left for four days is stretching it to the extreme.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Flight is not analogous to raising people from the dead. We know flight is technically possible because we can look into the sky and watch birds fly, we don't see animals drop down dead and then spring back to life four days later.

Nothing is bothering me, you made the claim that your faith doesn't contradict science. Now unless you can find scientif ...[text shortened]... died in a desert in the Middle East and left for four days is stretching it to the extreme.

Flight is not analogous to raising people from the dead.
it wasn't meant to be. it was meant to act as an example of a process that became significantly better with further discoveries. exactly as the process of bringing that dog to life after 3 days might become better. that is the analogy.


"is stretching it to the extreme."
and many engineers in the 50's would scoff at the idea of a smartphone the size of a palm having more computing power than hundreds of those early computers that took entire building floors. i am not saying resurrection has or doesn't have limitations, i am saying that we can admit the possibility of
improvement.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am not sure what you mean by "you cannot reach god..."

If you mean that you can't rationally justify belief in god with science then
yes you're right and we agree.

If you mean that you can't address the question as to whether or not the god
of the bible exists with science then I have to disagree.

Science can absolutely tackle that question.

What makes you think it can't?

If you mean that you can't rationally justify belief in god with science then
yes you're right and we agree.

this as well


"If you mean that you can't address the question as to whether or not the god
of the bible exists with science then I have to disagree.
Science can absolutely tackle that question."

and i say you can't. for science to prove something, it must know what they are trying to prove. you cannot prove a concept that keeps changing, that no two believers can agree on, and that is mostly defined as "outside our universe".

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Flight is not analogous to raising people from the dead.
it wasn't meant to be. it was meant to act as an example of a process that became significantly better with further discoveries. exactly as the process of bringing that dog to life after 3 days might become better. that is the analogy.


"is stretching it to the extreme."
and many engineers ...[text shortened]... r doesn't have limitations, i am saying that we can admit the possibility of
improvement.

If I take a hard drive and melt it down, then I have destroyed the data on that hard drive.

If you then come across the hard drive and have available all the technology that will ever
be invented then you will still not be able to recover the information stored on that hard drive.

Your mind and memories are stored in the physical structures and electrochemical state of the
neurons in your brain.
When you die those neurons stop functioning and die, they break down, and the structures
that encoded your mind and memories disappear and dissolve.

To resurrect someone who has died you need to intervene BEFORE those structures irrevocably
disappear.
Otherwise the information needed is gone and unrecoverable.

3~4 days (outside a refrigerator no less) is way way longer than it takes for those structures
to disintegrate and the information to be lost.

Given that we know that, we can say for sure that no technological advance of the future will
allow the reanimation and recovery of a person dead for 3~4 days in a situation where no
action is taken immediately upon death (like if you had some kind of suspended animation
machine you dumped the body into immediately after death).

The difference here which is where your flight analogy goes wrong is that flight didn't violate
any known laws of physics, it was just technically difficult to do.

Whereas raising from the dead a person who has been dead several days with no other intervention
until now DOES violate known laws of physics/nature.

And this is where we get back to the "Relativity of Wrong".

We don't need to know everything to know this, we just need to know enough.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"If you mean that you can't address the question as to whether or not the god
of the bible exists with science then I have to disagree.
Science can absolutely tackle that question."

and i say you can't. for science to prove something, it must know what they are trying to prove. you cannot prove a concept that keeps changing, that no two believers can agree on, and that is mostly defined as "outside our universe".

I am going to come back to the flat earth example...

You are saying in effect that science can't prove the shape of the world because there are people
who claim that it's all kinds of different shapes, one minute a flat disk, the next a square, or
dodecahedron, or maybe a torus... and because they are a constantly moving target you can't
ever pin them down and asses their claims and so you can't prove the shape of the Earth...


This is nonsense...

We don't have to address their wildly inconsistent and varying claims because we have already
proved that the earth is a ball (irregular oblate spheroid).


Science is the study of what actually IS, and when you analyse the evidence to determine what
the nature of reality actually is, you are ruling out all of the infinite number of other possibilities.


So when the evidence tells us that our minds are the product of our physical brains and that
when we die our minds cease to exist and the data is destroyed then that automatically rules
out the existence of souls or afterlives or anything else that isn't our minds being the product
of our brains.



Science tackles the question of how the universe works, and it's found that it works without gods.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If I take a hard drive and melt it down, then I have destroyed the data on that hard drive.

If you then come across the hard drive and have available all the technology that will ever
be invented then you will still not be able to recover the information stored on that hard drive.

Your mind and memories are stored in the physical structures and e ...[text shortened]... ty of Wrong".

We don't need to know everything to know this, we just need to know enough.

If I take a hard drive and melt it down, then I have destroyed the data on that hard drive.

so it is simply a matter of how melted down the hard drive is. if you simply leave it on a shelf, the data you can recover and the time after which can recover all increase dramatically.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am going to come back to the flat earth example...

You are saying in effect that science can't prove the shape of the world because there are people
who claim that it's all kinds of different shapes, one minute a flat disk, the next a square, or
dodecahedron, or maybe a torus... and because they are a constantly moving target you can't
ever pi ...[text shortened]... ackles the question of how the universe works, and it's found that it works without gods.

You are saying in effect that science can't prove the shape of the world

no i am not saying that. the shape of the world can be observed. there can be experiments. you can invent an experiment to prove god.


"Science is the study of what actually IS, and when you analyse the evidence to determine what
the nature of reality actually is, you are ruling out all of the infinite number of other possibilities."
only true with contradicting possibilities. or when you study related systems. if you prove how fusion works in our sun, you can safely say that fusion doesn't behave differently in alpha centauri. if you prove the earth is round you did not prove my dice cannot be square.



"Science tackles the question of how the universe works, and it's found that it works without gods"
true. god is not necessary for the universe to work. i would consider him a bad engineer if this would be false. who wants a reality where you have to keep every atom everywhere from falling apart?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
If I take a hard drive and melt it down, then I have destroyed the data on that hard drive.

so it is simply a matter of how melted down the hard drive is. if you simply leave it on a shelf, the data you can recover and the time after which can recover all increase dramatically.

Yeah but unlike a human brain a hard drive doesn't melt itself down when it stops working.

Possibly a better computer analogy would be RAM... Which loses it's stored data very quickly
after the power is cut off, Where HDD's are designed to store data without being supplied
power.


However the analogy will always be an analogy and not the thing itself.

Brains disintegrate if not 'switched on' and supplied with oxygen and nutrients and no measures
are taken to prevent decay.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Flight is not analogous to raising people from the dead.
it wasn't meant to be. it was meant to act as an example of a process that became significantly better with further discoveries. exactly as the process of bringing that dog to life after 3 days might become better. that is the analogy.


"is stretching it to the extreme."
and many engineers ...[text shortened]... r doesn't have limitations, i am saying that we can admit the possibility of
improvement.

I don't dismiss the possibility of improvements, but some things aren't going to improve. For instance, if we sit a human being on an atomic bomb wearing nothing but their underwear and detonate it they will be incinerated. Improvements or not, that will always be the result.

Anyway, do you still believe that your faith doesn't contradict science?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I don't dismiss the possibility of improvements, but some things aren't going to improve. For instance, if we sit a human being on an atomic bomb wearing nothing but their underwear and detonate it they will be incinerated. Improvements or not, that will always be the result.

Anyway, do you still believe that your faith doesn't contradict science?

I'm curious as to why you specify that they are only wearing their underwear...

What kind of clothing do you think would make a difference to the survival of
a human being sat atop a nuclear warhead?

A fridge perhaps?

:p 😉

Originally posted by googlefudge
I'm curious as to why you specify that they are only wearing their underwear...

I think he wanted to rule out any form of protection without getting indecent.
What he didn't specify, was the size of the warhead. I guess nobody would bother making a warhead that wasn't dangerous, but it is theoretically possible to make a firecracker sized nuke is it not?
Does anyone know what the smallest nuclear explosion ever made was? For some reason all we ever hear about is large ones.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think he wanted to rule out any form of protection without getting indecent.
What he didn't specify, was the size of the warhead. I guess nobody would bother making a warhead that wasn't dangerous, but it is theoretically possible to make a firecracker sized nuke is it not?
Does anyone know what the smallest nuclear explosion ever made was? For some reason all we ever hear about is large ones.

The smallest nuclear warheads (in terms of yield) were designed for the Orion project
(nuclear powered space ship that propelled itself by firing nuclear warheads out the
back and riding the blast waves.) but that got cancelled (for some reason or another)
and I don't think they actually built any of the warheads so the work was all theoretical.

We are still talking multi-hundred tons of TNT though.

Any further research/development into so called (micro nukes) is banned by international
treaties. As any nation with micro-nukes would be unbeatable without escalating to full
nuclear war and Mutually Assured Destruction.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The smallest nuclear warheads (in terms of yield) were designed for the Orion project
(nuclear powered space ship that propelled itself by firing nuclear warheads out the
back and riding the blast waves.) but that got cancelled (for some reason or another)
and I don't think they actually built any of the warheads so the work was all theoreti ...[text shortened]... would be unbeatable without escalating to full
nuclear war and Mutually Assured Destruction.

I think there have been tests of nukes around 1 kiloton. That could still ruin your day.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I don't dismiss the possibility of improvements, but some things aren't going to improve. For instance, if we sit a human being on an atomic bomb wearing nothing but their underwear and detonate it they will be incinerated. Improvements or not, that will always be the result.

Anyway, do you still believe that your faith doesn't contradict science?

improvements to what? underwear?

yes, create a force field underwear, complete with "phasing into another universe technology" and when the nuke detonates, the underwear shifts the wearer out of the way into a parallel universe (to account for the kinetic force), and after the blast is passed, shift him back here, and protect the wearer from radiation.

with suficient technological advancement, the underwear could even be made victoria secret sexy. (the subject is an underwear model, my explanation requires it)

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think he wanted to rule out any form of protection without getting indecent.
What he didn't specify, was the size of the warhead. I guess nobody would bother making a warhead that wasn't dangerous, but it is theoretically possible to make a firecracker sized nuke is it not?
Does anyone know what the smallest nuclear explosion ever made was? For some reason all we ever hear about is large ones.

i think someone mentioned on this forum or i read somewhere that there is a limit to how small we can make nukes nowadays.