Jump to content

Reconciling Genesis with Science : The Sticking Plaster Argument


Recommended Posts

Ok, here's one you can consider...with data.  

 

Years ago this site was hopping, many many members because the idea that refuting Christianity was damn near a sin in itself.  So there are member numbers associated with 2007 let's say.  And now that organized religion has been significantly questioned and the refutation more normalized, the enrollment is no big deal at Ex C anymore.  I'm sure brother Dave has the numbers.  You can correlated that religious attendance.     Spiritual osmosis my friend.  Right there as big as Dallas....with data.

 

Take care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Truthfully, I think it's a defense mechanism that you can't or won't answer....to protect your wellbeing.  I'm sorry many people here were hurt terribly by religion, but I'm not sure limiting oneself to not considering the ideas anymore is the best choice.  I don't see it as wise and desire for people to consider the ideas. 

 

If that's so, then why do you persist in prodding us with ideas that you believe will scare us?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, here's one you can consider...with data.  

 

Years ago this site was hopping, many many members because the idea that refuting Christianity was damn near a sin in itself.  So there are member numbers associated with 2007 let's say.  And now that organized religion has been significantly questioned and the refutation more normalized, the enrollment is no big deal at Ex C anymore.  I'm sure brother Dave has the numbers.  You can correlated that religious attendance.     Spiritual osmosis my friend.  Right there as big as Dallas....with data.

 

Take care.

 

 

 

 

 

The Prof and others have pointed out to you (more than once) that correlation does not equal causation, Ed.

 

Therefore, your conclusion, that the number shift is caused by spiritual osmosis is unsubstantiated.  

 

It seems that all you have is anecdotal evidence for it.

 

 

Sure, you can it see it by faith.

 

But what does that mean to us, who have no faith?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

If that's so, then why do you persist in prodding us with ideas that you believe will scare us?

 

 

I'm not trying to scare anyone, I just find the approach rather arrogant.  Then you get on the site here and preach how your position is superior.  Lol, it's hypocritical and incomplete.  I dislike the attitude...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Spiritual osmosis...lol.  Yes, as I said, you hang around with a certain morality, you lean towards that morality.  You put someone near to the Cross and you get the message of the Cross.  

So, your "spiritual osmosis" idea is just a rehash of the old adage "If you lay down with the dogs, you'll get up with the fleas."  I'm sure I don't need to point out the glaring flaw in your thought process; but I will anyway.  Every one of us spent years laying down with the same dogs as you.  The difference is that we eventually shook off the fleas and went on about our business.  Not knocking you or your fleas; but that's an itch I just have no further desire to scratch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm not trying to scare anyone, I just find the approach rather arrogant.  Then you get on the site here and preach how your position is superior.  Lol, it's hypocritical and incomplete.  I dislike the attitude...

 

Since when does pointing out facts equal a superior and arrogant approach?

 

Earlier I wrote...

 

In case you hadn't noticed, you inhabit a reality defined by science.  Your home, your workplace, the mall, the freeway, the food you eat, the books you read, the tv you watch, all the materials your home is made from, all of your clothes, every journey you've ever made by car, plane, train, etc., every country you've ever visited and everything you do is provided for you and defined by science.  You are celebrating what science has done for you by reading these words on a computer.

 

If these aren't facts about your life, then Yes my approach has been both superior and arrogant.  But if they are facts about your life then I'm just reporting what is factual.  And there is nothing superior or arrogant about doing that.  If these aren't the facts, then please correct me.

 

So, are these NOT facts about your life, Ed?

 

Please answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why hasn't Ed become an Ex-Christian since he hangs out with us a lot? 

 

If someone already answered this question, please disregard. I just gave Ed's responses a quick view. 

 

I'm also unsure how spiritual osmosis is supposed to function with imaginary beings like Jesus, the Holy Spirit, God, etc.... 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 Yes, as I said, you hang around with a certain morality, you lean towards that morality.  You put someone near to the Cross and you get the message of the Cross.  

 

Lol, Moses glowed when he was in the presence of God.  Florescence comes to mind.  Bunches of them sir.  The triple point of water, the trinity.  I digress.

 

Have a great day.

 

The message of the cross: Obsess over Jebus and be an intolerable turd towards LGBTQ and atheists.

 

Why do you talk about Moses like he really existed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Since when does pointing out facts equal a superior and arrogant approach?

 

Earlier I wrote...

 

In case you hadn't noticed, you inhabit a reality defined by science.  Your home, your workplace, the mall, the freeway, the food you eat, the books you read, the tv you watch, all the materials your home is made from, all of your clothes, every journey you've ever made by car, plane, train, etc., every country you've ever visited and everything you do is provided for you and defined by science.  You are celebrating what science has done for you by reading these words on a computer.

 

If these aren't facts about your life, then Yes my approach has been both superior and arrogant.  But if they are facts about your life then I'm just reporting what is factual.  And there is nothing superior or arrogant about doing that.  If these aren't the facts, then please correct me.

 

So, are these NOT facts about your life, Ed?

 

Please answer.

 

 

Bumped for Ed's attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
14 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, your "spiritual osmosis" idea is just a rehash of the old adage "If you lay down with the dogs, you'll get up with the fleas."  I'm sure I don't need to point out the glaring flaw in your thought process; but I will anyway.  Every one of us spent years laying down with the same dogs as you.  The difference is that we eventually shook off the fleas and went on about our business.  Not knocking you or your fleas; but that's an itch I just have no further desire to scratch.

Let me expand on this for you, @Edgarcito.   We all laid down with the same dogs and got the same fleas.  Now, in my case, I didn't voluntarily lay down.  I was pushed down and held there; that's the nature of childhood indoctrination.  Nevertheless, the fleas stuck, per your "spiritual osmosis" hypothesis.  So far, your hypothesis holds.

 

However, I stayed down with the dogs right up until the moment of my deconversion.  And I still deconverted.  If "spiritual osmosis" were TRUTH, I should have never been able to deconvert.  I was surrounded by the spirit, the cross, the dogs of god and the hounds of heaven.  But, one by one, each and every flea I had picked up fell away, crawled off to find some other unwitting victim.  "Let's flee," said the flea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edgarcito, please respond to this AFTER you have replied to the question I asked you yesterday and bumped for you.

 

 

The Prof has just made the excellent point that he freely chose to leave the fold, even though he was in a spirit-rich environment and was absorbing the spirit all the time, via spiritual osmosis.

 

So, where does free will come into your spiritual osmosis hypothesis?

 

By rights, the Prof should not have been able to choose to leave.

 

He should have been kept spiritual by the spirit-rich people around him.

 

Care to explain how his free will negated the power of the spirit?

 

 

Btw, this will keep until AFTER you've answered my bumped question to you.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

The Prof has just made the excellent point that he freely chose to leave the fold, even though he was in a spirit-rich environment and was absorbing the spirit all the time, via spiritual osmosis.

In the interest of clarity and accuracy, I would have to say that I did not freely choose to leave the fold.  In fact, quite the opposite occurred.  Once my faith was lost, it was lost; and there was nothing I could do to bring it back.  I tried.  I tried desperately.  But I was no longer a suitable host for the fleas, to follow the analogy.  They simply left, along with my faith, through no choice, action, thought, or conscious decision of mine.  There was no choice involved for me.  It simply happened to me, like a car accident, a tornado, or a lay-off due to a company merger.

 

This is where Endgarcito3's hypothesis falls flat.  It implies that we had a choice to no longer absorb the spirit and the cross.  That we chose to no longer associate with the dogs but to associate with other, non-flea-carrying species instead; thereby losing all of our fleas as a result.  But that is simply not the case, at least for me.  I stayed in that flea-infested kennel until the bitter end.  And I had no choice but to leave it when it became clear that the fleas were all gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I'd go even further to add that choice was never part of the equation at any step in the process.  I never chose to lie down with the dogs.  I never chose to get up with the fleas.  I never chose to become an unsuitable host.  It all just happened to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies, Prof.

 

I shouldn't have presumed to know these details of your life.

 

I hope that what I wrote hasn't offended you in any way.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

My apologies, Prof.

 

I shouldn't have presumed to know these details of your life.

 

I hope that what I wrote hasn't offended you in any way.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Not at all, Walt.  I just wanted to clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2022 at 5:08 PM, walterpthefirst said:

 

Since when does pointing out facts equal a superior and arrogant approach?

 

Earlier I wrote...

 

In case you hadn't noticed, you inhabit a reality defined by science.  Your home, your workplace, the mall, the freeway, the food you eat, the books you read, the tv you watch, all the materials your home is made from, all of your clothes, every journey you've ever made by car, plane, train, etc., every country you've ever visited and everything you do is provided for you and defined by science.  You are celebrating what science has done for you by reading these words on a computer.

 

If these aren't facts about your life, then Yes my approach has been both superior and arrogant.  But if they are facts about your life then I'm just reporting what is factual.  And there is nothing superior or arrogant about doing that.  If these aren't the facts, then please correct me.

 

So, are these NOT facts about your life, Ed?

 

Please answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It appears as though humans are in a difficult situation given they are conscious yet limited.  I don't assign the same value science allows as you do Walter due to those limitations.  I get your point....perhaps science essentially functions outside of bias/humanity and doesn't march forward except though exhausting certainty over time, but that doesn't seem to stop inquiry.  Every time I see a relationship peeking inquiry, it's always outside the "remit of science".  If that attitude was applied across the board and throughout history, I'm certain science wouldn't be near the boundaries it possesses today.

 

It doesn't even really make sense to limit inquiry without some extreme level of certainty before proceeding.  That sir, in my opinion, is a function of fear.  

 

So yeah, your take sucks and you are shortsighted in your approach, via your own limitations.  

 

Granted I'm an angry ass, but just don't preach your shit without getting your shit straight first.....or remain open, which you aren't.

 

Always a pleasure sir.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'd go even further to add that choice was never part of the equation at any step in the process.  I never chose to lie down with the dogs.  I never chose to get up with the fleas.  I never chose to become an unsuitable host.  It all just happened to me.

Well be a good person in the interim.....which I'm certain you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Well be a good person in the interim.....which I'm certain you are.

You as well, my friend.  You.  As well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Edgarcito, please respond to this AFTER you have replied to the question I asked you yesterday and bumped for you.

 

 

The Prof has just made the excellent point that he freely chose to leave the fold, even though he was in a spirit-rich environment and was absorbing the spirit all the time, via spiritual osmosis.

 

So, where does free will come into your spiritual osmosis hypothesis?

 

By rights, the Prof should not have been able to choose to leave.

 

He should have been kept spiritual by the spirit-rich people around him.

 

Care to explain how his free will negated the power of the spirit?

 

 

Btw, this will keep until AFTER you've answered my bumped question to you.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

You're not getting it man.  Look at a diagram of osmosis and reverse osmosis.  My analogy involves several functions.  One being the Spirit moving through osmosis to a less Spirit-filled environment.  We, humanity, would be residing on that side of the membrane/barrier/Cross.  We have all experienced a feeling of functioning morally within a concentrated "sin" side of the process.  On the RO side, again, the Cross would function as the membrane to the other side.  Sadly, there is some content that gets across the membrane, but a fraction gets rejected.  Even the Bible says this.  A process of pressure....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

It appears as though humans are in a difficult situation given they are conscious yet limited.  I don't assign the same value science allows as you do Walter due to those limitations.  I get your point....perhaps science essentially functions outside of bias/humanity and doesn't march forward except though exhausting certainty over time, but that doesn't seem to stop inquiry.  Every time I see a relationship peeking inquiry, it's always outside the "remit of science".  If that attitude was applied across the board and throughout history, I'm certain science wouldn't be near the boundaries it possesses today.

 

It doesn't even really make sense to limit inquiry without some extreme level of certainty before proceeding.  That sir, in my opinion, is a function of fear.  

 

So yeah, your take sucks and you are shortsighted in your approach, via your own limitations.  

 

Granted I'm an angry ass, but just don't preach your shit without getting your shit straight first.....or remain open, which you aren't.

 

Always a pleasure sir.

 

 

What you say here ties in exactly with my conversation at the astronomy club, Ed.

 

That guy who asserted that Genesis should be read poetically and not literally knows and understands as much about cosmology as I do and probably more.  Yet, like you, he feels that a purely scientific explanation of the universe is emotionally unsatisfying.

 

And this is where you and he are tripping up.  The fact that science doesn't feel adequate for both of you and that it feels too limited in its remit is not a problem or a failure of science itself.  The problem lies within each of you.  Within your emotions.

 

But both of you offload your inner problems onto science.  Yet, science is not at fault here.  It makes no promises it can't keep.  It makes no claims to provide answers that are emotionally comforting.  It doesn't provide absolute truth and doesn't claim to.  It doesn't claim that it can give you inner peace.  Nor does it claim to be unlimited in its scope.  There are some questions it can answer and some that it cannot.

 

So, don't blame science for not answering the questions that are troubling your heart.  That's not within it's remit.  Science is not in the business of making you happy.  It's just a method of understanding how the physical universe works - nothing more and nothing less.  

 

 

Edgarcito,

 

You strike me as an angry and unhappy man who doesn't know much inner peace.  Have you considered that continually finding fault with science, year in and year out, here in this forum, will do little to give you the comfort you crave?  That, if anything, continually scratching the wound will only make it worse and more difficult to heal?  That your relentless push to validate religion with science is a futile enterprise that only serves to make you angrier?

 

A little more self reflection and and a little less of the repeated, unhelpful behaviours might do you some good.

 

I say this in all sincerity.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

You're not getting it man.  Look at a diagram of osmosis and reverse osmosis.  My analogy involves several functions.  One being the Spirit moving through osmosis to a less Spirit-filled environment.  We, humanity, would be residing on that side of the membrane/barrier/Cross.  We have all experienced a feeling of functioning morally within a concentrated "sin" side of the process.  On the RO side, again, the Cross would function as the membrane to the other side.  Sadly, there is some content that gets across the membrane, but a fraction gets rejected.  Even the Bible says this.  A process of pressure....

 

I cannot get it, man.

 

Not because my mind is closed, as you accuse, but because I don't share in your emotional need for there to be a god.

 

If you had no such emotional need then you wouldn't persist in trying to link religion and science with analogies.

 

Isn't that the truth?

 

 

Look inside yourself Ed and stop blaming science or me or for not giving you the comforting answers you want.

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

What you say here ties in exactly with my conversation at the astronomy club, Ed.

 

That guy who asserted that Genesis should be read poetically and not literally knows and understands as much about cosmology as I do and probably more.  Yet, like you, he feels that a purely scientific explanation of the universe is emotionally unsatisfying.

 

And this is where you and he are tripping up.  The fact that science doesn't feel adequate for both of you and that it feels too limited in its remit is not a problem or a failure of science itself.  The problem lies within each of you.  Within your emotions.

 

But both of you offload your inner problems onto science.  Yet, science is not at fault here.  It makes no promises it can't keep.  It makes no claims to provide answers that are emotionally comforting.  It doesn't provide absolute truth and doesn't claim to.  It doesn't claim that it can give you inner peace.  Nor does it claim to be unlimited in its scope.  There are some questions it can answer and some that it cannot.

 

So, don't blame science for not answering the questions that are troubling your heart.  That's not within it's remit.  Science is not in the business of making you happy.  It's just a method of understanding how the physical universe works - nothing more and nothing less.  

 

 

Edgarcito,

 

You strike me as an angry and unhappy man who doesn't know much inner peace.  Have you considered that continually finding fault with science, year in and year out, here in this forum, will do little to give you the comfort you crave?  That, if anything, continually scratching the wound will only make it worse and more difficult to heal?  That your relentless push to validate religion with science is a futile enterprise that only serves to make you angrier?

 

A little more self reflection and and a little less of the repeated, unhelpful behaviours might do you some good.

 

I say this in all sincerity.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

See, here's the problem, you use words like "emotionally unsatisfying" without any scientific definition.  That's a no-no in your world.  When my chromatographs spit out near exact matches to the standard I ran that morning after analyzing samples all day, I find it emotionally satisfying.  You don't have that luxury....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I cannot get it, man.

 

Not because my mind is closed, as you accuse, but because I don't share in your emotional need for there to be a god.

 

If you had no such emotional need then you wouldn't persist in trying to link religion and science with analogies.

 

Isn't that the truth?

 

 

Look inside yourself Ed and stop blaming science or me or for not giving you the comforting answers you want.

 

Walter.

No, it's because you won't allow yourself anymore to need emotionally.  I thinketh you call the kettle black...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

See, here's the problem, you use words like "emotionally unsatisfying" without any scientific definition.  That's a no-no in your world.  When my chromatographs spit out near exact matches to the standard I ran that morning after analyzing samples all day, I find it emotionally satisfying.  You don't have that luxury....

 

Read these words, Ed.

 

I have faith that my wife loves me.  This faith is not based upon anything unseen.  On the contrary, it's only based upon what I have seen and observed.  The two years when we courting and our twenty two years of marriage are the evidence base that I use to have faith that she loves me.  She exists.  She is real.  I did not read about her in ancient book.  I see her every day.  We interact.

 

 

 

Not a single scientific definition in the whole thing, is there?  Nevertheless, what they say is still valid.  That's because I don't need to define our love in scientific terms for it to be true or real or valid.

 

You are working off the false idea that I insist that EVERYTHING must have a scientific definition.  That if something doesn't have a scientific definition its not true or real or valid.  I never said that and you'd be wrong if you claimed that I did.  

 

Here's the best and plainest example of what I mean, from within this thread.

 

If there's evidence that science can't define, then, by definition, it doesn't come under the remit of science.  So, once again, there's no overlap between science and religion.

What's futile about this is your wish to redefine science to mean what you want.  That's never going to happen.

Accept the status quo or just keeping banging your head against an unbreakable wall, Ed.

It's up to you.

 

See that? 

If there are things that science can't define, then they don't come under science's remit.  Not that they don't exist or aren't real or aren't valid.  Of course there are things that are outside the scope of science.  I've never denied that. 

 

All I was saying here was that your attempt to link things not under science's remit, like religious matters, with things that are, like chemical osmosis, are doomed to failure.  You don't paint the picket fence with a garden rake and you don't rake the lawn with a paintbrush.  You use the right tool for the right job.

 

I never said that EVERYTHING has to be scientifically defined to be real or true or valid.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.