Bringing science and religion together around a common understanding of the origin of life.

[posthuman]

I will confess to not being able to read the Bible in the original languages it which it was written.

so.. you can't read Plato, either.

where does that leave us.

 

[posthuman]

Now you are talking nonsense by injecting irrelevant mathematical terms into the conversation.

it's 100% relevant.
do you know what a "basis" set is, in an algebraic sense?

 

[posthuman]

You also seem to like to pontificate on ambiguous points of definition that have no great significance. This one goes into the ignostic waste basket.

the ubiquity of law in the universe is of enormous significance. without it, there is no science. all of your reasoning depends on it.
the existence of God is not a 'metaphor' for observed ubiquitous natural order. ubiquitous natural order is an evidence of the existence of God.
this is no small point.

suppose you travel the world & from your observation of the sun rising and setting, and the apparent motion of the stars in the sky, and from these you infer the rotation of the planet and its revolution about the sun. it is not 'sunrise and sunset' represented in your cosmology by the idea of a heliocentric solar system. the sunrise and sunset are evidences of the heliocentric model.

 

[posthuman]

Besides philosophical compatibility, the evidence for Israelite religion coming from Mesopotamian Moon worship is that the founder came from the two cities that were the centers of Moon worship and his cohort had names from that subculture. What is your evidence against?

maybe you're thinking of Islam?

Moses & Aaron are not the 'founders' of Judaism. God introduces himself to Moses as the God of Jacob and of Esau and of Abraham before him. they are called Israelites because God renamed Jacob this. this is Abraham's God, who called him out of the polytheistic land where the moon was worshipped along with the sun and the planets. Babylon = polytheist. Egypt = polytheist. the scriptures from front to back declare monotheism and roundly condemn worship of any seen thing.

as far as your argument on this point, it's shockingly flimsy. proximity? names? using the same justification i could claim that since you're from California and your screen name has "ren" in it you must be an homosexual, unstable Satan-worshiping vegan chihuahua gold miner. if that makes sense. because it doesn't make sense, not at all.

 

[posthuman]

You seem to like non sequiturs.

no,
it follows smoothly; you're just not following. you asked how i know God is. i know God is, because i exist. you asked how i thought other people's experiences compared to mine in that regard. i said they also exist.

for your benefit, let me explain something that apparently does not enter into your thinking ((else you should have understood my replies)): consciousness is not explained by any physical means. existence is more than physical - consciousness proves this. you are not your body. you are not your brain. you inhabit your body and you interface with the material world through your brain. because i exist, i know there is something beyond the material universe, and i know that it is an intelligence and that i originate from it: like begets like.
when i said, other people also exist, i said, everyone has this same evidence of God, that He IS and that He is their Creator. no one has an excuse.

unless by non-sequitur you were indicating to me that you are a solipsist?
are you a solipsist?

 

[larens]

I am going to call @posthuman here, as he may be able to address some of your (OP's) concerns

I have discontinued my conversation with posthuman, because he is just wasting my time with straw man and other fallacious arguments. I am also going to act on my complaint in the chat proper that he has just been nitpicking and presenting nonsense, and will stop responding to him here.

I would enjoy a civil conversation here about the details of my origin of life theory and its implications, particularly if it was with somebody who was sensitive as to what makes good reading for interested non-specialists.

 

[Kim82]

Larens, this is a Christian site.

We are not interested in chatting about your theories.

The other Christian sites that you have been aren't interested in your theories.

Neither are the officials at Berkeley college interested in chatting about your theories.

 

[larens]

Larens, this is a Christian site.

We are not interested in chatting about your theories.

The other Christian sites that you have been aren't interested in your theories.

Neither are the officials at Berkeley college interested in chatting about your theories.

Well, the proponents of anti-religious scientism that I mentioned in the first paragraph of my OP are quite strong, aren't they? Do you wish to be an ally of theirs in keeping science and religion separate by censoring scientific truth? How do you feel about the fact that they are out to crush Christianity?

 

[Blain]

I have become embroiled in a struggle with promoters of anti-religious scientism after presenting a theory that life on Earth started on a minor early solar system body I call Ushas. The fundamental idea is that life started with the convergence of a unique, or nearly-unique, set of circumstances in the early solar system. The most improbable event was that a nearby gamma ray burst was aimed directly at the solar system. This generated the highly active molecules necessary for life. There are billions of research dollars at stake because my theory undermines NASA's current dogma of spontaneous generation of life on wet planets, e.g., the Earth and icy moons with internal oceans. People from Blue Marble Earth, which promotes the current dogma, are making it clear they are intolerant of opposition. I have been saying that my goal is to bring science and religion together around a common understanding of the origin of life, so I am here to open a dialogue with evangelical Christians to balance the science discussions I have been engaged in. My anti-religious opposition apparently thinks that if they can maintain a schism between science and religion they can achieve total victory.

My religious practice is with the Berkeley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. UUs have a Christian background but are not Christians because they are non-creedal I am the active scientist in the group and have been studying the mathematical basis of reality informally at UC-Berkeley. The coronavirus shutdown of campus has cut me off from the academic databases and face-to-face contacts there so I have switched to online outreach. My philosophy goes well beyond the typical reductionism to physics. I see that there is a natural trinity of physical reality, information, and consciousness that underlies the Christian trinity.

Physical reality contains a form of "maya" (commonly translated as "illusion") in which chemistry is in the foreground and the geometrical structure of matter is in the background. This is necessary to explain why complex cells evolved before simple ones. Information reality was well understood by Plato, but he wrote in a cryptic style to hide his more radical ideas from his opponents, who had executed his teacher Socrates. Because I have a knowledge of modern mathematical science, I could easily decrypt the riddle of "Plato's Number", though no correct solution has been published in thousands of years. I strongly break from contemporary scientific tradition by being a Biblical scholar. I see that Abrahamic religion describes its replacement by a new social order in our times. The "new heaven and new Earth" in Revelation 21: 1 refers to a new cosmology, which is what I have been studying. "No sea" translates as "no impassible cosmic sea", i.e., space exploration has become possible.

At the moment my research is on connecting science, law, and social action. Mathematical description of reality is emotionally dead for most people. We are being subjected to a crisis giving rise to fear on many fronts, e.g., disease, economic collapse, and social strife. In the U.S. the Magna Carta is no longer taken as the first organic law, so something needs to replace it. The divergence in ideas at the time of the writing of the Constitution was too great, so constitutional law also needs to be radically reformed. I see that World War II has become the new Runnymede and that FDR's Four Freedoms speech in January 1941 has become the new legal starting point. Since then the four freedoms of expression, of worship, from want, and from fear have been written into international law. Freedom from fear is the most basic because it is gained through knowledge, which is supported by the other three freedoms. Freedom from fear has also been put on our agenda right now, so our priority needs to be on the social action necessary to bring it about.

Very interesting, to create the bridge between science and religion.... That is quite a task and a very fascinating one at that.
The only thing I have against such a thing is that the answer may not even be what we thought, I always say there is a diffrence in mans understanding of science and God's. They appear to be opposing forces but I think they are one and the same we just don't see or understand it.

The creation of the universe is just the age old question which came first the chicken or the egg? but that is aksing the wrong question because no matter which came first that thing had to first exist somehow, nothing in the universe is ever simply there it has to have an origin of some kind which is why I find the big bang theory ineffective, but if all things were created by God then he was also the author of science things work in this universe by a scientific and mathemical law some scientists say this disrpoves God but again creator of all things.

Or say the big bang was in fact true but if God spoke everything into existance it would likely be the same thing as a big bang exploding from nowhere creating the ever growing universe as we know it. If I recal correctly I believe there are unseen taces of the bang echoing throughout the universe and the universe continued to expand I think you can even hear the traces of it with technology kind of like how we have technology to hear what a black hole sounds like of course it has to be tuned to human hearing or else we likely would either be so terrified by the sound we would go mad or go deaf.

If the big bang theory is correct but it was God who spoke it then that would explain the big bang and also explain how terrifyingly powerful God is just with his voice alone, if the universe is continuously expanding which I may be wrong about but if it still is then that would speak of his eternal power and how his words are eternal.
I apologize if this was not in context with the subject when people start talking about science the inner nerd comes on XD

 

[Kim82]

Well, the proponents of anti-religious scientism that I mentioned in the first paragraph of my OP are quite strong, aren't they? Do you wish to be an ally of theirs in keeping science and religion separate by censoring scientific truth?

I leave all that to Christian scientists. They will defend the faith. Your help is not required. Besides you are not a scientist. You have no credentials. Blab blab blab nonsense is about all you do.

The persons who are able to understand your nonsense, you have insulted them, and you don't want to chat with them. So where does that leave you?

How do you feel about the fact that they are out to crush Christianity?

Why are you concerned for Christianity? Christianity has been in existence long before your theories. And it will continue after it. Christianity does not need your help.

 

[larens]

I leave all that to Christian scientists. They will defend the faith. Your help is not required. Besides you are not a scientist. You have no credentials. Blab blab blab nonsense is about all you do.

Science is following a set of scientific principles. It is not about having a credential. When people print credentials, claim that anything scientific said by someone who does not have one of their credentials is nonsense, and fail to follow scientific principles, that is scientism. It's part of our living in a socially stratified society with privileges and is tied to strategies for maintaining privileges.

The persons who are able to understand your nonsense, you have insulted them, and you don't want to chat with them. So where does that leave you?

No one who is committed to being a troll, rather than serious inquiry, is able to understand serious science. Their ignorance then just reinforces their commitment to being a troll. Leaving them leaves me talking to other people more open to science.

Why are you concerned for Christianity? Christianity has been in existence long before your theories. And it will continue after it. Christianity does not need your help.

Maybe Christianity needs your help. You probably have more power than you realize. You have been relatively respectful in your dialogue with me, so have gained considerable respect yourself. If you did research for a year and a half the way I described, you would have enough knowledge of science to lead people in promoting a healthy relation between science and Christianity. You would have to do the research with others to have the fun needed for success. Your power lies in having the respect to recruit others and get the ball rolling.

 

[Kim82]

As you can see, your thread went rather quiet. Not everyone on here is a scientist. But since you are here you may as well learn to talk about other things. Stop being so obsessed over your ideas. And you may as well learn some manners.

What are your thoughts on the following scripture? Don't hurry to respond. You may write a thesis on it, if you like. But please avoid the big words.

1Corinthians 1: 18-31
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

 

[posthuman]

No one who is committed to being a troll, rather than serious inquiry, is able to understand serious science. Their ignorance then just reinforces their commitment to being a troll. Leaving them leaves me talking to other people more open to science.

I reach out to you with honest criticism and correction, ask pertinent informed questions, back up my claims and objections with data & references, and i am called the troll?

L
O
L

I sure have been on this site for a lot of years to be a committed troll. Must be some kind or record


Kim is right, i think.

 

[posthuman]

I have become embroiled in a struggle with promoters of anti-religious scientism after presenting a theory that life on Earth started on a minor early solar system body I call Ushas. The fundamental idea is that life started with the convergence of a unique, or nearly-unique, set of circumstances in the early solar system.

Considering that you are hypothesizing abiogenesis and subsequent panspermia & evolution, I have no idea what you think differentiates you from "anti-religious scientism"
You are essentially proposing exactly that, yourself. No different apart from involving an imaginary planet here rather than elsewhere and an untenable GRB seed event

I can only guess that the so-called "struggle" you are "embroiled in" has origins in legitimate objections to your hypothesizing and your aspirations to start your own religion.

 

[Graceguy]

I have become embroiled in a struggle with promoters of anti-religious scientism after presenting a theory that life on Earth started on a minor early solar system body I call Ushas. The fundamental idea is that life started with the convergence of a unique, or nearly-unique, set of circumstances in the early solar system. The most improbable event was that a nearby gamma ray burst was aimed directly at the solar system. This generated the highly active molecules necessary for life. There are billions of research dollars at stake because my theory undermines NASA's current dogma of spontaneous generation of life on wet planets, e.g., the Earth and icy moons with internal oceans. People from Blue Marble Earth, which promotes the current dogma, are making it clear they are intolerant of opposition. I have been saying that my goal is to bring science and religion together around a common understanding of the origin of life, so I am here to open a dialogue with evangelical Christians to balance the science discussions I have been engaged in. My anti-religious opposition apparently thinks that if they can maintain a schism between science and religion they can achieve total victory.

My religious practice is with the Berkeley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. UUs have a Christian background but are not Christians because they are non-creedal I am the active scientist in the group and have been studying the mathematical basis of reality informally at UC-Berkeley. The coronavirus shutdown of campus has cut me off from the academic databases and face-to-face contacts there so I have switched to online outreach. My philosophy goes well beyond the typical reductionism to physics. I see that there is a natural trinity of physical reality, information, and consciousness that underlies the Christian trinity.

Physical reality contains a form of "maya" (commonly translated as "illusion") in which chemistry is in the foreground and the geometrical structure of matter is in the background. This is necessary to explain why complex cells evolved before simple ones. Information reality was well understood by Plato, but he wrote in a cryptic style to hide his more radical ideas from his opponents, who had executed his teacher Socrates. Because I have a knowledge of modern mathematical science, I could easily decrypt the riddle of "Plato's Number", though no correct solution has been published in thousands of years. I strongly break from contemporary scientific tradition by being a Biblical scholar. I see that Abrahamic religion describes its replacement by a new social order in our times. The "new heaven and new Earth" in Revelation 21: 1 refers to a new cosmology, which is what I have been studying. "No sea" translates as "no impassible cosmic sea", i.e., space exploration has become possible.

At the moment my research is on connecting science, law, and social action. Mathematical description of reality is emotionally dead for most people. We are being subjected to a crisis giving rise to fear on many fronts, e.g., disease, economic collapse, and social strife. In the U.S. the Magna Carta is no longer taken as the first organic law, so something needs to replace it. The divergence in ideas at the time of the writing of the Constitution was too great, so constitutional law also needs to be radically reformed. I see that World War II has become the new Runnymede and that FDR's Four Freedoms speech in January 1941 has become the new legal starting point. Since then the four freedoms of expression, of worship, from want, and from fear have been written into international law. Freedom from fear is the most basic because it is gained through knowledge, which is supported by the other three freedoms. Freedom from fear has also been put on our agenda right now, so our priority needs to be on the social action necessary to bring it about.

And this supports Christian views on creation how...???

 

[larens]

And this supports Christian views on creation how...???

There has been more than one Christian view on creation. The Roman Catholic Church has had a dual view on the nature of the universe. There is both a non-geocentric and a geocentric view. The non-geocentric view has evolved into Big Bang cosmology with a distinct starting point. The geocentric view does not have a conventional interpretation of time. Its description is still evolving. My research reconciles these different views.

 

[posthuman]

because he is just wasting my time with straw man and other fallacious arguments. *

* with questions

questions you apparently aren't inclined to answer.

 

[posthuman]

There has been more than one Christian view on creation. The Roman Catholic Church has had a dual view on the nature of the universe. There is both a non-geocentric and a geocentric view. The non-geocentric view has evolved into Big Bang cosmology with a distinct starting point. The geocentric view does not have a conventional interpretation of time. Its description is still evolving. My research reconciles these different views.

how does abiogenesis on your hypothetical erstwhile planet reconcile heliocentrism / geocentricism?
did your planet later become the sun?

 

[posthuman]

There has been more than one Christian view on creation. The Roman Catholic Church has had a dual view on the nature of the universe. There is both a non-geocentric and a geocentric view. The non-geocentric view has evolved into Big Bang cosmology with a distinct starting point. The geocentric view does not have a conventional interpretation of time. Its description is still evolving. My research reconciles these different views.

neither geocentrism nor heliocentrism are origin-of-life / creation theories.

they are models of the relative motion of the objects in our solar system.

no Christian church / sect has ever embraced atheistic evolutionary abiogenesis.

 

[Mii]

the ubiquity of law in the universe is direct evidence of monotheism, not a reality for which monotheism is a substitutionary analogy.

I've recently come to that conclusion myself but the second part I hadn't thought of....the second part I only know to base on faith (later sight) which doesn't really speak to someone who doesn't know what that is unfortunately.