Problems with the Heaven Concept

[atrib]

The Bible claims the planet was covered by a flood to the top of the highest mountain just a few thousand years ago. This is demonstrably false.

The Bible claims snakes can talk. This is demonstrably false.

What if the quantum wavefunction collapse of the universe required observation of the natural laws before they became reality, so the more natural laws that are observed, the more tightly bound the universe is to natural law.

So, prior to the observation of natural laws and the particulate nature of matter over the last few hundred years, there were no laws binding matter/energy to the forms they have now. Prior to the observation that life does not spontaneously arise from matter following the laws that have been observed, life did spontaneously arise from matter.

Remember, natural laws, along with everything else in the universe, ultimately follow QM principles. Without an observer of the law, law is not applied.

What happened is a steady addition of various observations of the universe, which steadily collapsed the wavefunction and narrowed the possibility of what exists. Before certain laws were observed, other laws could have been observed.


Before these observations of the law, the biblical narrative could and did exist (as did other narratives that were observed). However the wave function collapse eventually pulled evolution and various other possible universal forms into the mix that we now experience due to the observation of the first men of certain possibilities that resulted in the fall of man into "natural law".

Luckily, other smart beings observed other means to save those trapped in the law from the law- by binding together many by the law, so that many can be saved by the law. You know- the law of observation of the law. Some people take observation of the law quite literally... and still are guided to the right observation.

Is there a point to this rambling post full of irrelevant nonsense?

Can we agree that snakes don't talk and that the planet was not covered by a flood to the top of the highest mountain a few thousand years ago?

 

[Kharakov]

What if the quantum wavefunction collapse of the universe required observation of the natural laws before they became reality, so the more natural laws that are observed, the more tightly bound the universe is to natural law.

What if Superman fought The Hulk?
What if Superman had a light saber and The Hulk had a kryptonite toe ring?

I suppose it's like asking "what if someone would respond immaturely to speculation derived from the most accurate scientific theory ever that goes against their belief system?"

You could instead critique whether or not the statement holds up to theory.

 

[Kharakov]

Is there a point to this rambling post full of irrelevant nonsense?

So quantum mechanics is not relevant to whether or not natural laws existed as anything other than a possibility prior to the observation of natural laws?

Can we agree that snakes don't talk and that the planet was not covered by a flood to the top of the highest mountain a few thousand years ago?

Of course not. You're making a major assumption that what you have observed to be true (that certain laws existed as something more than a probability) was true before the laws were observed.

 

[abaddon]

Snakes talk, world-wide floods happen, men arise from the dead after 3 days, dead spirits go somewhere… in dreams, fairy tales and myths. If there's truth there it's in the symbology and how it applies within context. A cultural dream (myth) tells what those people valued.

Squeeze some moral lessons from the mythology, or be silly and try to figure how the myths aren't myths but are literal history, or reject it as unneeded or false. Those are the choices, there are no others.

My advice is avoid the second choice of the three.

 

[rhutchin]

The Bible claims the planet was covered by a flood to the top of the highest mountain just a few thousand years ago. This is demonstrably false.

No, it's not. To demonstrate it to be false, you would have to duplicate the situation at that time. It cannot be done.

The Bible claims snakes can talk. This is demonstrably false.

Not so. Again, to demonstrate this to be false, you would have to duplicate the events where this happened. You cannot do this.

Your position on both these is one of faith, just as mine is one of faith to believe that these things happened.

Which part of "demonstrably false" do you not understand?

Probably the part that you do not understand.

 

[dockeen]

If we assume that things that are not possible now, were possible in the past, then we have the same problem as when "magic" is invoked, i.e. the possibility for rational discussion and analysis goes away if the "anything is possible" card can be played.

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would indicate that a god who can do anything, including things that are not consistent with known science (i.e. magic) could in fact cover up evidence of the flood, the exodus etc., and make creation appear to be older than it is. The question becomes then whether one finds a god who wants to rig the game such that most beings end up in hell as a "test of faith" is worthy of worship. I would submit that, for me at least, the answer is no.

 

[dockeen]

rhutchin,

No,for an event that should leave evidence, and none of that evidence is in evidence (like a global flood), then one does not have to duplicate anything to indicate that the claimed event did not occur.

 

[rhutchin]

You are missing the point. If the planet had been covered by a cataclysmic flood thousands of years ago, the evidence of the flood would have been abundant all over the surface of the planet, and would have been discussed extensively in the literature. Yet I have not been able to find a single reference in the literature that describes such evidence or even speculates on the possibility of a Biblical flood, and I often do geological studies as part of my day job. Therefore, the Bible is wrong, and the planet was NOT covered by a cataclysmic flood within the previous few thousand years.

Geologists have conducted (and continue to conduct) extensive studies to define the geological strata to depths of thousands of feet, and publish such information as maps (plan and profile/section data typically broken up into quadrangles) and as reports. The geology of much of the United States has been documented in this way. If you insist that such a flood happened, you need to show us on the maps where the evidence lies for this event and cite references to reports that disucss this evidence. We all know you will do no such thing, so I am not holding my breath

If there were a global flood, we might expect to find the following:
1. Extensive areas of sedimentary rock formation as sediments are deposited by water.
2. Accumulation of billions of fossils are distinct locations around the planet.
3. Extensive numbers of fossils at high altitudes in a variety of locations.
4. Evidence of rapid burial of fossils by sediments from the flood across the planet.
5. Thick, uniform layers of coal is various locations on the planet.
6. Fossils across the planet that show animals having died in positions attributed to drowning.
7. Lots of water around the planet sufficient to cover the earth.

The creationists claim that such things are the case.

 

[rhutchin]

If we assume that things that are not possible now, were possible in the past, then we have the same problem as when "magic" is invoked, i.e. the possibility for rational discussion and analysis goes away if the "anything is possible" card can be played.

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would indicate that a god who can do anything, including things that are not consistent with known science (i.e. magic) could in fact cover up evidence of the flood, the exodus etc., and make creation appear to be older than it is. The question becomes then whether one finds a god who wants to rig the game such that most beings end up in hell as a "test of faith" is worthy of worship. I would submit that, for me at least, the answer is no.

Of course, that is the problem with the big bang. The events thought to precipitate the big bang cannot be duplicated so it is hard to prove (other than as a mathematical possibility). In the end, it's all a matter of faith.

 

[Kharakov]

So discard quantum mechanics, and the interpretation that allows that natural laws did not exist until observed?

Seems to be holding onto the myth of absolute natural law, rather than natural laws that exist as a possibility until wave function collapse through observation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If there were a global flood, we might expect to find the following:
1. Extensive areas of sedimentary rock formation as sediments are deposited by water.

Would we expect to find sediment that took centuries to form deposited by one global flood?
Would we expect to find non-sedimentary layers of rock between the sediment layers, if it were one event??
Would we expect to find deposits of heavier sediment above lighter sediment, in the same event?

2. Accumulation of billions of fossils are distinct locations around the planet.

What do you mean by 'distinct locations?' Do you mean, like, all marsupials (or damned near all) in Australia?

3. Extensive numbers of fossils at high altitudes in a variety of locations.

Why would we expect extensive numbers at high altitudes from one event?

5. Thick, uniform layers of coal is various locations on the planet.

That's a negative. We would EXPECT not to find coal anywhere, if the sediment all comes from one worldly event.
How thick would the biosphere have to have been to hold enough plant matter to explain all the known coal deposits as one event, lasting one year?

6. Fossils across the planet that show animals having died in positions attributed to drowning.

What, exactly, is a position attributed to drowning? How would CSI prove that any given fossil was related to drowning?

7. Lots of water around the planet sufficient to cover the earth.

Yes. If every surface was even at sea level, including the ocean floors, the water would cover the planet to a depth of two kilometers.
But the planet is not even at sea level. The Books describes mountains. And being covered by water.
We would expect a significant amount of water more than we can find.
Swing and a miss.

The creationists claim that such things are the case.

By slanting or ignoring evidence, yes.

 

[jonJ]

Whether deserving of worship is not really the issue. If you can punch your kids in the face, then I suspect they will do what you tell them in order to avoid getting punched. If your kids know not to challenge your authority; then God can expect you not to challenge His authority - unless, of course, you don't mind getting punched in the face.

Of course it's the issue. I can get my kids to do what I want without threatening to punch them in the face, so threatening to punch them is vile and unnecessary, and actually punching them would be even worse. And I'm not even, you know, omnipotent. You worship a God who you claim can make everything hunky-dory for everybody in a heartbeat, and when he fails to do so, you grovel around like an abused spouse until you find reasons why even that is admirable: "OMG, you're so rough! I love it when you're cruel for no reason! Go on, hit me again! Yes, yes, I've been bad! Ooh, yes, break my arm!"

 

[Rhea]

If there were a global flood, we might expect to find the following:

1. Extensive areas of sedimentary rock formation as sediments are deposited by water. Nope there wasn't time for that in less than 4000 years. There would only be piles of silt and sand.
2. Accumulation of billions of fossils are distinct locations around the planet. But not layered, They would be completely intermixed. So, nope..
3. Extensive numbers of fossils at high altitudes in a variety of locations. Nope. They would not have been buried and wet long enough up there. it requires upthrust over millions of years.
4. Evidence of rapid burial of fossils by sediments from the flood across the planet. Nah, not really. Only in low-lying locations where water could pool and sit.
5. Thick, uniform layers of coal is various locations on the planet. why "various" all of a sudden. And how could one flood producen this much? And coal doesn't form in less than 4000 years. So, nope.
6. Fossils across the planet that show animals having died in positions attributed to drowning. All mixed up and not layered by geological age, you mean? Yeah you'd expect that and it ain't so.
7. Lots of water around the planet sufficient to cover the earth. True. You'd expect to find this. And you don't. So, Nah.

The creationists claim that such things are the case. FAIL.

 

[Mageth]

Just a couple of things to note....

If there were a global flood, we might expect to find the following:
1. Extensive areas of sedimentary rock formation as sediments are deposited by water.

And by wind, ice, gravity...Geology 101 fail.

And another major problem with this assertion is...varves and the like...layered sedimentary deposits. Layered over millenia or millions of years...not laid down in a year or so.

Another favorite "flood killer" of mine areice cores.

"An ice core from the right site can be used to reconstruct an uninterrupted and detailed climate record extending over hundreds of thousands of years, providing information on a wide variety of aspects of climate at each point in time. It is the simultaneity of these properties recorded in the ice that makes ice cores such a powerful tool in paleoclimate research."

Guess what? All those ice cores, some going back 100s of thousands of years, and not one that indicates a global flood as portrayed in the Bible.

I'll take the ice core record over the Biblical "record", thank you.

3. Extensive numbers of fossils at high altitudes in a variety of locations....7. Lots of water around the planet sufficient to cover the earth.

I called you on this shit earlier regarding you silly attempt at trying to use fossils way up on Mt. Everest as evidence for the flood while at the same time asserting that Mt. Everest didn't exist during the flood in an attempt to avoid the blatantly obvious, undeniable, sheer fucking volume of water problem with the flood myth. You cannot have it both ways....either fossils at "high altidues" are not evidence and the earth's surface was extremely flat at the time, or the earth was not flat and there's not anywhere near enough water to account for the flood myth.

So this is a major consistency fail on your part.

(Note that the "flat surface at the time so there woulda been enough water, and Mt. Everest rose to 29000 feet in a few years" wild speculation you depend on is not at all consistent with geology or the geological record...more Geology 101 fail...)

The creationists claim that such things are the case.

Science says that such things are not the case. I'll stick with science...beats fairy tales every time. And as noted above creationists fail grade school geology.

 

[bilby]

The Bible claims the planet was covered by a flood to the top of the highest mountain just a few thousand years ago. This is demonstrably false.

No, it's not. To demonstrate it to be false, you would have to duplicate the situation at that time. It cannot be done.

Horseshit.

If I were to say "I burned your house to the ground yesterday, while you were out", would you say that "You cannot demonstrate that this is false; you would have to duplicate the situation at that time. It cannot be done"?

Or would you quite reasonably point out that it would be impossible for your house to appear as it does now, had it burned to the ground yesterday? I could have immediately rushed in some builders to clear the site, and construct an exact replica of your house; but no matter how hard I tried, evidence would remain. Some things that would be destroyed would be irreplaceable; some of the effects simply couldn't be concealed in the time available.

Of course, if I were omnipotent, I could conceal absolutely all the evidence of the fire - make it impossible for anyone to tell it had ever happened. But then that would be completely pointless and futile. I could hardly expect you to learn anything from the experience if there is no evidence it ever happened. Or if the only evidence was my word.

It is fairly commonplace for people to demonstrate things that actually happened by reference to evidence other than a simplistic duplication of the event. Demonstrating that an assertion is false requires only demonstration of its impossibility. There is not enough water on Earth to cover the highest mountains. Water cannot just vanish; if it was here then, where is it now?

Of course, you could (and probably would) claim that with God, anything is possible; but if that is true, then it is literally impossible for you to know anything at all. Everything could be an illusion generated by God. Including that Bible you place so much faith in. If anything is possible, faith in anything is unwarranted; there are no absolutes of any kind.

 

[Kharakov]

Science says that such things are not the case. I'll stick with science...beats fairy tales every time. And as noted above creationists fail grade school geology.

Yeah. The most accurate scientific theory known to man, called QM, has implications as well. That the natural laws that we observe did not exist as anything other than a probability until they were observed, which caused wave function collapse. Therefore, prior to their observation, that which existed within the universe did not follow these specific natural laws.

There is absolutely no evidence that the observation of these laws did not cause the collapse of the universal wave function into the various natural laws that we now observe, with history created from evolution of the law backwards in regards to the state of the universe at the time of wave function collapse. In other words, the big bang singularity is a creation of the observation of the natural laws, which resulted in the wave function collapse from the point in the universe at which the laws were observed.

Before the law, there was no miss.

So yeah, there were dragons.

 

[Kharakov]

There is not enough water on Earth to cover the highest mountains. Water cannot just vanish; if it was here then, where is it now?

Events didn't follow natural laws until after the natural laws were observed.

If anything is possible, faith in anything is unwarranted; there are no absolutes of any kind.

Bullshit. If anything is possible, it is possible that absolute faith is completely warranted, and that there are absolutes of ALL kinds.

 

[Mageth]

Creationists like rhutchin fail science, woo merchants like Kharakov abuse science.

 

[dockeen]

Events didn't follow natural laws until after the natural laws were observed.

Actually, I am not aware of Quantum Mechanics making such a prediction.

 

[Kharakov]

Creationists like rhutchin fail science, woo merchants like Kharakov abuse science.

So when the consequence of scientific thought points towards something that doesn't align with your belief system, it is science abuse?

Don't use scientific theories to justify your claims about reality if you don't like where scientific knowledge leads.