The Plagues Vs Weather (Science)

[FievelJ]

These so called biblical plagues from the Christian bible have been proved to be at least some sort of natural weather Phenomenon.
There's an explanation for that, and that's the direction I go, it is more than doubtful it was directed by some superior being.
In fact I am here as I believe everything has a natural explanation of some sort.

Was trying to type something else in here, but I'll let that up to replies.
Thanks For Reading, And I hope this is at the right place.

 

[bilby]

These so called biblical plagues from the Christian bible have been proved to be at least some sort of natural weather Phenomenon.
There's an explanation for that, and that's the direction I go, it is more than doubtful it was directed by some superior being.
In fact I am here as I believe everything has a natural explanation of some sort.

Was trying to type something else in here, but I'll let that up to replies.
Thanks For Reading, And I hope this is at the right place.

I agree with you that everything has a natural explanation; However when it comes to an analysis of scriptural or historical accounts of divine actions, most often the best natural explanation is "humans like to tell made up stories".

Maybe this story or that has some basis in real events; Maybe it's pure fiction, invented for entertainment, or as a metaphor for some aspect of the human condition.

Perhaps there simply never was a Captain Ahab who chased a white whale across the oceans of the world. Perhaps there never were a bunch of English school kids marooned on a remote island who ended up worshiping a pig's head on a stick. Perhaps there never were any biblical plagues.

It's impossible to say (in the last case), and it will likely be just as impossible to say in the first two, should those stories still be being told a couple of thousand years from now.

And in all three cases, it's not really important whether these are recountings of real events; Their value as stories is independent of their value as historical accounts of events that actually occurred.

IMO that's the biggest problem with modern Protestant Christianity; The insistence that their cultural myths need to also be factual historical accounts.

We need not explain how Santa Claus didn't in fact use supernatural means to get his reindeer to fly, and hypothesise that perhaps his reindeer were subjected to a natural phenomenon, such as clear air turbulence, that kept them aloft. All we need to do is say "nah, it's all just made up stories".

Unless and until someone produces evidence to the contrary.

 

[FievelJ]

These so called biblical plagues from the Christian bible have been proved to be at least some sort of natural weather Phenomenon.
There's an explanation for that, and that's the direction I go, it is more than doubtful it was directed by some superior being.
In fact I am here as I believe everything has a natural explanation of some sort.

Was trying to type something else in here, but I'll let that up to replies.
Thanks For Reading, And I hope this is at the right place.

I agree with you that everything has a natural explanation; However when it comes to an analysis of scriptural or historical accounts of divine actions, most often the best natural explanation is "humans like to tell made up stories".

Maybe this story or that has some basis in real events; Maybe it's pure fiction, invented for entertainment, or as a metaphor for some aspect of the human condition.

Perhaps there simply never was a Captain Ahab who chased a white whale across the oceans of the world. Perhaps there never were a bunch of English school kids marooned on a remote island who ended up worshiping a pig's head on a stick. Perhaps there never were any biblical plagues.

It's impossible to say (in the last case), and it will likely be just as impossible to say in the first two, should those stories still be being told a couple of thousand years from now.

And in all three cases, it's not really important whether these are recountings of real events; Their value as stories is independent of their value as historical accounts of events that actually occurred.

IMO that's the biggest problem with modern Protestant Christianity; The insistence that their cultural myths need to also be factual historical accounts.

We need not explain how Santa Claus didn't in fact use supernatural means to get his reindeer to fly, and hypothesise that perhaps his reindeer were subjected to a natural phenomenon, such as clear air turbulence, that kept them aloft. All we need to do is say "nah, it's all just made up stories".

Unless and until someone produces evidence to the contrary.

Am right.

Edit; The Easter Bunny didn't bring me nothing.

 

[Elixir]

Edit; The Easter Bunny didn't bring me nothing

I got a goose egg too.

 

[Swammerdami]

There are at least two conjectures relating the Biblical plagues to real climate changes.

(1) A drought during the late 13th century might have turned the Nile red, etc..

(2) The Minoan Eruption of Thera/Santorini in the 17th or 16th century BC (mentioned in the above link) was the most powerful volcanic eruption known in human history IIUC. It had severe effects throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond, some of which might have resembled the Biblical plagues. (Thera might be the basis for Plato's Atlantis.)

I think the accounts in Exodus derived from real events which have been thoroughly conflated, confused and exaggerated. "Plagues" from both the 13th century drought and the 17th century eruption might have been added to the story of Exodus (much of which probably took place in the 14th century BC if at all).

 

[FievelJ]

There are at least two conjectures relating the Biblical plagues to real climate changes.

(1) A drought during the late 13th century might have turned the Nile red, etc..

(2) The Minoan Eruption of Thera/Santorini in the 17th or 16th century BC (mentioned in the above link) was the most powerful volcanic eruption known in human history IIUC. It had severe effects throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond, some of which might have resembled the Biblical plagues. (Thera might be the basis for Plato's Atlantis.)

I think the accounts in Exodus derived from real events which have been thoroughly conflated, confused and exaggerated. "Plagues" from both the 13th century drought and the 17th century eruption might have been added to the story of Exodus (much of which probably took place in the 14th century BC if at all).

At the time though they were thought as plagues to explain things.

So far I have saw no evidence for their god whatsoever.

Afterlife? Seriously doubt it.

Enjoy what's in front of me? I will.

 

[steve_bank]

When have there not been plagues, famines, and natural disasters?

 

[FievelJ]

When have there not been plagues, famines, and natural disasters?

Often but not brought on by some god is my point.

 

[Politesse]

These so called biblical plagues from the Christian bible have been proved to be at least some sort of natural weather Phenomenon.

Proved, were they?

 

[steve_bank]

When have there not been plagues, famines, and natural disasters?

Often but not brought on by some god is my point.

I believe even Newton resorted to god of the gaps.

If you look through our modern sciemce back thousands of years you may feel superior but humans evolve over time. Unless yiu believe we humans are born with a priori knowledge of reality we learn in large part by trial and error. Imagine something and test it.

As humans evolved imagining a god or creator was a perfectly logical and reasonable conclusion. The problem today is obviously clinging to absent myths in the face of modern science.

You can not expect ancient people to have our modern sensibilities. If you expect ancient people to have acted as we do today then it will never make sense.

 

[skepticalbip]

When have there not been plagues, famines, and natural disasters?

Often but not brought on by some god is my point.

I believe even Newton resorted to god of the gaps.

Newton certainly admitted to being baffled by what gravity was even though he was able to very accurately describe gravity's effect on matter. What gravity's effect is and what gravity is are two very different questions. I don't think I would call a statement that amounts to, "I don't understand what gravity is" an appeal to god. I read it more as a resignation that the question would have to be answered by someone else.

 

[FievelJ]

Newton discovered a few of them.
Momentum and also the third law of motion.

How gravity works is maybe where he was stumped?

 

[skepticalbip]

Newton discovered a few of them.
Momentum and also the third law of motion.

How gravity works is maybe where he was stumped?

I'm not sure what you mean by "how gravity works". Newton's universal law of gravitation was good enough to understand and predict the orbits of planets and to allow NASA to put satellites into specific orbits and rovers on the Moon and Mars. It was also good enough to plan gravity assist fly-bys of planets to increase the speed of our deep space probes. All done by applying Newton's universal law of gravitation. He understood "how gravity works" but couldn't figure out what gravity is. It is sorta like someone can describe precisely the effects of a wasp's sting without knowing what a wasp is.

Newton had the same problem Einstein originally had of not knowing what gravity was... both saw it as "action at a distance" which physics doesn't allow. Einstein solved the problem by describing spacetime as a fabric that can be bent and twisted by matter so gravity was a bending of spacetime. The Sun makes a large bend in spacetime and planets move through this spacetime following a straight line through the bent spacetime... sorta like a marble moving in circle around the inside of a bowl. Newton's concept of space as nothing but distance between objects made understanding of gravity impossible. Einstein's acceptance of a spacetime being as real as matter allowed him to offer an understanding of what gravity was.

There is a saying in physics that mass tells spacetime how to bend and spacetime tells mass how to move.

 

[FievelJ]

Newton discovered a few of them.
Momentum and also the third law of motion.

How gravity works is maybe where he was stumped?

I'm not sure what you mean by "how gravity works". Newton's universal law of gravitation was good enough to understand and predict the orbits of planets and to allow NASA to put satellites into specific orbits and rovers on the Moon and Mars. It was also good enough to plan gravity assist fly-bys of planets to increase the speed of our deep space probes. All done by applying Newton's universal law of gravitation. He understood "how gravity works" but couldn't figure out what gravity is. It is sorta like someone can describe precisely the effects of a wasp's sting without knowing what a wasp is.

Yeah that's more correct. LOL.

Newton had the same problem Einstein originally had of not knowing what gravity was... both saw it as "action at a distance" which physics doesn't allow. Einstein solved the problem by describing spacetime as a fabric that can be bent and twisted by matter so gravity was a bending of spacetime. The Sun makes a large bend in spacetime and planets move through this spacetime following a straight line through the bent spacetime... sorta like a marble moving in circle around the inside of a bowl. Newton's concept of space as nothing but distance between objects made understanding of gravity impossible. Einstein's acceptance of a spacetime being as real as matter allowed him to offer an understanding of what gravity was.

There is a saying in physics that mass tells spacetime how to bend and spacetime tells mass how to move.

Just going to say that's kind of cool.

 

[Swammerdami]

I'm not sure what you mean by "how gravity works". Newton's universal law of gravitation was good enough to understand and predict the orbits of planets and to allow NASA to put satellites into specific orbits and rovers on the Moon and Mars. It was also good enough to plan gravity assist fly-bys of planets to increase the speed of our deep space probes. All done by applying Newton's universal law of gravitation.

Are you sure? Einstein's and Newton's theories give different results for non-trivial orbital calculations. The differences are usually minuscule but I would have thought that engineers would use the better equations, especially for maneuvers like a Jovian slingshot. Maybe not — the difference is usually very very tiny.

The precession of Mercury's orbit (caused mainly by Jupiter's gravitational influence) is slightly faster than predicted by Newton's equations. It was Albert Einstein himself who did the calculation (without computer aid obviously) using his own equations and accounted for the discrepancy. He said that this result — which vindicated his General Theory — gave him heart palpitations.

 

[skepticalbip]

I'm not sure what you mean by "how gravity works". Newton's universal law of gravitation was good enough to understand and predict the orbits of planets and to allow NASA to put satellites into specific orbits and rovers on the Moon and Mars. It was also good enough to plan gravity assist fly-bys of planets to increase the speed of our deep space probes. All done by applying Newton's universal law of gravitation.

Are you sure? Einstein's and Newton's theories give different results for non-trivial orbital calculations. The differences are usually minuscule but I would have thought that engineers would use the better equations, especially for maneuvers like a Jovian slingshot. Maybe not — the difference is usually very very tiny.

Exactly. "The difference is very tiny" even when dealing with something with the mass of a star and Jupiter's mass is about a thousand times less... Sorta like a surveyor doesn't account for the curvature of the earth when laying out a ten acre sub-division... the difference between the results of assuming plainer geometry rather than spherical geometry would be so small as to be meaningless.