POSITIVE CLAIMS IN RELEGION vs INTERPRETIVE FLEXIBILITY

then why was the timeframe referred to as "days"? btw is god subject to time?

as for god being subject to time: personally, no. for him to be the first cause, the beginning, the end and eternal as he says he is i don't think so.

My point exactly. Myths are palatable as facts to those who can't understand them fully. But once that threshold of knowledge is crossed, they need to be reinterpreted as myths or metaphors.

more often that not, religious problem start because what was obviously supposed to be a metaphor is taken for a fact.

The hard law of cause and effect. Nothing happens by chance or design. Everything happens because of something else happened. If nothing happens, then nothing happens in response

also, if there really were infinite chains of causes/effects then how has the present moment come about? wouldn't infinite mean that this present moment wouldn't come about?

and lastly, even if there's rigid cause/effect, does it neccessarily have to be deterministic in nature? to me, personally, the idea of cause and effect is altogether uneffected by there being a higher purpose in it all. the whole chain itself is all there is.

Now is the present, and the present never changes; it is eternal. Everything else in the universe changes from moment to moment, but the present does not change. In other words, the fundamental "now" is like a screen with reality projected onto it. Cause and effect is like the frame by frame pictures on the movie reel. We see the movie as it is projected onto the screen, but in reality the movie exists all at one time on the reel.

but then i get rattled when you add the two together: if present is the only truth and time is an illusion, then all the bad things from the past are still around right?

Originally posted by Sado22
and lastly, even if there's rigid cause/effect, does it neccessarily have to be deterministic in nature? to me, personally, the idea of cause and effect is altogether uneffected by there being a higher purpose in it all. the whole chain itself is all there is.

Well now you're just arguing something different. You can have determinism and God (with God being what determines what happens) but you cannot have determinism and free will.

Originally posted by Sado22
more often that not, religious problem start because what was obviously supposed to be a metaphor is taken for a fact.

Ergo, most organized religions. Couldn't agree more.

Originally posted by Sado22
okay so the basic difference is that while vedic cultures allow for an infinite series of chains and events, judeo-christian religions shoot themselves in the foot by saying that god is the original cause of this series of cause and effect...am i right?

Not quite. Christian concepts of free will allow for human "choice" within the universe that is not predetermined. So it's not just at the universe's inception.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well now you're just arguing something different. You can have determinism and God (with God being what determines what happens) but you cannot have determinism and free will.

👆

Originally posted by King Kandy
But why do you take it's word on empirical things like time?

The simultaneous of cause and effect agrees with things I have read in theoretical physics about time.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That it's based on repeatable objective facts and research?

The Lotus Sutra is not a math book, and that was not the point I was getting to. The Lotus Sutra is one of the highest teachings of Buddha. Some people have said it was the king of sutras (sutra = teaching). The philosophy based on the Lotus Sutra is one that works.

Originally posted by Sado22
more often that not, religious problem start because what was obviously supposed to be a metaphor is taken for a fact.

Religion should stop trying to do empirical science's job.

This thread asks a good question. Personally, I think if scientific facts are foretold in scripture and later accidently discovered by a secular scientists, that that would legitimize what the scripture says more than if a believer went on a scientific journey only to prove his belief.

For example: the expansion of the universe wasn't discovered by science until the 20th Century, and most Muslims believe the following verse mentions it: And the Heavens; We have built them with power and verily We are expanding them. -The Koran 51:47. So if the Koran really mentions a scientific fact that wasn't discovered for 1,300 years it seems to give more points to its reliablity than if some Muslim extremist had set out with a telescope and then published his findings in the name of God.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
This thread asks a good question. Personally, I think if scientific facts are foretold in scripture and later accidently discovered by a secular scientists, that that would legitimize what the scripture says more than if a believer went on a scientific journey only to prove his belief.

For example: the expansion of the universe wasn't discovered by science until the 20th Century, and most Muslims believe the following verse mentions it: [b]And the Heavens; We have built them with power and verily We are expanding them. -The Koran 51:47. So if the Koran really mentions a scientific fact that wasn't discovered for 1,300 years it seems to give more points to its reliablity than if some Muslim extremist had set out with a telescope and then published his findings in the name of God. [/B]

Sorry, but that is postdiction. The word expanding can mean more then one thing in the verse.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry, but that is postdiction. The word expanding can mean more then one thing in the verse.

The original Arabic word is masood, meaning "expanding" or "stretching". So what do you think "Stretching the Heavens" means?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The original Arabic word is masood, meaning "expanding" or "stretching". So what do you think "Stretching the Heavens" means?

It could mean a lot of things. They could have even been right. But that does not mean that they understood the significance of that fact and how is applies to our knowledge about the expanding universe. You are jumping a chasm.

It could mean a lot of things. They could have even been right. But that does not mean that they understood the significance of that fact and how is applies to our knowledge about the expanding universe. You are jumping a chasm.

not refering to you directly, shakya-god-how-do-you-pronounce-this, but speaking generally.

Originally posted by Sado22
...

not refering to you directly, shakya-god-how-do-you-pronounce-this, but speaking generally.

Shakyamuni

(Pronunciation: "SHAHK-yah-moo-nee"😉 The Historical Buddha, who lived in the 6th Century B.C.

Then add son.

SHAHK-yah-moo-nee-son

i thought his name was Siddhartha 😕
and you didn't respond to my question.

Originally posted by Sado22
i thought his name was Siddhartha 😕
and you didn't respond to my question.

It's just like the pope:

The man has a real name: Joseph Ratzinger
He has a ceremonial name: Benedict XVI
and we call him the pope

Siddhartha is his real name
Shakyamuni is his ceremonial name
and we call him Buddha

You asked me a question?

Originally posted by Sado22
well, its curious how people generally insist that bible and quran be taken literally when they says "six days of creation" but insist on other interpretations when they come across things that are in line with scientific discovery. its saying 'stretching/expanding the universe and now everyone wants it to mean something else? sure it could mean something else, but why the double standards? why are we assuming that six days cannot mean anything else but six days but insist that "it is i who built this universe with power and it is i who am expanding it" could mean other things?...

Is this the question? Why do people have double standards? Is that what you are asking me?

yup.

Originally posted by Sado22
yup.

I have no idea. Why do people have a double standard?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
This thread asks a good question. Personally, I think if scientific facts are foretold in scripture and later accidently discovered by a secular scientists, that that would legitimize what the scripture says more than if a believer went on a scientific journey only to prove his belief.

For example: the expansion of the universe wasn't discovered by science until the 20th Century, and most Muslims believe the following verse mentions it: [b]And the Heavens; We have built them with power and verily We are expanding them. -The Koran 51:47. So if the Koran really mentions a scientific fact that wasn't discovered for 1,300 years it seems to give more points to its reliablity than if some Muslim extremist had set out with a telescope and then published his findings in the name of God. [/B]

Kind of what others have been saying. To crop a line from the Koran that is relatively ambiguous and certainly not rigid in its meaning or intent, then try to assert that it foretells a scientific fact, is a bit silly. Like I said earlier, say enough stuff, especially non-specific stuff that could be seen as scientific, and some of it will be true. It's inevitable, and similar examples could be found from multiple religious texts. But it doesn't mean that the line is divinely inspired religio-science. It just means that statistical probability is what we think it is.

The universe is expanding
The universe is contracting
The universe is static
The earth is the center of the universe
The earth is not the center of the universe
The universe is deterministic
"" not deterministic

At least 3 of those statements have to be true. And most religions have something to say about at least one of those topics. They have, at worst, a 1/3 of being right. Not exactly the longest odds.

I have no idea. Why do people have a double standard?

i've already explained the hebrew origins of the bible, the translation cockups and the fact that there was no sun at the time so how could it be 24-hour day anyway.