The human race has learned much since the Bronze Age. The religious mentality seems determined to forget it.

Do you have any proof to corroborate your hypothesis?

It seems to me that you consider yourself more intelligent that the people that existed thousands of years ago, yet, I think that you or I can not construct a *myth* that will last a year, let alone a thousand or more.

I have not seen any evidence that the people three thousand years ago had any less brain capacity than we have today. The people that wrote the *myth* as you called it, had to be able to read and write, and that is something that some people even today can not do.

I do not see the reason why you consider it *absurd* to point out that there is a relationship between the words “heaven” and “space” or “mass” and “earth” or “light” and “energy.” Does earth not contain mass and is light not energy?

To believe that creation is the result of a conscious intelligence is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, but certainly not an established fact.

To then conclude that some three thousand year old Middle Eastern myths and a first century Hellenistic cult have anything to do with this is not reasonable at all.

And to claim that you have stumbled onto meaningful evidence of all this in a few misquoted and misinterpreted science articles in Wikipedia and their alleged resemblance to twentieth century Christianity is laughably absurd.

YOU are the one who has the burden of proof because you are the one making the extraordinary claims.

I don’t have to prove that Santa Claus does not exist. I don’t have to prove anything.

In fact, since I am very well aware of the limitations of my senses, as well as the inadequacy of my reasoning, I would not presume to know anything for certain.

I am not ridiculing your beliefs, I am ridiculing the certainty with which you present them. You want to believe so badly you do not realize how obvious it is to others.

Would you not agree that if the content of “science” = truth, and the content of “scriptures” = truth, then “truth” = the content of science and scriptures?

It seems to me that you have total faith in the scientific method of doing things and consider scriptures as of very little value.

For instance, about the existence of Jesus, you say: “The only evidence of his existence comes from the books that claim he was a divine being, so obviously they can’t be considered reliable testimony as to his existence or his attributes.”

You use the word “ obviously” in a way that would indicate that you have scientific evidence which proves that “a divine being” can not exist. Could you present that proof here?
Alternately, could you explain your understanding of divinity?

As for my, “faith,” it is very simple. I believe that the essential ingredients of space (1), mass, (2) and energy (3) throughout the universe was created by an infinite intelligence.

There should be no need for justification to the observation that space, mass, and energy exist, and that they exist simultaneously in everything that is in the universe.

The question then is: What was IT that caused the trinity of space, mass, and energy to come into existence? If the imagined highly dense mass of the big bang appeared by magic out of nothing, then there must have been a magician that caused the event to occur, not only that, if such a big bang occurred it would have had a very high entropy, the question then is: What started the decrease in entropy, so that life could exist?.

Paragraph 2. I have no idea what your’re talking about.

Paragraph 3. Yes, Jesus was a person, like you or I, but that is all we know about him. That is, IF he even existed at all. We really don’t know for sure. The only evidence of his existence comes from the books that claim he was a divine being, so obviously they can’t be considered reliable testimony as to his existence or his attributes.

“Jesus in E = mc^2″. I would prefer we not use scripture as reference. It cannot be trusted to be an unbiased source. For one thing, none of the scriptural accounts seems to have been written during his lifetime. We can’t even say for sure they were written by anyone who knew him, or even by any of his contemporaries, and none were signed by their authors. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were designated by tradition as authors of the Gospels long after Jesus’ death. I suspect they are highly edited documents compiled from multiple sources. Surely, there must be some other account, some alternative history, some other documentary information about him that could be used to corroborate the scriptures.

Jesus is a lot like God, even if he actually existed, we know absolutely nothing about him, and we shouldn’t be talking about him as if we did. It is perfectly legitimate to discuss his philosophy, or his effect on history, but his biography is totally speculative.

But you can’t expect anyone to accept your plundering of physics as a source of evidence to justify your faith. If it were that obvious, I’d see it too.

On the other hand; the zero radius sphere would be a perfect description for a electron’s wave motion when it is in the *through* position of the wave or pulsation.

Jesus in E = mc^2: Same as you and I, Jesus was a person who was and is part of the universe. Mass and energy can not be destroyed, although, according to science, some quantity can be converted from one to another,.
Equavelent concept is explained in the scriptures, but according to your philosophy we can not use those books for reference, and you would not want to hear about them any way.

You cannot use the Bible (or any other religious document)to demonstrate the validity of religious concepts. Religious texts can make no claim to divine inspiration, for all we know, they could be complete fabrications, deliberate frauds, or the ravings of madmen. You cannot use the Bible’s claim of divine authorship as proof of divine inspiration, and if there is no reason to accept Scripture as divinely inspired, then there is no reason to accept them as an authority on anything, much less theological matters. And without Scripture, religious thought resolves itself into nothing more than mere speculation and personal opinion.

Besides, not only do different religious texts conflict with one another, different religious sects often disagree and dispute violently the interpretation of any one religious text.

In other words, its all bullshit; nonsense for people afraid of death, or who need a high-falutin’ excuse to justify what they want to do anyway. The Habitable Zone has been plagued for too long with anomalism, we’ve had to put up with supernatural manifestations, psychic phenomena, political conspiracies, allegedly “self-evident” ideological axioms and elaborate theorems based on them, pseudoscience, cryptozoology, reincarnation, Atlantis, Bigfoot, the Bermuda Triangle and a host of other nonsense. Enough, already.

Its a free country, you’re entitled to believe anything you want, and even to argue whatever you think. But once you bring it up, you can’t complain if people respond with exactly what they think. Don’t get me wrong, we welcome “thinking out loud”, and throwing out wild ideas for common discussion or debate. After all, I do it often enough myself, that’s what a forum like HZ is for.

But we should never have the audacity to claim that any of our crazy ideas have to be true simply because we read them in a sacred book, or because we believe they sound just like something we read in another book. And we should certainly not let ourselves fall into the trap of selecting similar logical structures from other fields, like science, and claiming they are analogues or models of our religious superstitions in an effort to provide them with legitimacy. Maybe you see Jesus in E = mc^2, but I don’t. Not even close.

1) I was under the impression that you had seen the Einstein’s theory that indicates that mass and energy are convertible to each other trough the use of a constant which requires space in order to exist. Have you seen experiments where space (1), mass (2), and energy (3), do not coexist?

2) You say that: “There is absolutely no relation between science and the Christian religion, or any other religion–and I can prove it!” Then you say: “The Christian religion has been around for about two thousand years. Science based on observation and experiment is historically much more recent.”
Your statements only indicate that religious thought is much older that scientific thought. It does not *prove* that religious thoughts are in any way inferior to scientific thoughts, or that religious thoughts can not have scientific content.

About the concept of Trinity, you say: “The concept is not mentioned anywhere in scripture,”
It is true that the *word* is not mentioned, but the *concept* is generated in the beginning of the Bible.
“Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The word “heaven” has the scientific meaning of space, the word “earth” has the meaning of “mass” or “matter.” The third concept is energy which in Genesis is referred to as “light.”

In other words, the scripture says that all creation is made up of “heaven = 1, earth = 2, and light = 3,” Today scientists believe that mass (1) and energy (2) occupies all of space (3).

One thing I find interesting about the formal system of worship of God, with rules and regulations, rituals and scripture and ceremony, is that it has preserved very important books on history, thought and concepts that were present thousands of years ago.

You say: And just what IS sin, anyway?

I have not studied that aspect thoroughly, but I can form a quick opinion.

From my perspective of trying to unify scientific and religious concepts, I need to explain it in both *languages* so to speak:
From the religious view; I imagine that if you conduct your life according to the ten commandments then your chance of conducting a sin is minimal.

From the scientific perspective; If your actions increase entropy, then that is bad and can be considered as a sin.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&t=KJV

It is a shame that there are so many ways to understand the meaning of words.
It seems to me that people can not understand, or they misunderstand the concepts that are being presented by various words and therefore their understanding of each other suffers.

Thanks again for your input.