web analytics

Do Angels Exist ?

By Patrick Van Roy On July 2nd, 2020

Good Day everyone, the following is a piece by Kurt. He has asked several times, duped me once but has put together a piece on  a topic that he would like us to discuss rather than A News Story or a Political Football to kick around.

Guest Post by Kurt.

Angels that speak and do things is a character feature of The Holy Bible.

They appear at the beginning , all through the old and new testament and at the end . They even have names: Michael and Gabriel

 

In  the beginning 

Genesis 3:24
After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

At the end

Rev: 22:1

 

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb  …. down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life

 

14 Biblical facts about Angels

 

There is no scientific proof of Angels, is that because we don’t have instruments to detect them ? Might science have those instruments in the future?

we don’t know .. In the popular mind they’re like UFO’s. Some claim to have seen them. The shepherds around Bethlehem reported they had seen and heard from them and came running down to tell everyone . Christ’s Mother Mary and John the Baptist’s Mother Elizabeth claim to have heard from them .

Are we so ready to dismiss their accounts? Why do we do that ?

Many Artists  like William Blake painted them having wings. We read of battles in Heaven , where fallen angels led by Lucifer fight each other . Guardian Angels, Michael casting out the serpent angel, binding him a 1000 years .. so many angels.. we think of them as either good or fallen.

Can we enjoy them as part of creation, as an order of beings , who have a kingdom, a genus, a hierarchy, or do we have to pour scorn and ridicule on them and people who believe in  them,  because they don’t pass the scientific censors  snip ?

Can’t see them , hear them , or touch them or smell them , therefore they’re not Real, they don’t exist .. end of subject.

The white-coated tyrant in the laboratory is busy crossing them out of the book of life , destroying our dreams, our yearning, packing them away, finding colourless printed labels such as  “Fantasy” or “Unscientific”.

What do we lose when we do that? Part of our Culture, our Enrichment? our Imagination?
Where do Angels belong in 2020? Did they die, or did something is us die ?

 

 

Next post is on Miracles in the Bible – and we start getting serious
You won’t want to miss it 🙂

Colonel Kurtz

113 Responses to “Do Angels Exist ?”

  1. Holy cow.

    Someone call in Gaskin for this one.

  2. There is no scientific proof of Angels, is that because we don’t have instruments to detect them ? Might science have those instruments in the future?

    https://fallacyinlogic.com/appeal-to-ignorance-fallacy-definition-and-examples/

    Are we so ready to dismiss their accounts? Why do we do that ?

    Probably because of the link above. What you are asking is for people to believe without proof of existence.

  3. There are accounts of dragons, and of the Loch Ness monster.

    Are we so ready to dismiss these accounts?

  4. What you are asking is for people to believe without proof of existence.

    I believe they call that Faith.

  5. Most of you believe in Man changing the Climate without proof…..

  6. The white-coated tyrant in the laboratory is busy crossing them out of the book of life , destroying our dreams

    That’s utter nonsense.
    You really are anti-science Kurt.

  7. Patrick Van Roy,

    Most of you believe in Man changing the Climate without proof…..

    Patrick. Ignoring the mountains of evidence the prove mankind is influencing the climate, is not the same as no evidence existing.

  8. “Most of you believe in Man changing the Climate without proof…..”

    Well there is proof. An abundance of it.

    “The shepherds around Bethlehem reported they had seen and heard from them and came running down to tell everyone . Christ’s Mother Mary and John the Baptist’s Mother Elizabeth claim to have heard from them .”

    With out getting into the specifics of faith (which would enable a belief in Angels without evidence) I do have to question that statement. The shepherds around Bethlehem never reported anything. There is no Gospel according to Joe the Shepherd.

    Similarly Our Lady and Elisabeth never recorded anything. Never claimed anything. There is no Gospel according to either of them. No writings according to either of them. In both situations the visits by Angels were not claimed by Our Lady or Elisabeth, but by the writer of the Gospel of St Luke (who was writing almost a century after the events and likely never met either woman). It is also important to note that at least certain aspects, certainly of the nativity, as argued by the Gospel of St Luke, did not happen (the census of Quirinius for example).

  9. I believe they call that Faith

    It’s immaterial what it’s called it’s what Kurt is asking for.

    Most of you believe in Man changing the Climate without proof…..

    Except their is reams of proof, which a tiny minority of scientists disagree with. And no, I’m not going to have a protracted, elongated conversation on climate change.

  10. The Loch Ness monster is an interesting comparison. We know it doesn’t really exist but ‘Nessie’ has become real through time and folklore and the fact that we want her to exist. Nessie has become real because we have willed it. There ‘is’ a creature in that lake. It is part of our world now – so hey why can’t there be angels if we want them bad enough ? 🙂

  11. Now here’s a possibly celestial intervention. I just switched my TV on and pressing the wrong buttons by accident it clicked onto a radio channel – MAGIC – which I have never listened to before on my TV. Guess what was playing – Yes “There must be an Angel”…

    I’m convinced now !

  12. “Angels that speak and do things”

    “Can’t see them , hear them , or touch them or smell them”

    Which is it?

    “There is no scientific proof of Angels, is that because we don’t have instruments to detect them ?”

    But do have instruments that detect speaking and doing.

    They don’t detect anything because there is nothing speaking or doing to detect.

  13. I’m convinced now !

    Convinced of Magic FMs shitty playlist?

  14. All I know is they want to wear my red shoes.

  15. I believe in Angels, but then again I believe I have encountered actual demons so that must be said to qualify anything that I say on this topic.

    An Angels wings are always dripping blood……

    We live in the age of technology. I just had to get a new phone. SE 2020. It’s a 4 inch computer more powerful by a 1000 fold than the computers used to control the moon landings.

    So in this age to say you spoke to or saw an angel after their done laughing you’ll be told to check your meds.

    Though I have encountered demons in my life, creatures of pure evil. I’ve witnessed first hand the destruction of the lives they’ve touched. I have also witnessed miracles, but miracles are dismissed quicker than evil.

    Spend time with the addicted, you won’t doubt the existence of either.

  16. I know Mahons I used to be disgusted, but now I kinda just amused

  17. Yes, most everyone has a supercomputer in their pocket now.

    Many don’t realize how great these things are.

    And increasingly they are linked to watches so that both of them work as medical devices.

    Hugely positive advances

  18. https://www.apple.com/healthcare/

    Apple is all over this.

    I’m sure that Allan is against it.

  19. Spend time with the addicted, you won’t doubt the existence of either

    I’ve lived with the addicted Pat and those ‘demons’ that you speak of that I’ve witnessed have been actions driven by both mental illness and extreme addiction.

  20. Yes.

    Untreated mental illness is the most enormous thing here, and it is at the heart of so many of the problems spoken of.

    Including opioids, other drugs, and in my opinion, much of the poisonous anti police movement in this country

  21. Phantom.

    Check your Email mate.

  22. Patrick

    Spend time with the addicted, you won’t doubt the existence of either.

    I have, and I never saw any evidence for angels and demons.
    I did see troubled people with serious psychological problems though.

  23. Thanks pat 😊
    At work on break bbl

  24. Can’t you guys break out of the scientific stranglehold on your minds and just appreciate the beauty of some of this .. writers and poets arise!
    Yeats and the Imagination . Is he nutted off too then . Noel save us / them 🤣

  25. Dave – it was determined by physicists Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck that the electron auto-rotates at a speed exceeding light. Do you accept that the electron rotates and is a particle?

  26. Allan@Aberdeen,

    Dave – it was determined by physicists Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck that the electron auto-rotates at a speed exceeding light. Do you accept that the electron rotates and is a particle?

    Allan. As I keep telling you I’m not a scientist. Asking me complex scientific questions achieves nothing. And as for the electron, (possibly), moving faster than light, what does that prove? The universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.

  27. kurt,

    Can’t you guys break out of the scientific stranglehold on your minds and just appreciate the beauty of some of this .. writers and poets arise!
    Yeats and the Imagination . Is he nutted off too then . Noel save us / them 🤣

    Kurt.
    What makes you think I can’t applicate beauty, poetry and fluffy kittens?
    I have no problem with you believing in angels. (As long as they don’t start telling you to murder people.) You seem more closed minded that those you’re criticising.

  28. Dave – I didn’t state that the electron ‘moves’ faster than light as in a translation: it rotates faster than light. Anyway, the question was the least complex question imaginable so I’ll disengage

  29. “I believe in angels, something good in everything I see.”
    Abba.

  30. Allan@Aberdeen,

    Dave – I didn’t state that the electron ‘moves’ faster than light as in a translation: it rotates faster than light. Anyway, the question was the least complex question imaginable so I’ll disengage

    Ask me the question Allan, I don’t mind. It’s just that you’ve asked me how certain things can be possible previously, which I can’t answer. Or sometimes questions we currently have no answer to.

  31. Petr Tarasov,

    “I believe in angels, something good in everything I see.”
    Abba.

    “I’m loving angels instead.”
    Robbie Williams.

  32. Is kurt going to give us the answer to how many angels can dance at one time on the head of a pin ? 🙂

  33. Dave – the electron is a particle which rotates at very high velocity, exceeding at its ‘equator’ the velocity of light. Given that the electron is a particle and is rotating, a) what is it when it’s not rotating and b) where does the energy which imparts rotation come from?

  34. Angels must exist, because I used to love eating the delight they made when I was a child 🙂

  35. Dave I’m just going by your comment taking offense
    The one at 2:24 where you took umbrage as well as the last comment taking umbrage. Both comments were accusations. You’re coming across as pretty upright as compared to others on the thread .
    What’s going on with you ?

  36. Colm,

    Angels must exist, because I used to love eating the delight they made when I was a child 🙂

    My mate at school told me that Angel Delight was angel spunk.
    Mind you, he also told me dogs couldn’t look up. So I’m not sure I believe him.

  37. kurt,

    Dave I’m just going by your comment taking offense
    The one at 2:24 where you took umbrage as well as the last comment taking umbrage. Both comments were accusations. You’re coming across as pretty upright as compared to others on the thread .
    What’s going on with you ?

    I’m not uptight kurt. I don’t know why you think that.
    I’m just pointing out that you regularly come across as anti-science.
    Especially with totaly untrue acusations like:

    The white-coated tyrant in the laboratory is busy crossing them out of the book of life , destroying our dreams

    White coated tyrant! what, you mean people working on curing disease and improving our lives. And I can’t see how you can take offence at my last comment. Especially for a man who calls other people a c*nt as often as you do.

  38. Allan@Aberdeen

    Dave – the electron is a particle which rotates at very high velocity, exceeding at its ‘equator’ the velocity of light. Given that the electron is a particle and is rotating, a) what is it when it’s not rotating and b) where does the energy which imparts rotation come from?

    If that’s your least complex question I’d hate to see the complex ones mate.
    I genuinely can’t answer those questions.
    But from what I’ve read, isn’t and electron a particle and a wave.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

    Also, the laws that apply to our everyday reality don’t seem to apply when you get down to the atomic level so logic we use everyday doesn’t always apply. Such as with particle spin.

  39. Dave

    I think your mate at school would have had a great career as a food critic . I went through a phase of loving butterscotch angel delight to such an extent that I got sick with it one day after bunking of school and making and eating too much of it and then I could never face that flavour again.

    Even today I dislike butterscotch as a flavour so you can imagine what Angel’s bodily product it might conjure up for me 🙂

  40. Colm.

    You and me both!!! I absolutely adored Butterscotch Angel Delight. I also Loved Caramac ‘chocolate’.
    I used to love Pernod. Until I got so drunk on it I gave myself alcohol poisoning in my early twenties. For decades I couldn’t stand the smell of aniseed, never mind the taste.

  41. It looks like the general consensus is no, angel’s don’t exist 😊

    Just on a point of order: was it right or necessary for PaTroll to give this post the header that he did, where he states that Kurt ‘duped’ him? I think a guest post should be put up ‘as is,’ without any preceding comment, on the post itself or the person who wrote it. Anything else should be put in the comments section.

  42. Seimi

    Yes I found that ‘duped’ comment a bit out of place – especially with no explanation. Maybe kurt will address it.

    Dave – I loved Caramac too but I haven’t gone off that. Never liked Pernod. Vile stuff.

  43. kurt is a socialist. Believing that angels exist isn’t the maddest thing in his head.

  44. PS – Seimi , not necessarily. As I explained earlier in my Loch Ness Monster comment – some things ‘exist’ because we have made them exist. Nessie is real !

    In a sort of metaphysical way God and Angels exist because billions of humans over thousnads of years have willed them into existence !

  45. The post is the ” new Democrat hoax “?

  46. Colm
    I think it had to do with some post Kurt sent, where a lot of it was cut n paste or something. Harri kept going on about it (shocker I know!)
    The point stands though: I don’t think any post should have preceding comments by the person with posting rights. It’s an abuse of their posting power and the same as editing someone else’s post.

  47. I miss Harri. I know its only been a few days, but I want him back. Come on Harri, stop sulking, return to the fold and we will be gentle with you. 🙂

  48. The bat soup got to him at last?

  49. Colm
    As I said in a previous post, I take Billy Connolly’s side in this. He said, “if somebody believes in God, then God exists for that person.” It doesn’t bother me in any way if someone believes in God, and I don’t really bother getting into debates about the subject, because I don’t believe a consensus will be reached. It does annoy me at times though, when someone tries to convince me that God exists, and they try to convince me by using their own faith as evidence.

  50. Maybe he meant it when he said that he was going to F off? 😂

  51. Seimi.

    I’m also of the same opinion as Billy.

  52. Seimi,

    Maybe he meant it when he said that he was going to F off? 😂

    Like Arnie, He’ll be back.

  53. I think Patrick’s introduction is fine, after all he’s providing the opportunity to several folks whose beliefs are quite alien to him.
    As for the existence of Angels I’m not particularly concerned one way or the other. Billy Connolly usually has a thoughtful take on things, and I’d add I don’t care if someone doesn’t believe in God though it annoys me sometimes when they

  54. Try to convince me by their lack of faith.

  55. thanks Mahons.

  56. Patrick.

    Can you email me please.

  57. colm, seimi
    i think pat is referring to posts I’ve sent for consideration that were from palmer, but i’d always put the hyperlinks in, so I’m not sure what “duped” means myself .

    Dave,

    you regularly come across as anti-science.

    I don’t think that’s fair, you won’t find me denying climate change, or coronovirus
    am a graphs and charts man , science is incredibly important to our understanding of life .
    I’m interested in the limit of science and the gap between that and faith
    More in post number 2 , as promised

    White coated tyrant! what, you mean people working on curing disease and improving our lives

    I’m obviously pro science on diseases and cures , I work for the NHS, its my job to know about this in some degree; so I reject the assumption that I’m using “white-coated tyrant” to apply to medicine , that’s just a silly thing to extrapolate , going from the particular to the general, in this context doesn’t work, I do not claim it and it makes so sense to make that connection . Odd ?

    And I can’t see how you can take offence at my last comment. Especially for a man who calls other people a c*nt as often as you do.

    That was below the best , I use it rarely you got me mixed up with a someone else
    where is the hostility coming from Dave? That’s quite a full frontal attack, very loaded I’d really like to know , are you hostile to the post, to me ? what ?

  58. kurt

    I don’t think that’s fair, you won’t find me denying climate change, or coronovirus
    am a graphs and charts man , science is incredibly important to our understanding of life .

    Yes kurt. but those two examples don’t contradict your creationist beliefs.
    when it comes to say, evolution and cosmology, your acceptance of science soon changes.

    I’m interested in the limit of science and the gap between that and faith
    More in post number 2 , as promised

    As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, there is no ‘gap’. science and faith address two completely different things. Look up the definition of the word faith mate.

    White coated tyrant! what, you mean people working on curing disease and improving our lives

    so I reject the assumption that I’m using “white-coated tyrant” to apply to medicine , that’s just a silly thing to extrapolate , going from the particular to the general, in this context doesn’t work, I do not claim it and it makes so sense to make that connection . Odd ?

    So scientists are okay when they’re doing medical research kurt? Scientists are only, ‘White coated tyrants’ when they’re at odds with your religious belief. Got it.

    That was below the best

    I agree, it’s not my best but it’s still pretty good. And factual.

    where is the hostility coming from Dave? That’s quite a full frontal attack, very loaded I’d really like to know , are you hostile to the post, to me ? what ?

    kurt. Can you cut out this repeated accusation that I’m being hostile when I’m quite obviously not. It’s getting very tiring. If your too much of a snowflake to have a robust conversation, then stop engaging with me.

  59. Allan, I might regret asking this but I’m intrigued, why were you asking me questions about electrons, (that I couldn’t answer?)

  60. Dave – the electron is a rotating particle, energy of rotation coming from the fluid surrounding it and everything. The electron’s rotation is brought to a halt by contact with its anti-particle, the positron which is an electron that spins in the opposite direction thus having same mass but opposite charge. These two particles, when brought together, eliminate each other’s rotation (and mass and charge) in the same manner as clutch plates on two oppositely-rotating flywheels eliminate each other’s angular momentum when brought together – they cease to rotate BUT the momentum is converted to heat (electromagnetic energy) just as mass of electron/positron is eliminated releasing radiation (electromagnetic energy): matter /anti-matter

    The electron and positron, when no longer rotating, are photons

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron%E2%80%93positron_annihilation

    and the photon is also a particle which, because it is not rotating in the surrounding energetic fluid, has no discernable mass. The fluid supports all frequencies and under the correct conditions (in stars), shall cause rotation of photons thus creating ponderable matter. Here is an example of how vibration induces rotation:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwry1yUJTH4

    In this video, Dr- Jaynes conducts experiments to reproduce the motor action of intense sound and ultrasound waves to rotate a spherical ball bearing.

    The wave/particle duality of light is analagous to the wave/particle duality of sound – a wave transmitted by particles. For sound, the particles are atoms whilst for electromagnetic waves (light, radiation) the particles are photons.

    The point of this is to show that the ether is real and if it’s real, then what is it?

    http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_8.htm

    Extracts from an article by Dirac, Nature, 1951, vol. 168, pp. 906-907

    “Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905,
    notably by the arrival of quantum mechanics, and
    the situation [about the scientific plausibility
    of aether] has again changed. If one examines the
    question in the light of present-day knowledge,
    one finds that the aether is no longer ruled out
    by relativity, and good reasons can now be
    advanced for postulating an aether. . . .

    We can now see that we may very well have an aether,
    subject to quantum mechanics and conformable to
    relativity, provided we are willing to consider a
    perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not
    attainable in practice.

    From the experimental point of view there does not
    seem to be any objection to this. We must make
    some profound alterations to the theoretical idea
    of the vacuum. . . . Thus, with the new theory of
    electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an
    aether”

    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/176727/was-nikola-tesla-right-about-his-ether-theory

    Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.

    https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/

    Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.

    So there it is – Dirac, Tesla and Einstein all agree that the ether exists and must exist. The ether, the field of non-material is as variable as material fields and thus the possibility of non-material ‘life’ has to be considered for example, where do our souls go to on death of the material body?

  61. Dave some scientists are Moore reasonable when it comes to mattes of faith other are downright hostile .
    Dawkins for example is a white coated tyrant full of invective irascibility and bile towards those of a different discipline than his own . I’d say that explains your hostility on this thread yes .
    The god of our modern day namely science is an angry one and obtuse one as are it’s followers . Funny really as they excuse themselves all the time and make stupid up like dark matter when they don’t know where the marital of the mass in the universe come some . Fairy tales are ok in science but not in religion that’s your tyranny right there.

  62. Some auto text in the above as on phone
    That was pretty cool Allan the stuff about ethers
    I remember buying some in my uni days ostensibly to clean photographic lenses but in reality it was so I could get off my face . Along with several others a lawyer a biochemist and a philosophy major . All good clean fun . Ether is 100% pure . A graduates choice For the glue sniffing fiend . You might like to try it Allan 😂

  63. Some of the most intelligent and wisest people through history believed in angels. Consider that when reading the opinions of those of lesser intelligence and wisdom.

  64. That’s interesting NYer could you give us a few names . I’ve seen Dawkins a number of tines on screen and he sure does turn purple when asked about biblical matter . Face like a slapped arse . The gammon of academia perhaps or one of the heads of the multi headed beast . Who knows everyone and his uncle had an interpretation of who is the best in revelations . Threes many who think is trump but Obama comes close when the factor in the uneducated .

  65. interesting conversation just want to add my two cents. I’ve been labeled by Dave and Peter as a creationist and I find that both amusing and angering.

    I am a man of deep religious belief, I believe in God, Angels, Demons, and Spirits. I can also make a convincing argument that what we call myths Dragons, elves, fairies, and giants actually did exist in ancient history.

    I have also spent time as my first command in the military in a group called AFTAC their job was to monitor the Nuclear Arms treaty. They did that by being able to detect the detonation of a nuclear device anywhere on the planet and when these guys are done their scientific analysis they can tell you the color paint that was on the casing….. all through pure scientific analysis.

    I have a degree in Computer Science from the University of Pennsylvania. I’m a member of Mensa, and I’ve run several different divisions of a major international airport.

    Just because someone believes in somethings that are a matter of faith does not mean that they don’t understand or believe in science.

    Climate Science and as we just saw epidemiology science rely on Models. Models don’t work they’re flawed math that are the epitome of Garbage In, Garbage Out. You don’t know all the variables that’s why you never get the same answer twice.

    Science Demands you get the same answer every time. PERIOD. That’s how we learn, not by wild “Predictions” based in faulty math.

    The Sun controls the space, time, and environment in it’s gravitational influence. That includes the atmospheres and climates of all the planets in it’s control. That’s why the climate has been changing on Mars as well as Earth.

    The Star Betelgeuse very similar to our own over the past year has been dimming We thought. New deep space scans have revealed not that it was dimming, but that it had experienced a massive storm of sun spot that covered over a third of it’s surface.

    We don’t know what caused it, can it happen to our Sun? A storm of that magnitude would fry the surface of our planet and we don’t have the slightest clue to predict even small sun spots. Worry about that instead of your fake consensus.

    Now I am as you say a Creationist because I believe in god, but I’ll punch holes in your pseudo science of Climate Change with facts arrived at through the Scientific Method not because God or the Bible says that you are wrong, but because you’ve been sold a religion that can be scientifically proven a fraud.

  66. Hey Kurt,

    Any chance of an answer to my question?

    Do these angels “speak and do things”, or are they undetectable without instruments yet to be invented by “science”?

    There are things (people) outside my house right now that speak and do things and I don’t need special instruments to detect them. They woke me up.

  67. Strong arguments Patrick. The one factor that makes me agnostic as opposed to atheist is that I am aware that human’s cannot claim to know ‘The Universe’ and all that makes it up – we can only claim to know the limits of human ability. Our entire known universe and all its metaphysical attributes that we are aware of might well exist as a small spec of space under the fingernail of a giant creature whose size dwarfes our ability to ‘see’ its existence. In the same way that an ant walks around on this planet but has no ability to be aware of the earth’s existence or dimensions.

    We can never know everything because we can never be sure what everything is !

  68. hi Frank,
    apologies i was bogged down with a hostile 😉
    My point on the speaking of Angels is: the bible is full of 1st hand and 2nd hand accounts of communication through Angels. Eye-witness, dreams,vision,auditory yet they are treated in a different category that causes alarm in some quarter . the other bit i wrote was a general idea of what do do with information we cannot compute through a scientific lens. Its gets put in the recyclable bins. you might detect a note of lamentation from my side that this is how we muzzle things that disturb our minds ..

  69. colm I like that, and we have quite a lot of foot-stamping ants convinced that science is the only plausible model for knowing shit . and boy do they wanna give us a piece of their mind when something outside the realms of science comes up.
    Dawkins the tyrannic ant leader and his loyal minions marching up and down wearing those mini jackboots you can buy at ant-shops 😉

  70. Colm,

    “The one factor that makes me agnostic as opposed to atheist is that I am aware that human’s cannot claim to know ‘The Universe’ and all that makes it up”

    But atheism is not a claim to know everything. It is a claim to have provisional knowledge about some things.

    For example if you take a tumble off the Empire State or the Burj Khalifa then you are more likely to plummet to your death at 9.8 meters per second squared than you are to be borne aloft by the wings of angels. There’s no hubris in saying so, nor is there in saying that things that seem like Bronze Age myths probably are.

    Similarly, sometimes people take psychotropic drugs and become convinced they can fly. These people would be better off listening to Bill Hicks than Billy Conolly, and have a trial run from the ground first.

  71. The accounts in the Bible cannot be reasonably treated as first or even second hand accounts as most were authored at least decades after the events. In fact some where written 1,000 years after the events.

    The Bible has value as a religious text. It was written as a religious text, and has purpose as a religious text. When it causes issues is when people try to repurpose it as something other than a religious text, repurposing it as actual history.

    And things shouldn’t be put in the bin because they can’t be scientifically verified. But there is a distinction between scientific facts and religious faith. The two are not the same, or of equal credence. One should be universal, as it doesn’t require faith to have it. Faith, for me anyway, fills in the gaps. It is also an intensely private matter.

    However, when science fills in those gaps where faith previously held the answers then it is appropriate to give due deference to science. If science definitively proves your belief wrong then drop the belief.

  72. Agnostic is not mid way point between atheist and theist. Atheism and theism is about what we believe. We either believe or don’t believe that there is a God etc… Agnosticism is about what we know. Every single person, if they were being intellectually honest, would be agnostic. Because we don’t know and likely can’t know.

    So I am an agnostic theist. I don’t know if there is a God but I believe there is one. Frank, for example, is an agnostic atheist. He doesn’t know if there is a God but doesn’t believe there is one.

  73. Kurt,

    “My point on the speaking of Angels is: the bible is full of 1st hand and 2nd hand accounts of communication through Angels.”

    Then what’s this about There is no scientific proof of Angels, is that because we don’t have instruments to detect them ? Might science have those instruments in the future?

    If we can’t detect angels now then how did the people of the Bronze Age manage it? I don’t see anything in the Bible about people busting out so much as an ear trumpet never mind some kind of futuristic oscilloscopes. Did Mary detect Gabriel via some kind of super large hadron collider that is somehow lost to antiquity?

    Also should we make of the accounts of angels in the Book of Mormon and Quran, or various solo headbangers? How do you select which tall tale to “have faith” in?

  74. However, when science fills in those gaps where faith previously held the answers then it is appropriate to give due deference to science. If science definitively proves your belief wrong then drop the belief.

    that makes sense seamus, Over the next couple of threads if pat permits I’m going to make the counter , where if science can prove much if not all of the bible as history, you’ll have to drop your objections .

    Just out of interest, which parts of the bible do you get your scissors out seamus as regards historical record .. Pontius Pilate for example is verified as a real historical figure does he pass the test ? How far back to you go . We know about King David and his city, does his colourful life story and his deeds as boy and king count as historical record? If not why not ? I’m interested what is left in your view when you chop the bible up like that . What do you say Fact or Fiction ?

    My Dad is a passionate pro-semite but when i talk to him about anything to do with the History of the people he claims he’s so enamoured by he gets all defensive.
    He’s quite happy to trash the whole book – bible, but the pharaohs and kings of Egypt are all fine by him . Finding by Israelis archaeologist about life in pre-Christian times is meet with incredulity, do you find there to be a bias and double standards as regards the Israelites?

  75. Frank I’m just surmising about standards of proof, as allan pointed out Angels might be able to be detected via instruments that detect the activity in the “ethers”, much like waves are invisible but we know they exist on the Electromagnetic spectrum : Gamma rays, X-Rays,micro-waves, radio waves . We utilise theses all the time .. Maybe Angels communicate via a wave frequency we don’t yet know about ..
    Here’s an inteesting tale, how tall is it to you ?
    This musician was playing, rather sweetly and the recordning picked up harmonies from a voice not present in the studio. When he got the tape analysed the verifier who is not a man of faith , joked with him saying it sounds like a 12 foot angel singing along in harmony in the background. Have a listen Jason Upton and an Angel – HD
    I’ve heard this guy Live , alas no angels, but the above is proof for some
    Its comes in after a few minutes, its very beautiful whatever it is

  76. God is really the name we give to “unknown powers” or phenomena. Scientists claim they know the origins of our universe – the Big Bang theory, but cannot explain how the tiny particle that ‘banged’ us into existence came into being itself. That is ‘God’. Throughout history humans have fashioned God into organised belief systems to try and make sense of the unknown and to be honest also to harness hierarchical power over populations. In a nutshell God is really just a generic term for “things we can’t explain”

  77. I’m open about the age of the Earth
    so definitely not a flat earther
    young earth / old Earth ?

    evolution is a nonsense, we have DNA, the coded instructions , inanimate matter cannot produce or make system instructions , coding ! This doesn’t just evolve by random chance, its impossible. So we have intelligent design .

    Did that mind make the Earth in 6000 years or over a longer period . Hot debate, that one
    maybe part IV thread ..

  78. “Just out of interest, which parts of the bible do you get your scissors out seamus as regards historical record .. Pontius Pilate for example is verified as a real historical figure does he pass the test ? How far back to you go . We know about King David and his city, does his colourful life story and his deeds as boy and king count as historical record? If not why not ? I’m interested what is left in your view when you chop the bible up like that . What do you say Fact or Fiction ?”

    Almost all of it must be treated (historically speaking) with suspicion. Yes certain things in the Bible probably did happen (and certain parts have been confirmed independently as part of the historical record). But the Bible is not a history text, nor was that ever its purpose. Thus using it as a history text would be inappropriate.

    And while individuals have appeared both in history and the Bible that does not lend historical credence to any of their actions or deeds in the Bible. Pontius Pilate for example is a real historical figure, but the Gospels would produce a broadly different characterisation of Pilate than the historical record would. Pilate of the Bible is largely depicted as a fearful, incompetent governor in thrall to the local Jewish leaders. Pilate of history is largely competent (of the 30 Roman governors of Judea only one lasted longer than Pilate – if he was as incomeptent and as weak as the Bible would portray it is hard to envisage Tiberius keeping him in position for three times the length of time of normal service), and brutally anti-Semitic (in the end he was actually removed from office for slaughtering a group of Samaritans).

    King David is not mentioned by the contemporary historical record. It is true that the actual, historically verified, Kingdom of Judah was ruled by the House of David. However the earliest inscription that speaks of the House of David was created maybe 200 years after the David lived (according to biblical tradition). The Books of Samuel, from where we get the David stories in the Bible, likely weren’t written until another 300 years after that (so 500 years after David’s life).

    The most likely scenario is that there was at some point a petty-chieftain in hills of Judea called David. And his descendants ruled that land for the next couple of centuries. And after becoming more powerful, and more important, his descendents, and their supporters, subsequently wrote a fanciful backstory for their dynasty. The story of David in the Bible cannot be reasonably relied on as history.

  79. “evolution is a nonsense, we have DNA, the coded instructions”

    DNA changes. It mutates. Evolution is, effectively, a series of genetic mutations. And the mutations that were useful survived, and thrived, and the mutations that weren’t useful died out.

  80. Seamus,

    “The Bible has value as a religious text. It was written as a religious text, and has purpose as a religious text. When it causes issues is when people try to repurpose it as something other than a religious text, repurposing it as actual history.”

    I’ve read this a few times and genuinely have no idea what it means, nor how to square it with statements like “his descendents, and their supporters, subsequently wrote a fanciful backstory for their dynasty”

    It’s no good as history….but a fanciful backstory has value has a religious text? I see.

    How is “having value as a religious text” different from being made up?

  81. “It’s no good as history….but a fanciful backstory has value has a religious text? I see.”

    Yes. Because the Bible should not be taken as historical truth it still paints a picture of the relationship between God and man. And that picture is religiously important, even if the scene it depicts is not historically true.

  82. seamus i’m really not sure what you’re getting at , you’ve accepted the probability that some if not all of the biblical figures existed, and we have accounts of their lives , maybe first hand maybe 2nd hand maybe writtern 20/50/100 years later . ..that is in itself a form of historical record.
    he OLD testament and new testament purport to be accounts of the life and times of the figures in it .. lets leave religion to one side for know .. just the historical record .

    Perhaps compare and contrast
    The Roman occupation of Great Britain up to 4th Century, in what way is that qualitatively different from the accounts of the Babylonia captivity that lasted 70 years in approx 540 BCE, where the biblical books of Ezra–Nehemiah set out the Jews returned to the Land of Israel from the Babylonian exile following the decree by the emperor Cyrus the Great, the conqueror of the Neo-Babylonian Empire also known as Cyrus’s edict.

    I’m not sure what you’re objecting to , if its not semantics then what might it be ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity#Archaeological_and_other_non-Biblical_evidence

  83. DNA changes. It mutates. Evolution is, effectively, a series of genetic mutations. And the mutations that were useful survived, and thrived, and the mutations that weren’t useful died out.

    seamus you have to account for how DNA came to exist in the fist place

  84. Seamus,

    Why is it religiously important and just how wrong would it have to be before it wasn’t?

    Also why pick the Bible for that and not one of many other books which have just as good claims to inaccuracy and fanciful invention, and also paint pictures of religion? For example the Book of Mormon, Sum: forty tales from the afterlives, the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the novelisations of Star Wars, or this important parable about kissing Hank’s ass?

    (Many of these also have the advantages of being better stories, as well as funnier and more enjoyable than the sadistic horror stories and tales of genocide, rape and human sacrifice found in the bible.)

  85. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Hebrew_Bible

  86. I’ve climbed knocknarea many times in Sligo , its interesting that we know quite a a good deal about her, http://www.queenmaeve.org/ she’s part of the history of Ireland and the life and times of the people that lived there over millenia.

    is there someone sitting at a desk going through these records and deciding where to classify them : Fact, fiction legend, Myth .. and if some new evidence appears are they swapping them out from folders and on on. Is this what you mean seamus ?

  87. The Bible certainly contains tales of woe, inconsistent passages and sections that are not pleasant reading. But it also contains passages that have been the inspiration for that which is good in this world. It is clearly the greatest literary inspiration for countless authors and poets.

  88. Certainly mahons and we miss that revelation when we’re stuck in the dusty back office combing through the archives searching for the pebbles that slew Goliath in order for the censors to be satisfied.

    Correction : evolution is a fact in as much as day the horse and dog have a common ancestor. But the big bang claims and origins of life on earth have to posit life happened by accident in the primordial soup bit like an Irish stew .
    Magically that all came together and made first living things and we appeared some time later .
    It’s an attractive idea
    Trouble is it’s complete nonsense
    The reason is because DNA is code a set of instructions so complex that it can’t be created out of nothing either via inanimate matter or animate matter .
    To say a few amino acids came together by chance to form a protein molecule or something and that became living material is just not possible.
    Cells have unique DNA instructions programmed into them . This is not the work of nature. The coding had to have been placed in there by intelligent design . That’s just a fact as I’m sure Dave will confirm when he’s in a good mood 😉

  89. Am thinking the reference to Irish stew just might find Noel somewhere in the ethers and he might find his way to this thread . Telepathy .I haven’t got his Tel number .. 😀

  90. kurt

    If your reference to Irish stew doesn’t tempt Noel onto the thread, perhaps your mention of Primordial soup could bring Harri back in… especially if you throw a bat into it 🙂

  91. Allan.

    So there it is – Dirac, Tesla and Einstein all agree that the ether exists and must exist.

    Some of your links are interesting, thanks. The ether has been defined as many different things over the years. I suppose it could be defined as particle interaction in so called empty space. Could it be defined as dark matter or energy. To assume it has some kind of sentience, (as in a higher being), would require proof.
    I found your links in a previous conversation we had about minds, and data, existing outside of the human brain interesting. Although again, there is no proof for this.

    where do our souls go to on death of the material body?

    You seem to be assuming the existence of a soul, for which there is no evidence.

  92. Colm

    The one factor that makes me agnostic as opposed to atheist is that I am aware that human’s cannot claim to know ‘The Universe’ and all that makes it up

    Atheism and agnosticism are not what you think they are mate. They are not mutually exclusive.
    Atheism is just a lack of belief in a God or Gods. Not stating as a fact they don’t exist.

  93. Colm,

    God is really the name we give to “unknown powers” or phenomena. Scientists claim they know the origins of our universe – the Big Bang theory, but cannot explain how the tiny particle that ‘banged’ us into existence came into being itself

    Ahh, the God of the gaps argument. Science can’t explain it therefore God. They used to say that about the lightening before we understood what causes it. And science has many theories about before the big bang. Such as the collapse of an existing universe. Perhaps the universe multiverse is eternal.

  94. Fair enough Dave – I suppose its a spectrum really from certain unyielding Faith to ‘wobbly’ faith, with agnostics in the middle then degrees of tentative to convinced atheism. Some atheists will claim its a FACT that God does not exist. They don’t just have a lack of belief in God, they are convinced deities do not exist.

  95. Perhaps the universe multiverse is eternal.

    Now you’re just making my brain hurt 🙂

  96. If your reference to Irish stew doesn’t tempt Noel onto the thread, perhaps your mention of Primordial soup could bring Harri back in… especially if you throw a bat into it 🙂

    lol that’s funny, Harri maybe busy on his article ‘black on black crime’, he might trace back to Ethiopa and declare: blacks are the first humans and therefore God is Black , and have a volte-face ; you just never know 😉

    its an interesting thread, thank you gentlemen ( not saying its over )
    I want to pursue some of this in the next one “Exodus”
    whre we’ll look at proof/evidence/historicity/
    I’ve got a banquet ready for you so hold onto yer hats

    Jesus was quite specific about ( signs and wonders )
    I wonder if he thinks the following about our generation:

    “Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but not the signs of the times! A wicked and adulterous generation demands a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah”. Matt 16:4

    and on that bombshell, cheerio

  97. We await your next tablet from on high Kurt 😉

  98. Dr. Francis Collins who is Director of the US National Institute of Health and former head of the human genome project has written:

    Science tells us the How, Philosophy and Theology tell us the Why.

    If you agree with Dr. Collins some of the confusion in many of the above comments will be clarified. The subject of this post,ie angels, is a philosophical and theological subject and not a scientific one. On questions of evidence regarding angels passing a scientific test is irrelevant because philosophical and theological evidential tests would apply.

  99. Colm,
    //Some atheists will claim its a FACT that God does not exist. They don’t just have a lack of belief in God, they are convinced deities do not exist.//

    Yes. People like Richard Dawkins muddy the waters with their definitions of strong and weak atheism. I don’t think it’s helpful to redefine atheism in this way.
    The antitheist position to claim as fact that a god or gods don’t exist, is no different to Theists claiming as fact that they do.

    //Now you’re just making my brain hurt //

    I know what you mean mate. I’m really interested in subjects such as string theory and atomic physics, but a lot of that stuff is incredibly difficult to wrap your head around.

  100. The Gospel According to Kurt.

  101. “On questions of evidence regarding angels passing a scientific test is irrelevant because philosophical and theological evidential tests would apply.”

    Similar on questions of evidence regarding fairies at the bottom of the garden, passing a scientific test is irrelevant because philosophical and fairyological evidential tests would apply.

    This is why you should always consult a fairyologist before mowing the lawn.

  102. yeah Frank, you’re right. It doesn’t stop scientists hollering like Dawkins, going outside his field. Make no mistake they want to be the gatekeepers of ALL knowledge and eradicate anything that doesn’t fit their paradigms.

    haha colm, the tablets are coming
    not many people know that Moses bust the first set
    its what you might call a cosmic cock-up

    “The Lord said to Moses, “Cut two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.” Ex 34

    oops , fortunately he got it right 2nd time round

    coming soon

    Exodus

  103. God to Moses “I am going to give you Commandments.”
    Moses “How much will they cost?”
    God “They are free.”
    Moses “I’ll take ten.”

  104. Plenty of scientists also believe in God, I don’t think it is an either or situation.

  105. I saw a few fairies at the bottom of my garden once…

    I shooed them away and told them the cruising area was actually in the park across the road.. 🙂

  106. apparently one of Christs best side-splitting moments for his followers was when he said
    “Its easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle , than it is for a rich-man to enter the kingdom of heaven”
    I enquired about it and was informed that that kind of rabbi : slap bang wallop cut n thrust exchange in public is very much part of the oral tradition in Judaism; quick witted replies , none better that imagining a camel going through an eye of a needle .. a slam dunk , back of the net ..

  107. Jesus would have done well on twitter !

  108. he would colm, ever since he started his ministry the priests of the day did everything they could to trap him; he flipped it on them every time, till they raged and raged and finally set him up for execution . ( envy being the motive )

    two greats examples , when they were about to stone the prostitute

    “he who is without sin , let him cast the first stone ” – a blinder

    trapping him about paying the unfair tax to Caesar

    “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is gods – hole-in-one

    He aced them .. 🙂

  109. kurt

    You are easily aced 🙂

  110. i guess so
    i had a comeback saying i was the ace of spades, but whitesnake beat me to that
    just have to be deuces , or the joker in the pack 😉

  111. err, that was Motorhead kurt. Any angel could have told you that 🙂

  112. Lol guess ain’t hearing so good

  113. Kurt

    Cells have unique DNA instructions programmed into them . This is not the work of nature. The coding had to have been placed in there by intelligent design . That’s just a fact as I’m sure Dave will confirm when he’s in a good mood 😉

    As an expert in computer code, I can confidently point out the fact that DNA is NOT like a computer program.

    https://medium.com/the-philipendium/is-dna-like-a-blueprint-a-computer-program-or-a-list-of-ingredients-1484b34a9121