I don't believe you

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Unfortunately said:

Personally? I don't have the knowledge nor the ambition required to impact my life to such a massive degree trying to search for something as avidly as you propose.

I love arguments and debates regarding the issue because it's utterly fascinating but be sure not to misconstrue this with being enthused about actively searching for an answer in my everyday life. If there ends up being a god, awesome, it'll give me more things to think about. If there ends up being proof to the opposite then great, it really won't affect me much. 

In other words, the mountain must come to you.

[Unfortunately]

40 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

why does it have to be omnipotent? 

I believe that's just a poor choice of words, in reference to the christian god Yahweh. I should have just stated gods/deities, definitely an err on my part. 

[Unfortunately]

5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

In other words, the mountain must come to you.

No. In other words, the mountain can do what it likes because it isn't going to affect me much. I'll just occasionally look at it from a distance. 

[Unfortunately]

35 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Then if it can be tested and repeatedly verified personally, will that suffice?

 

 

To become verifiable evidence it needs to be repeatable regardless of who does the testing (i.e. objectively repeatable), so it can't be personal evidence. I should have stated that in my last post, sorry about that, didn't mean to omit such an integral part of the definition. 

[Habitat]

5 minutes ago, Unfortunately said:

No. In other words, the mountain can do what it likes because it isn't going to affect me much. I'll just occasionally look at it from a distance. 

Same thing though. You don't seem like a strident atheist at all, but some here who do bang on about demanding proof, seem not have been prepared to incommode themselves at all, in a strenuous search. One senses that this God must parade past them, while they take the salute. Perhaps they are confused who the God is, in this equation.

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, Unfortunately said:

I think I might live in a different Australia to you. 

MAybe. I use statistics personal knowledge plus 45 years in the education business 

I  know thousands of people fairly well through teaching,  and i read a lot 

i was raised an atheist secular -humanist but spent a decade studying with many different religions to try and get an understanding  of them.

Despite all this, my views ( like everyone's) are constrained by my own background and life experiences. 

 

In Australia, the overall proportion of students in private schools is 35% ( but 41% in secondary school). This far outweighs the average OECD country, where 18% is the average number. Compare this to the US, where approximately 8% of students attend private schools.Jun 18, 2017

 

    https://theconversation.com/fewer-students-are-going-to-public-secondary-schools-in-australia-79425

Edited February 23, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Unfortunately]

50 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Same thing though. You don't seem like a strident atheist at all, but some here who do bang on about demanding proof, seem not have been prepared to incommode themselves at all, in a strenuous search. One senses that this God must parade past them, while they take the salute. Perhaps they are confused who the God is, in this equation.

How are those the same thing? You stated that the 'mountain must come to me'. This infers that I care if the mountain comes or not, which isn't accurate. I'm fascinated by the concept and the reasoning behind the debate, the final result won't impact my life as I've stated in other posts.

I think the point you're missing is that if there was verifiable evidence pertaining to gods/deities it would be considered a massive thing worldwide and easily accessible to anyone. There would be no need to hide such a fact, let alone putting into consideration the difficulty of doing so.

Also, don't forget that the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim, not with the person who disagrees with said claim. This is where I can sometimes have issues with people who try to state definitively that gods do/don't exist. 

I disagree with the claim of gods due to not having enough verifiable supporting material. This doesn't mean I believe gods don't exist with utter certainty, it means that the chances are improbable at best in regards to what information we currently have.

[NightScreams]

Lack of concrete evidence has more to do with our limitations than it has anything to do with the ultimate truth. And that is what everyone seeks is it not? For example no human on earth has any concrete evidence as to why the area around the sun is 200x's hotter than it's surface which breaks a law of thermodynamics. Secondly that illustrates the laws of physics are not absolute nor were they intended to be such. No one has any burden of proof as to why the quantum zeno effect that defies the law of entropy happens but in these examples, we know for a fact that it is the case regardless which proves my first sentence. That we have limitations that prevent us from answering all things at this time. Secondly those answers, if ever found, may not reveal or lead to the ultimate truth to the hard problems. We don't even have any proof as to why religion is natural for us, we can only speculate which is what many absolutists often hypocritically do when dismissing an objection. They speculate immeasurable or unmeasured things to dismiss something else that cannot be or has yet to be measured because the illusion created makes sense to them. One fact is certain, "God(s) are not ruled out by science" (Brian Cox quote) much to the dismay of Atheists.

This raises an important question. Why would anyone argue against religion, spirituality or the current observations of science unless you are an absolutist? Topic for discussion not withstanding but I'm referring to those who will not or cannot hold multiple thoughts within their beliefs at the same time because as an absolutist you are forced to deny anything and everything that doesn't conform to whichever standard you are holding it to. And that is the hard personal problem that is often inflicted upon others. Whether you use belief or science as a foundation, you have to conform to the unknowns no matter which way you go. Science and religion are not about absolutes despite often being treated as such by non-experts. They are both about seeking the truth and many of the worlds most intelligent people along with top scientists still bow down to the unknowns and hypothesize answers for which we cannot yet have.

There are many views that attempt to display that religion is a stop gap to answer questions of the unknown but that is not what faith is about anymore than science being used as a stop gap to fill in answers for the unknown. Science for example has nothing to do with 'we are right' but to say this is what we have found so far leaving the option for a God wide open. This for example is gravity and it exists whether you believe or not BUT we have this Higgs mass hierarchy problem which means despite the power to keep our moon in orbit, we have this measurable reality that says gravity is so easily defeated by a simple magnet and needle which means we have no hard evidence as to why the weak force is stronger than gravity, only speculation which is pretty much what religion has going on. So what does any of this have to do with God(s) or the belief thereof? Nothing, they are independent and one does not actually dismiss the other. If you raise a question that cannot be answered then you have no answer period which means any dismissal is just a personal opinion because again, we just flat out don't really know for sure. If you do then there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you. Which is why it's not beneficial for those that favor science or religion to be an absolutist because the answer won't reveal itself through such nonsense.

Science is a repeatable measurement that only holds true because nature has this line in the sand that we cannot cross yet, but doesn't mean that there isn't more beyond that line because we just flat out don't really know. We can already see how odd it gets with Quantum physics so it may only get weirder if larger dimensions become observable as many speculate a new physics will arise. You only can know what you can observe and measure up to whatever line nature has set. Where as the core concept of God(s) has more to do with 'it' being everything that our universe is, a partial perception of viewing an apple but unable to see the tree. No matter if you are religious or limit yourself to what science observes as it observes them then It becomes a problem when your viewpoint forces you to deny something that isn't known for certain. For example you could deny that the solution to the Higgs mass problem that I mentioned earlier is supersymmetric simply because it lacks proof but that doesn't mean it won't turn out to be the answer which means you spent an awful long time being wrong about something rather than contemplating it's possibility and what it could mean elsewhere. Science and religion both are full of unknowns and ultimately there isn't anything there to argue about but rather leave open to discussion for those with an open mind. We have this modern floor to stand on that says, ok this is what we can observe and measure to acknowledge that this is our reality and this over here is what we still do not know or understand and yet we can still ask the question, is what we are observing and measuring the only measurements and observations that exist or is it the only thing that exists to us as 3 dimensional, thinking beings in this space and time? There is another question as to whether real solid state materials with complex  unit cells have hidden dimensions that are not currently accessible to us which might give us an understanding of phases of matter with complex geometry including other ways that particles can interact with each other....which may one day explain how a ghost could theoretically interact with matter, potentially opening the doors to a new understanding of a reality that we cannot currently observe and the new physics behind it through the observance of higher dimensions through a lower dimension.

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, Unfortunately said:

If you could link me to a few of those studies that directly correlate with your figure I'll happily believe you.

Knowledge and belief aren't mutually exclusive, that would be entirely circumstantial on what the belief was, although I can definitely see where you're coming from.

Thank you. 

This is where I think we're on opposite sides of the coin. Just because something played a contribution in a situation doesn't mean that in the absence of said contribution the same thing wouldn't happen. I do agree with you that religion can allow for a greater sense of trust but at the same time it can foster all kinds of negative emotions too, the most harmful of which is irrational hate based on religious scripture or ideologies.

I'm certainly not arguing that we'd be better off without religion as I have no way of knowing that, I'm just stating that religion has caused too much harm to say that it was primarily beneficial to society. Stopping wars with religion that were started due to religion (like from a Viking standpoint) seems redundant, but I do see your overall point as I'm sure some wars have been prevented.

I think you've hit right to the heart of the matter with this statement, very nicely done. I thoroughly agree with this. 

On a side note I'd like to point out that one can still live in peace without the presence of religion, fairly sure you don't dispute this point but I just wanted to confirm.

Perhaps this just comes down to our perspectives in life. I can certainly say I lean towards a more pessimistic view of things, although I try to be realistic. 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3671693/

 is probably the most accessible source

 

There is a lot in it but this section on mortality and life expectancy is typical.

7.11. Mortality

The most impressive research on the relationship between R/S and physical health is in the area of mortality. The cumulative effect of R/S, if it has any benefits to physical health, ought to reveal itself in an effect on mortality. The research suggests it does. At least 121 studies have examined relationships between R/S and mortality. Most of these are prospective cohort studies, where baseline R/S is assessed as a predictor of mortality during the observation period, controlling for confounders. Of those studies, 82 (68%) found that greater R/S predicted significantly greater longevity (three at a trend level), whereas six studies (5%) reported shorter longevity. Considering the 63 methodologically most rigorous studies (quality ratings of 8 or higher), 47 (75%) found R/S predicting greater longevity (two at trend level) [548–566], whereas three (5%) reported shorter longevity [567–569]. Another systematic review [570] and two meta-analyses [571, 572] have confirmed this relationship between R/S and longer survival. The effects have been particularly strong for frequency of attendance at religious services in these three reviews. Survival among frequent attendees was increased on average by 37%, 43%, and 30% (mean effect being 37% across these reviews). An increased survival of 37% is highly significant and equivalent to the effects of cholesterol lowering drugs or exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction on survival [573].

 

 

[Unfortunately]

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

MAybe. I use statistics personal knowledge plus 45 years in the education business 

I  know thousands of people fairy well through teaching  and i read a lot 

i was raised an atheist secular humanist but spent a decade studying with many difernt religions to try and get an understanding  of them.

Despite all this, my views ( like everyone's) are constrained by my own background and life experiences. 

 

In Australia, the overall proportion of students in private schools is 35% ( but 41% in secondary school). This far outweighs the average OECD country, where 18% is the average number. Compare this to the US, where approximately 8% of students attend private schools.Jun 18, 2017

    

We can't just consider Australia though, as we're comparing the concept of religion as a whole. 

Personally, I was raised in a Catholic environment but as I found out more about the world my opinions started to lean more toward a logical approach to things. This lead to a distancing from my usual environment as it was no longer compatible with my mentality. I've found countless people throughout my life who share this opinion.

The belief in gods and deities from my experience drops significantly with education, especially when dealing with the more complex sciences. There have been studies that support this statement which shouldn't be difficult to find (I'm not at home at the moment, so I'll have to look for them when I get back). 

I definitely agree, views can sometimes be biased by upbringing and environment, that's why it's important to give objective supporting material if possible.

[Habitat]

11 minutes ago, Unfortunately said:

How are those the same thing? You stated that the 'mountain must come to me'. This infers that I care if the mountain comes or not, which isn't accurate. I'm fascinated by the concept and the reasoning behind the debate, the final result won't impact my life as I've stated in other posts.

I think the point you're missing is that if there was verifiable evidence pertaining to gods/deities it would be considered a massive thing worldwide and easily accessible to anyone. There would be no need to hide such a fact, let alone putting into consideration the difficulty of doing so.

Also, don't forget that the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim, not with the person who disagrees with said claim. This is where I can sometimes have issues with people who try to state definitively that gods do/don't exist. 

I disagree with the claim of gods due to not having enough verifiable supporting material. This doesn't mean I believe gods don't exist with utter certainty, it means that the chances are improbable at best in regards to what information we currently have.

To speak of probabilities presupposes an existing body of data that pertains to the proposition, which would be what, besides the anecdotal ? That none can present transmissable evidence, yea or nay, does not speak of any data, hence, no conclusions ought be drawn.

[Unfortunately]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

To speak of probabilities presupposes an existing body of data that pertains to the proposition, which would be what, besides the anecdotal ? That none can present transmissable evidence, yea or nay, does not speak of any data, hence, no conclusions ought be drawn.

You would be correct if people hadn't searched for it and found nothing. The fact that people have been searching for verifiable evidence for many thousands of years and haven't found any presents the improbability. 

[Mr Walker]

20 minutes ago, Unfortunately said:

We can't just consider Australia though, as we're comparing the concept of religion as a whole. 

Personally, I was raised in a Catholic environment but as I found out more about the world my opinions started to lean more toward a logical approach to things. This lead to a distancing from my usual environment as it was no longer compatible with my mentality. I've found countless people throughout my life who share this opinion.

The belief in gods and deities from my experience drops significantly with education, especially when dealing with the more complex sciences. There have been studies that support this statement which shouldn't be difficult to find (I'm not at home at the moment, so I'll have to look for them when I get back). 

I definitely agree, views can sometimes be biased by upbringing and environment, that's why it's important to give objective supporting material if possible.

The point abut Australia was that it was the exception to that norm Yes of course for many reasons a higher education lessens SOME forms of religious belief sometimes (but not always. Ben Carsons one of America's top neurosurgeons, and past presidential candidate, is a creationist ) It depends  how much the religious belief contradicts science and common sense.

That was my point about Australia Most churches here teach a social doctrine of social values and commitment.  Parents like that and prefer it to the neutrality of govt schools which are often value free or promote values parents don't approve of   ALso, the top academic students and past leaders of  politics, education, commerce and industry etc were mostly educated in private  religious schools  The y have a superior academic reputation to govt schools, in part because they are more exclusive.  heck even our top scientists were often educated in religious schools. The winner of Intels  "Olympics of science and engineering"  in Pittsburg last year was an Australian student from Barker college an Anglican private college which  includes boarders .  (reception to year 12)

https://blog.csiro.au/aussie-high-school-student-wins-top-prize-at-intels-olympics-for-science-and-engineering/

Thus religion is more mainstream and better regarded among our educated elite than in many countries .   

Edited February 23, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Habitat]

35 minutes ago, Unfortunately said:

You would be correct if people hadn't searched for it and found nothing. The fact that people have been searching for verifiable evidence for many thousands of years and haven't found any presents the improbability. 

Many are adamant they have found God, just not demonstrable to you. No one can say they have established God does not exist, though. You are assuming accessibility must be via processes of rational thought, and that being wrong, all bets are off.

[Unfortunately]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The point abut Australia was that it was the exception to that norm Yes of course for many reasons a higher education lessens SOME forms of religious belief sometimes (but not always. Ben Carsons one of America's top neurosurgeons, and past presidential candidate, is a creationist ) It depends  how much the religious belief contradicts science and common sense.

That was my point about Australia Most churches here teach a social doctrine of social values and commitment.  Parents like that and prefer it to the neutrality of govt schools which are often value free or promote values parents don't approve of   ALso, the top academic students and past leaders of  politics, education, commerce and industry etc were mostly educated in private  religious schools  The y have a superior academic reputation to govt schools, in part because they are more exclusive.  heck even our top scientists were often educated in religious schools. The winner of Intels  "Olympics of science and engineering"  in Pittsburg last year was an Australian student from Barker college an Anglican private college which  includes boarders .  (reception to year 12)

https://blog.csiro.au/aussie-high-school-student-wins-top-prize-at-intels-olympics-for-science-and-engineering/

Thus religion is more mainstream and better regarded among our educated elite than in many countries .   

We're still talking about a minority though, regardless of whatever singular names you list. Not to mention that the disciplines you listed aren't affected by the presence or lackthereof of a god. When you get into the higher sciences dealing with the way the universe works (which would definitely be impacted by the presence of a god) you can see a big decline in religious belief due to it not being directly compatible.

The people in these fields that still believe in god have moulded their faith around the science, not the other way round. I feel this is a very important distinction. The belief in a deity exists outside the process of rational thought while no supporting evidence is forthcoming. Of course there's nothing inherently wrong with this until people try to make unsubstantiated claims that don't currently fit with what we understand to be reality. 

[Unfortunately]

3 hours ago, Habitat said:

Many are adamant they have found God, just not demonstrable to you. No one can say they have established God does not exist, though. You are assuming accessibility must be via processes of rational thought, and that being wrong, all bets are off.

In order to affirm the presence of something in realistic terms one has to follow a process of rational thought or it cannot be considered to be realistic. 

As no objectively repeatable and verifiable evidence has been found to support either the claim of a gods existence or nonexistence neither claim can be accepted as being factual. Facts are based on verifiable evidence, that's how our world works and how it has evolved over time. This statement isn't a debatable point as in order to start an argument against it you'd have to completely redefine the word 'fact' inevitably causing said argument to collapse.

That's about as far as the argument can go without either side presenting sufficient evidence. Yes, I mean direct evidence that can be verified by anyone. 

Its fascinating what people come up with to press their claims on either side, but realistically my above point is the current situation of the debate in terms of attempting to definitively prove/disprove the existence of gods/deities.

Personal evidence isn't sufficient to convince the masses because there are too many uncontrollable variables that lead to human error and bias. Hence why human beings have evolved into using an objective approach and why the control religion used to exhibit freely is now comparatively nonexistent in the modern world.

[Essan]

12 hours ago, Unfortunately said:

As much as I love the concept of mother nature more than most other deities, the same burden of proof still applies.

I use (mother) nature in the sense of a anthropomorphism of natural forces and processes, rather than any entity in its own right.

Of course, some then argue that all natural forces and processes - from nuclear fusion to gravity to weather to evolution - are themselves controlled by some ineffable entity they call a god .....   But what was it DNA said?  "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

[Unfortunately]

12 hours ago, Essan said:

I use (mother) nature in the sense of a anthropomorphism of natural forces and processes, rather than any entity in its own right.

Of course, some then argue that all natural forces and processes - from nuclear fusion to gravity to weather to evolution - are themselves controlled by some ineffable entity they call a god .....   But what was it DNA said?  "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

I agree with you there, the whole debate is fascinating as one side is based on facts and logic and the other side is based on wild assumptions and spiritual belief.

I think the thing that personally confounds me the most is why the debate has existed for thousands of years despite the clear absence of evidence found. It's almost as though some humans have a predisposition toward beliefs such as these in order to not feel quite so insignificant in regards to the rest of the universe.

I like that quote you posted, hits the nail on the head really. 

Edited February 24, 2019 by Unfortunately
Fixed a grammatical error.

[freetoroam]

On 19/02/2019 at 3:07 AM, Jodie.Lynne said:

Why do YOU continue to argue this issue?

I am a non believer in a god and have found people tend to 'accept' believers in a god, a lot more than those who do not.

I respect certain religious beliefs and can fully understand why man, many years ago while  still trying to understand and come to terms with what is around him, would have created this god idea. But today we know a lot more about our Universe and how nature works,  and yet no god has been 'found',  the ideas are still there in peoples minds and hearts, but that is it.

The Romans and Greeks had thier own group of gods, which was pushed aside for christianity. My 'argument' is, how can people today not question this,  in the modern western world you will not get killed for not wanting to believe in someone elses idea of a god. Which is exactly what happened in the past.

I will always ' argue' my stance in not wanting to believe in a god and i have history to back me up on why. 

The swapping and changing of beliefs,  the deaths and the slaughtering  of non religious groups who would not conform and the death and slaughtering of religious groups against  each other. 

I find religious people are quite happy turning a blind eye to the deaths the different ideas of religion  has brought to our world  and insist the "good" religion has to offer is more important. Well it does not work that way.

I will not ramble on about this now,  it is really something best debated with the religious.

My point is,  i am not religious. I have done my questioning about religion and still nothing to convince me there even maybe a god,  but i enjoy people trying and then watching them  uming and ahring when i question their take on other religions,  evolution, nature and the Universe.

There are some intelligent religious people on here,  which makes debating interesting.

 

[Habitat]

17 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

I am a non believer in a god

So, you can't credit any God, full stop, or just the ones you can conceptualize, or have heard others conceptualize ? What about one that is beyond such conceptions ? Why not that one ? Or is anything that can't be conceptualized, non-existent ?

[Stubbly_Dooright]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

So, you can't credit any God, full stop, or just the ones you can conceptualize, or have heard others conceptualize ? What about one that is beyond such conceptions ? Why not that one ? Or is anything that can't be conceptualized, non-existent ?

That kind of makes sense.

Anyways, the Amount that cannot be conceptualized  could be in the billions or even more than that. 

[freetoroam]

3 hours ago, Habitat said:

So, you can't credit any God, full stop, or just the ones you can conceptualize, or have heard others conceptualize ? What about one that is beyond such conceptions ? Why not that one ? Or is anything that can't be conceptualized, non-existent ?

I do not go with the - just because it can not be proven, does not mean it does not exist, theory. I get that thrown at me a lot and quite frankly, its getting tedious.

The reason i do not believe in a god is because it is a man made concept which over the years has been altered, stretched, used to kill, used to justify goodness ( you do not need religion to be a good person). 

I can understand mans reason originally to believe a god invented man, but we now know there was no adam and eve. 

I absolutely do not believe in a single god which created the Universe.

The Universe is my god if  i were to say there was any such thing, and from there galaxys, solar systems and planets were formed and on ours came nature and life. ( likely on others out there somewhere too). 

Man was not the frst living thing on this planet, but he was the first to create this god thing. To kill your fellow man just because he would not conform is the low of the low and i would never stoop to believe in that kind of idealogy. 

As i said, you do not need to believe in a god to be a good person,  i also think it is rather sad when people thank god for things which should be attributed to the hard work of his fellow man.

Even today we have divides in religion, as ONE species of humans,  logic would have it that we would follow the same god if there were one, but people do not, they have made up their own ideas over the years.

We all see the same moon and feel the heat off the same sun, we see the same night sky with the same Universe,  but not the same god?? 

I am happy being part of nature and part of the human race, i do not need to believe in the man made idea of a god to 'guide' me through life. 

[Habitat]

8 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

I do not go with the - just because it can not be proven, does not mean it does not exist, theory. I get that thrown at me a lot and quite frankly, its getting tedious.

Tedious, perhaps, but is the bolded not true to say ? I certainly would understand having someone telling you that you must hand your life over to Jesus (as if he needs another one to baby-sit !), would be tedious, even very annoying, but I don't understand how simple acceptance of the proposition in the quote box, would be a problem.

[Doug1029]

On 2/22/2019 at 3:34 PM, eight bits said:

It's not the anniversary of his birth, it is the commemoration and celebration of his birth.

Do I hear the sound of a hair splitting?

On 2/22/2019 at 3:34 PM, eight bits said:

Yes, supposedly there was an "oral tradition" (what's lately known as fake news) that Jesus died on the anniversary of his birth. Passover is in the spring. Luke could do the math.

One could make a case for April 5, 2 B.C. based on Assyrian astrology.  BUT:  the Jews weren't into astrology.  On the other hand, the Wise Men weren't Jews.  Go figure.  Even if one made that case, it is still weak and without something else to back it up, it is only a hypothesis that can't be tested.  It probably isn't important anyway - people would still celebrate Christmas on December 25, even if we were to discover definitively that he was born on a different date.

On 2/22/2019 at 3:34 PM, eight bits said:

Whether or not he was born is still a dicey proposition; I wouldn't sweat which day of the year.

I am beginning to lean in the direction of Jesus having been a historical person.  Paul's reference to having met James-the-brother-of-the-lord, being a part of that.

 

I am more into the story OF the Bible, rather than the story IN the Bible.  When was it written?  Who wrote it?  What writings refer to it?  What other stories are there about these same events (Justin described Jesus emerging from a river of fire after his baptism.)?  Josephus actually identifies the Pharaohs of the Oppression (Horemheb) and the Exodus (Seti I; although he wasn't Pharaoh yet).  And there are papyri telling of Moses' exploits in Palestine (not the Sinai) and of a Moses prototype killing an Egyptian and hiding his body in the sand (The Egyptian was a would-be assassin who wasn't as good as he thought he was.).

Both the Bible and The Admonitions of Ipuwer describe a disaster befalling Egypt.  Could it be the eruption of Thera?  We have discussed the dating of this event before on UM.  Maybe there is a way to nail it down -  1.  We know that no other major volcanoes erupted within 150 years of Thera.  2.  A new "volcano signature" has been discovered in tree rings, and 3.  we have chronologies dating that far back.  We know that the eruption was in the fall/winter (ash deposits stream eastward from Thera, following the prevailing winds at that time of year.).  That would mean that such a signature would occur the year after the eruption.  AND:  I have copies of several very old chronologies.  Maybe I could figure out what year Thera erupted (the exact year, not just a carbon-13 estimate).  Problems with this idea:  What if I find TWO such signatures in that time frame?  Crossdating errors in the chronologies may prevent obtaining an EXACT year.  What if I don't find ANY such signature?  Plinian eruptions are harder to detect than flood eruptions - Thera was a plinian eruption.  So I'm going to give it a try.  I'll report back on what I find.

Doug

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Both the Bible and The Admonitions of Ipuwer describe a disaster befalling Egypt.  Could it be the eruption of Thera?  We have discussed the dating of this event before on UM.  Maybe there is a way to nail it down -  1.  We know that no other major volcanoes erupted within 150 years of Thera.  2.  A new "volcano signature" has been discovered in tree rings, and 3.  we have chronologies dating that far back.  We know that the eruption was in the fall/winter (ash deposits stream eastward from Thera, following the prevailing winds at that time of year.).  That would mean that such a signature would occur the year after the eruption.  AND:  I have copies of several very old chronologies.  Maybe I could figure out what year Thera erupted (the exact year, not just a carbon-13 estimate).  Problems with this idea:  What if I find TWO such signatures in that time frame?  Crossdating errors in the chronologies may prevent obtaining an EXACT year.  What if I don't find ANY such signature?  Plinian eruptions are harder to detect than flood eruptions - Thera was a plinian eruption.  So I'm going to give it a try.  I'll report back on what I find.

Doug

I tested the White Mountain 2 chronology for volcanic eruptions during the 16th century BC.  Results were inconclusive.  Let's just say I know a whole lot more years when Thera could not have erupted than years when it might have.  There were three years that had much larger recovery signals than usual.  They are 1525, 1517 and 1502 BC, using the White Mountain chronology time line, which could be off the calendar one by a year or two.  An eruption would have occurred in the previous year.  1502 was by far, the strongest signal AND it was the only one with a strong resilience signal, too.

What to do now?  Test some other chronologies and see if they agree, or if I can obtain cross-dates from them.  Thera should have affected weather world-wide for several years.  Also, re-read that paper on volcano signatures to see if I am missing something.

Doug