lpetrich

How is Allah supposed to be pure unity?

lpetrich

However, such software uses very simple algorithms to produce very complicated-looking behavior. But increased complexity is something that cannot happen without intelligent-design intervention, right? Yet it happens without such intervention? All the programmers do is create a set of "laws of nature", as it were.

lpetrich

Ed:
Personal is not SUPPOSED to be anything, it is what it is.

LP: Doesn't really say anything.

Ed: Because morality cannot come from amorality.

LP:
Check out research into the evolution of cooperation. Such cooperation does produce something like "morality". Bees in a hive don't sting each other (queens do sting rival queens, but that's the only exception), and wolves in a pack don't try to have each other for dinner. Could their behavior represent a sort of "morality"?

No, these behaviors are instinctive there was no decision made. Bees don't decide whether to sting or not to sting each other. Wolves don't decide whether to eat each other. Morality requires free agency.

LP:
How does one identify "free agency"? Furthermore, these are examples of what are commonly considered morality; I doubt that Ed likes to stick his friends with poisoned spears or tries to have them for dinner.

lp:Also, put some liquid water into your refrigerator's freezer. Check again a day later -- it will have become ice. Now if solidness can only come from solidness, how could this have happened???

Ed:
No, the cause of ice is water and low temperatures, that is what it takes to cause solidness of water. So the law of sufficient cause is not violated by your example.

LP:
I still don't see how there is supposed to be a "law of sufficient cause". From your statements, it seemed to state that if an entity has property P, then it can only be produced by other entities with property P. But we have here the solidity of ice, which was nowhere evident in liquid water or its lowering temperature.

Synaesthesia

The development of DNA requires no more than differential selection and random mutation. The reason you postulate “specified complexity”(and I suspect you don’t know what it even means) is based soely upon your personal conviction. Please, don’t make me have to explain that conviction itself does not constitute evidence.

You have obviously missed both the point and nature of artificial life on computers. Of course they were developed to produce digital life forms, that does not mean that intentionality is required for life, in fact it demonstrates the opposite. It shows that there is no magical ingredient required. As Daniel Dennett points out, the truly brilliant thing about computers is that there is nothing up thier sleves. No hidden tricks, no magic, no soul, just plain old fashioned push-pull causation.

Artificial life shows conclusively that simple agorithmic processes such as differential selection can produce and optimize organized complexity. Certainly the programmers provide an environment in which differential reproductive success can occur but that condition exists in nature. You know, I have difficulty wrapping my mind around why people still try to defend vitalism even when it comes to computer simulations of life.

GunnerJ

Ah! There was the word I was looking for.

Yes, I know, but brevity is the soul of wit. "Slayer of the Cyclops" sounds better than "Eye-Gouger of the Cyclops," right?

Oh, sure, the Cyclops could have been an etiological construct, but again, we don't have to accept their interpretation. That was the point: just because some parts are historical, we have no need to accept the whole thing.

Huh. Well, that's something I didn't know. I did a small amount of research into language history, and the sources I read from all supported the root language theory.

lpetrich

LP earlier:
Actually, he didn't kill Polyphemus, that Cyclops who had captured him and his men;

Rim:
Yes, I know, but brevity is the soul of wit. "Slayer of the Cyclops" sounds better than "Eye-Gouger of the Cyclops," right?

LP:
"Odysseus, Defeater of the Cyclops"

LP earlier:
There is some interesting "historical" support

Rim:
Oh, sure, the Cyclops could have been an etiological construct, but again, we don't have to accept their interpretation. That was the point: just because some parts are historical, we have no need to accept the whole thing.

LP:
Exactly. Consider some of the "evidence" offered for the literal historicity of the Gospels -- all the people and places those documents mention.

And here's another interesting historical curiosity in the Odyssey: the land of the Laestrygonians -- it is a long bay with steep cliffs around it with days that are nearly 24 hours long. This looks a lot like a Scandinavian fjord in the summertime, the most likely time for visits.

[The original human language:]
LP:
Actually, that's something that the more reputable linguists prefer to avoid speculating about, at least in public

Rim:
Huh. Well, that's something I didn't know. I did a small amount of research into language history, and the sources I read from all supported the root language theory.

LP:
Be careful. There are two questions: did such a language exist, and can any of such a language be reconstructed? The first one will be considered much more likely than the second.

Ed

Famous? The gospels hardly describe him as famous outside of a tiny province on the fringe of the Roman Empire and even there he was hardly known outside of Jerusalem.

Quote:

Ed: And though you may think it laughable, the scriptures have been shown time and again to be generally historically reliable. LP: And which errors does the Bible have?

Just minor copying errors of no significance to its teachings.

Quote:

Ed:Genesis teaches that the universe had a definite beginning at least 3000 years before cosmological evidence was discovered that pointed to the same truth. LP:As does every mythical-past creation story. Now can you please tell us what errors you believe Genesis to have?

No, as I stated to Rim, most other religions teach that there was either a prior existing space time continuum or that the universe is eternal. See above about errors in Genesis.

Quote:

Ed:And every year archaeologists discover evidence that confirms the accuracy of the gospels. Just recently Caiphas' tomb was found, he was the high priest that was at Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin. LP: So what? Getting background details correct says absolutely zero about the Gospels' central character. A historical novelist will always try to get background details straight; what would one say about a historical novelist who pictured Julius Caesar as directing airstrikes against the Gauls?

Historical novels were not invented until the 18th century so your analogy fails. Airstrikes are an anachronism, there are no such thing in the gospels.

Quote:

lp:Also, the discovery of Troy in NW Turkey might be interpreted as confirmation of the Iliad, and therefore of the existence of the deities of Mt. Olympus. So shall we sacrifice an ox to Zeus?

See above and also the literary characteristics of the gospels are totally unlike mythology.

This is the end of part II of my response.

[ December 29, 2001: Message edited by: Ed ]</p>

lpetrich

LP:
Also, if Jesus Christ had been as famous as the Gospels describe him as having been, then it's a miracle that no outside historian had discussed him detail. Such historians only start learning about him in detail several decades afterwards.

Ed:
Famous? The gospels hardly describe him as famous outside of a tiny province on the fringe of the Roman Empire and even there he was hardly known outside of Jerusalem.

LP:
He was described as someone who was followed by big crowds, and his trial and execution in Jerusalem had also attracted a big crowd. Which makes one wonder why Paul had said next to nothing about JC's earthly career, and which makes one wonder why no outside historian had recorded the career of someone who had attracted so much attention.

Josephus, for example, had described in detail several self-styled prophets who had had sizable followings, but his only descriptions of JC are a few controversal paragraphs.

LP:
And which errors does the Bible have?

Ed:
Just minor copying errors of no significance to its teachings.

LP:
The next question arises: how does one tell whether something is or is not a copying error?

And you may want to visit these pages on Biblical errancy:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html</a>

Though the Bible does contain some legitimate history, the same can also be said of a variety of works that feature deities that Ed refuses to worship.

Ed:
No, as I stated to Rim, most other religions teach that there was either a prior existing space time continuum or that the universe is eternal. See above about errors in Genesis.

LP:
Read Genesis 1 again. There is nothing in it that states that space and time had been created -- just that the heaven and the earth had been created. It does not even state that the heaven and the earth had been created from nothing -- they could have been created from formless matter. Something like that possibility is featured in Genesis 2, where God creates Adam from some dirt and Eve from one of Adam's ribs.

[Ed on Caiaphas's tomb...]

LP:
I note that we haven't discovered Caiaphas's or Pontius Pilate's memoirs; though both individuals had existed, it would be exceedingly interesting to find out if they had ever had to handle cases of self-styled prophets.

LP:
So what? Getting background details correct says absolutely zero about the Gospels' central character. A historical novelist will always try to get background details straight; what would one say about a historical novelist who pictured Julius Caesar as directing airstrikes against the Gauls?

Ed:
Historical novels were not invented until the 18th century so your analogy fails. Airstrikes are an anachronism, there are no such thing in the gospels.

LP:
Says who? I was using historical novel-writing as an example of how background details can be correct but foreground ones entirely fictional. And I used airstrikes as an example of how one would recognize bogosity -- aerial warfare would not be invented until just about 2000 years after Julius Caesar's battles.

lp:Also, the discovery of Troy in NW Turkey might be interpreted as confirmation of the Iliad, and therefore of the existence of the deities of Mt. Olympus. So shall we sacrifice an ox to Zeus?

ED:
See above and also the literary characteristics of the gospels are totally unlike mythology.

LP:
And what leads you to that conclusion? Both are full of miracles and divine interventions.

CodeMason

Ipetrich, good stuff, but I'd like to say that your posting style is a bit confusing. It would be a lot easier to read if you used the UBB [code] feature. Thanks.

Moderator here: I agree LP, to learn the code quickly just click on the Edit Post Icon of one of Ed's post to see how it is written and laid out.EZ

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: critical thinking made ez ]</p>

Ed

Read the Aug/Sept. 2001 Biblical Archaeology Review, many of the Israelite kings incorporated egyptian scarab beetles in their seals.

Quote:

Ed:Which historians? There is evidence that the jews were monotheistic from Moses on. LP:What evidence outside of the Bible? None that I know of; they had started out by worshipping several deities, with YHWH being only one of them. The idea of worshipping The Only God started only later.

What evidence do you have? Actually it was just the opposite. During the period beginning around Solomon they began worshipping other gods prior to that they only worshipped one. Then after the Babylonian exile they returned to one God.

Quote:

[About the kings mentioned in the Book of Daniel] Ed:Actually the term translated as father in the KJV can also mean ancestor but not necessarily biological ancestor more like predecessor. LP:Convenient evasion. If one casts one's net wide enough, one can prove anything. And the same of Ed's other comments about the Book of Daniel.

I am afraid you are the one evading and your weak response proves it.

Quote:

Ed:The hebrew word for "begot" can also mean "became the ancestor of" so the time between the individuals could very well be indefinite. LP:Yet another convenient evasion.

Same as above.

Quote:

jtb:the creation sequence does not fit the fossil record (birds and whales come after land animals, grass comes after the demise of the dinosaurs etc). Ed:You are assuming that the fossil record reflects the creation sequence, the fossil record may reflect ecological zonations. LP:That is such a gigantic load of sauropod doo-doo that I don't know where to begin. It was well-established back when Darwin wrote his magnum opus that the Earth's rock strata are laid down in temporal sequence.

What evidence says it is temporal?

Quote:

Ed:Also the hebrew term for birds and whales is not as specific as our terms are, ie it basically just means flying creatures and large sea creatures, but actually there may have also been some land creatures created on the 5th day, verse 21 says "and everything that moves". The same applies to the term "grass", the hebrew means "grasslike plants". LP ure evasion. Day 5 is sea + air creatures and Day 6 is land creatures -- no mention of land ones in Day 5.

Did you even read verse 21? But nevertheless see above.

Quote:

Ed:Given that the bible does not tell us when the flood occurred we dont know that it was in "recent" history. LP:The Bible is clearly shoddily-written, then. I notice a total lack of physical evidence for a worldwide flood. There is also some strong biogeographical evidence of faunal continuity that suggests either (1) continuous habitation or (2) careful replacement after a flood.

See my post to Rim regarding the physical evidence for the flood.

Quote:

lp:Consider Australian marsupials. Why did all the kangaroos hop to Australia and leave none behind? Why didn't some of the wombats decide to burrow into the base of Mt. Ararat? Why didn't some of the echidnas decide that Mt. Ararat ants were good enough for them? Or consider the edentates (armadillos, sloths, South American anteater), a distinct group of mammals that lives in the Americas. Why didn't any of the sloths decide to stay behind and much Mt. Ararat leaves? Why didn't some of the anteaters decide that Mt. Ararat ants were good enough for them? Or consider the Afrotheria (((elephants, sea cows) hyraxes), aardvarks, golden moles, elephant shrews, tenrecs), named for the African home of seveal of them. Why didn't some of the aardvarks decide that Mt. Ararat ants were good enough for them? However, continental drift has a natural explanation: Australia has been isolated for the last 120 million years, and South America and Africa have also been isolated for much of that time.

There are any number of possible explanations. Australia may have been the only area that had all the necessary habitat characteristics for marsupials therefore they were drawn to that area. Or they were out competed by placental mammals in all other areas and forced to australia and then australia became isolated by a geographical barrier.

Quote:

Ed:Also, many scientists believe that Mars once was totally covered by a planetary flood so why not earth? LP: Liquid water, yes. A planet-wide flood? No positive reason to believe that that had ever happened.

No difference.

Quote:

Ed:Given that the flood only lasted one year and the earth-changing powers of the large plant population on earth and the volcanic activity on the earth there may not be that much evidence for the flood left. LP:How very convenient [sarcasm].

Great rebuttal! [sarcasm]

Quote:

Ed:But there are many fossil beds that do show evidence of hydraulic castastrophe. LP:LOCAL floods, yes. And NOT some single global flood. Mars also has evidence of local floods in some places, but no convincing global flood.

No, a recent article on Mars (I'll have to look up exactly which one) stated that many scientists beleive there was a global flood on Mars. Just because the hydraulic catastrophe evidence is now smaller then it once was, is quite possibly due to all the erosion since it occurred which could be quite a long time, maybe a million years.

Quote:

Ed:From about the time of Solomon till the return from the Babylonian exile there were long periods when the majority of jews were polytheists. However, earlier hebrews learned from Moses that there was only one God. Read Deut. 4:28, 39. LP:Moses may have been a semi-mythical or an entirely-mythical person; later generations then projected their laws and decrees onto him.

There is no evidence that he is mythical and in fact the literary evidence that we do have is totally unlike mythology.


[b] Huh? When did I manufacture laws of physics and logic? The laws of logic and the very fact that we can come up with the laws of physics strongly point to the truth of Christianity.