Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Clearly when a case is found which cannot be explained by the current scientific theory, then it will need to be re-evaluated.

It wont be, they have been trying desperately for 200 years.

Put they act like it has happened, why not submit their results for peer review, change the face of Science as we know it, and bask in the nobel peace prize and the worldwide acclaim?

Oh yeah, because they are lying bastards who are misleading their credulous "flock" simply because the average Joe on the street doesnt have a good enough knowledge of science.

mattyrm wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Clearly when a case is found which cannot be explained by the current scientific theory, then it will need to be re-evaluated.

It wont be, they have been trying desperately for 200 years.

Put they act like it has happened, why not submit their results for peer review, change the face of Science as we know it, and bask in the nobel peace prize and the worldwide acclaim?

Oh yeah, because they are lying bastards who are misleading their credulous "flock" simply because the average Joe on the street doesnt have a good enough knowledge of science.

Do you have something against coconuts boy? If so, its time to bring the provolone beatdown!
Coconuts. If they're good enough for mutha in T-Rex, they're good enough for you.

Coconuts are full of fatty acids. That's why T Rex died out.

The coconuts and the smoking did for him.

Kilkrazy wrote:I think if you were a bat scientist you could use genetic tracing to find out if there was a probable common ancestor of insect eating and fruit eating bats. This would be a reasonable explanation of how echo-sounding is found in both types of bats.

Holy polymerase chain reaction, Batman!

This has been done, and, indeed, at some point there was a common bat ancestor. Same bat genes, same bat genus.

filbert wrote: to wit, that there are numerous examples in nature where if one were of a religious persuasion, would appear to have the work of a creator stamped all over them.

*sigh* As someone of a religious persuasion, I have no trouble believing that the rules were set and the world let to play out without much in the way of direct intervention. Stop and consider: God tests people, because God does not know the outcome in advance. There's no point to a test if you know in advance if they're going to pass/fail, you test them because you want to be certain of something. This implies that God's omniscience is limited to the here and now.

If, then, there are things that even God does not know, then this world is most likely a test bed. Direct interaction would skew the outcome. (This is the reason for souls. It would allow a sort of side step of the Uncertainty Principle, by making the object of the experiment self observing.)

BaronIveagh wrote:

Holy polymerase chain reaction, Batman!

This has been done, and, indeed, at some point there was a common bat ancestor. Same bat genes, same bat genus.

BaronIveagh wrote:*sigh* As someone of a religious persuasion, I have no trouble believing that the rules were set and the world let to play out without much in the way of direct intervention. Stop and consider: God tests people, because God does not know the outcome in advance. There's no point to a test if you know in advance if they're going to pass/fail, you test them because you want to be certain of something. This implies that God's omniscience is limited to the here and now.

If, then, there are things that even God does not know, then this world is most likely a test bed. Direct interaction would skew the outcome. (This is the reason for souls. It would allow a sort of side step of the Uncertainty Principle, by making the object of the experiment self observing.)

Genuine question as I am not a religious person; does this interpretation of "god" being all knowing but limited to only "knowing" abut the past and the present fit in with established religious thinking, or is it your own interpretation?

I've always been lead to believe that god is all knowing about everything and everywhen and although "free choice" is allowed (not sure how), god still knows the outcome of things that will come to pass... though we are still allowed to choose how to go through his "tests".

SilverMK2 wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:*sigh* As someone of a religious persuasion, I have no trouble believing that the rules were set and the world let to play out without much in the way of direct intervention. Stop and consider: God tests people, because God does not know the outcome in advance. There's no point to a test if you know in advance if they're going to pass/fail, you test them because you want to be certain of something. This implies that God's omniscience is limited to the here and now.

If, then, there are things that even God does not know, then this world is most likely a test bed. Direct interaction would skew the outcome. (This is the reason for souls. It would allow a sort of side step of the Uncertainty Principle, by making the object of the experiment self observing.)

Genuine question as I am not a religious person; does this interpretation of "god" being all knowing but limited to only "knowing" abut the past and the present fit in with established religious thinking, or is it your own interpretation?

I've always been lead to believe that god is all knowing about everything and everywhen and although "free choice" is allowed (not sure how), god still knows the outcome of things that will come to pass... though we are still allowed to choose how to go through his "tests".

I'm not sure where it fits in, though I will state that it does not match 'mainstream' doctrine. Well, actually it matches parts, because mainstream doctrine is made up of a group of conflicting texts stitched together at various points for various reasons.

In the Beginning, (about 1000BC) there were the Jahwist and (possibly later, exact dates are subject to debate) Elohist texts, believed to be the holy texts of Judah and Israel, respectively. The Jahwist text more or less reflects the more anthropomorphic God that haggles with Abram, buries Moses, and so on. The Elohist features the more abstract, distant God that appears as a burning bush, etc. It's actually likely that the Elohist text draws strongly from the Canaanite perception of El Elyon, while the Jahwist draws heavily on the Babylonian view of gods being more like men.

(Interestingly enough, when the two were combined, some fancy editing took place. In the Elohist text, Issac is sacrificed. In the Jahwist, he lives. This made some changes necessary. Also, the nationalistic bashing of the former two Judean kingdoms for one another was mitigated, sort of.)

Deuteronomy was largely written during the time of Josiah, who's priests miraculously discovered a text that justified the things the King had been doing already without it, which were then edited further following everything going tits up when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem. (Indeed, the Ten Commandments were written in this period, as previously, the people of Judah were polytheistic, worshiping many local deities in addition to the official God of the state. The Prophet Jeremiah comments in one translation 'How do you say "We are wise, and the Lord's Torah is with us"? In fact here it was made for a lie, the lying pen of scribes ')

Around 400BC a member of the priesthood edited the entire thing together into what now makes up the Torah, tossing bits of accumulated ritual tradition and parts openly stolen from neighboring religions, such as most of Genesis previous to the creation of Adam.




Predetermination and free will are mutually exclusive. Free will has no meaning if the outcome is going to be the same no matter what you decide to do.

BaronIveagh wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:*sigh* As someone of a religious persuasion, I have no trouble believing that the rules were set and the world let to play out without much in the way of direct intervention. Stop and consider: God tests people, because God does not know the outcome in advance. There's no point to a test if you know in advance if they're going to pass/fail, you test them because you want to be certain of something. This implies that God's omniscience is limited to the here and now.

If, then, there are things that even God does not know, then this world is most likely a test bed. Direct interaction would skew the outcome. (This is the reason for souls. It would allow a sort of side step of the Uncertainty Principle, by making the object of the experiment self observing.)

Genuine question as I am not a religious person; does this interpretation of "god" being all knowing but limited to only "knowing" abut the past and the present fit in with established religious thinking, or is it your own interpretation?

I've always been lead to believe that god is all knowing about everything and everywhen and although "free choice" is allowed (not sure how), god still knows the outcome of things that will come to pass... though we are still allowed to choose how to go through his "tests".

I'm not sure where it fits in, though I will state that it does not match 'mainstream' doctrine. Well, actually it matches parts, because mainstream doctrine is made up of a group of conflicting texts stitched together at various points for various reasons.

In the Beginning, (about 1000BC) there were the Jahwist and (possibly later, exact dates are subject to debate) Elohist texts, believed to be the holy texts of Judah and Israel, respectively. The Jahwist text more or less reflects the more anthropomorphic God that haggles with Abram, buries Moses, and so on. The Elohist features the more abstract, distant God that appears as a burning bush, etc. It's actually likely that the Elohist text draws strongly from the Canaanite perception of El Elyon, while the Jahwist draws heavily on the Babylonian view of gods being more like men.

(Interestingly enough, when the two were combined, some fancy editing took place. In the Elohist text, Issac is sacrificed. In the Jahwist, he lives. This made some changes necessary. Also, the nationalistic bashing of the former two Judean kingdoms for one another was mitigated, sort of.)

Deuteronomy was largely written during the time of Josiah, who's priests miraculously discovered a text that justified the things the King had been doing already without it, which were then edited further following everything going tits up when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem. (Indeed, the Ten Commandments were written in this period, as previously, the people of Judah were polytheistic, worshiping many local deities in addition to the official God of the state. The Prophet Jeremiah comments in one translation 'How do you say "We are wise, and the Lord's Torah is with us"? In fact here it was made for a lie, the lying pen of scribes ')

Around 400BC a member of the priesthood edited the entire thing together into what now makes up the Torah, tossing bits of accumulated ritual tradition and parts openly stolen from neighboring religions, such as most of Genesis previous to the creation of Adam.




Predetermination and free will are mutually exclusive. Free will has no meaning if the outcome is going to be the same no matter what you decide to do.

Do you have an article or link that has sources for that stuff? It's really, really interesting and I'd love to have it on hand

All religions are recycled you can draw parallels to all stories. Hell, the great floods can be traced back to the epic of Gilgamesh.

BaronIveagh wrote:*sigh* As someone of a religious persuasion, I have no trouble believing that the rules were set and the world let to play out without much in the way of direct intervention. Stop and consider: God tests people, because God does not know the outcome in advance. There's no point to a test if you know in advance if they're going to pass/fail, you test them because you want to be certain of something. This implies that God's omniscience is limited to the here and now.

If, then, there are things that even God does not know, then this world is most likely a test bed. Direct interaction would skew the outcome. (This is the reason for souls. It would allow a sort of side step of the Uncertainty Principle, by making the object of the experiment self observing.)

Maybe when god tests people it isn't God who wants to know the answer, maybe he tests them so that they can find the answer.

Crom wrote:All religions are recycled you can draw parallels to all stories. Hell, the great floods can be traced back to the epic of Gilgamesh.

There are silt layer deposits in the fertile crescent that support a black sea flood. Ballard did an expedition in 99 that bought up fresh water mollusk shells that carbon dated back 7,000yrs. Did god cause it probably not but still interesting.

Vandil wrote:

Crom wrote:All religions are recycled you can draw parallels to all stories. Hell, the great floods can be traced back to the epic of Gilgamesh.

There are silt layer deposits in the fertile crescent that support a black sea flood. Ballard did an expedition in 99 that bought up fresh water mollusk shells that carbon dated back 7,000yrs. Did god cause it probably not but still interesting.

there's an iridium layer that dates back 65 million years ago....

I thought most of the flood stories got traced back to some kind of mega flood in the Black Sea basin about 5600 B.C. The survivors of the event scattered, and spread stories of a great flood that destroyed their entire civilization throughout the world. Read more here if you'd like.

There's a little black spot on the sun today.

At the end of the last ice age, which occurred a bit over 8,000 years ago, the average sea level rose 100 metres causing floods in hitherto dry land areas such as the gap between the UK and the continent we now call the English Channel.

We know there are submerged villages in such areas, which had been fertile land bridges.

While the flooding would obviously have taken place over years or decades, it is not a big stretch of the imagination to think that such events would have become part of the folk memory of late prehistoric man, and been written down later when writing was invented.

I did not mean all mythology doesn't have any factual events to it. I just said that all mythology is recycled. There is a difference in that. Some argue that Jesus was an actual person and existed, which in all honesty is highly debatable. Someone who existed during the Roman empire that made that much of an impact on society and on religion, would have been written about a lot. Though no philosophers of that time period really wrote about Jesus. In fact, there is really no reference to him at all. That doesn't mean someone like Jesus never existed. I find it hard that someone who had such an impact as Jesus did, actually not get mentioned by any major scholars or philosophers. Furthermore, there is evidence that when Christianity first came about different sects actually fought over the concept if Jesus was a Sun God, the son of a God, or a half man half god and a son of a god.

Kilkrazy wrote:There's a little black spot on the sun today.

At the end of the last ice age, which occurred a bit over 8,000 years ago, the average sea level rose 100 metres causing floods in hitherto dry land areas such as the gap between the UK and the continent we now call the English Channel.

We know there are submerged villages in such areas, which had been fertile land bridges.

While the flooding would obviously have taken place over years or decades, it is not a big stretch of the imagination to think that such events would have become part of the folk memory of late prehistoric man, and been written down later when writing was invented.

There are two theory's that support rapid flooding. Mediterranean sea inundation into the black sea and a Black sea land plug letting go under ice age melt waters.

Creationists should be simply saying God's day is actually measured by the rotation of the earth around the galactic center. (Roughly 250 million years) Instead of trying to push Collapsed Evolutionary Time which is laughable..

George Spiggott wrote:
Maybe when god tests people it isn't God who wants to know the answer, maybe he tests them so that they can find the answer.

I've generally found that killing all seven of someone's children is going a bit far to let them know they won't renounce God no matter what. God is a merciful God (every other book or two) except he seems to be willing to inflict serious suffering on what essentially amounts to a bet. Further, the being taking that bet would know better, if God was really omniscient about future events.

Further, why create the world in the first place if you automatically know everything that could possibly ever happen upon it?

Edit: Most flood stories, as several people have pointed out, probably have their roots in the Black Sea basin event. The other suggestion has been the Red Sea, but there's less evicence for that.

BaronIveagh wrote:Edit: Most flood stories, as several people have pointed out, probably have their roots in the Black Sea basin event. The other suggestion has been the Red Sea, but there's less evicence for that.

I'm also going to point out that when it comes to unstoppable, devastating catastrophes, floods are going to be one of the worst things any developing culture is going to face. You either get out of the way, or you get swept away, but what about a flood so great that nothing is high enough to escape it? It makes for a very potent embodiment of divine anger or retribution.

Bookwrack wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Edit: Most flood stories, as several people have pointed out, probably have their roots in the Black Sea basin event. The other suggestion has been the Red Sea, but there's less evicence for that.

I'm also going to point out that when it comes to unstoppable, devastating catastrophes, floods are going to be one of the worst things any developing culture is going to face. You either get out of the way, or you get swept away, but what about a flood so great that nothing is high enough to escape it? It makes for a very potent embodiment of divine anger or retribution.

Or a bunch of drunken Irishmen all breaking the seal at the same time

BaronIveagh wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:
Maybe when god tests people it isn't God who wants to know the answer, maybe he tests them so that they can find the answer.

I've generally found that killing all seven of someone's children is going a bit far to let them know they won't renounce God no matter what. God is a merciful God (every other book or two) except he seems to be willing to inflict serious suffering on what essentially amounts to a bet. Further, the being taking that bet would know better, if God was really omniscient about future events.

Further, why create the world in the first place if you automatically know everything that could possibly ever happen upon it?

If God is an infinite being (or even if he isn't) then fully understanding God's motives would be difficult. You cannot use a lack of understanding of God's motives to prove God's non-existence.

George Spiggott wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:
Maybe when god tests people it isn't God who wants to know the answer, maybe he tests them so that they can find the answer.

I've generally found that killing all seven of someone's children is going a bit far to let them know they won't renounce God no matter what. God is a merciful God (every other book or two) except he seems to be willing to inflict serious suffering on what essentially amounts to a bet. Further, the being taking that bet would know better, if God was really omniscient about future events.

Further, why create the world in the first place if you automatically know everything that could possibly ever happen upon it?

If God is an infinite being (or even if he isn't) then fully understanding God's motives would be difficult. You cannot use a lack of understanding of God's motives to prove God's non-existence.

Hence why I am ignostic more so than atheist or agnostic. I think if there truly was an omnipotent being such as a God, we could severely lack the capacity to understand what a God is, nor could we define what a God is.

George Spiggott wrote:If God is an infinite being (or even if he isn't) then fully understanding God's motives would be difficult. You cannot use a lack of understanding of God's motives to prove God's non-existence.

I didn't dispute his/her existence. I disputed that he/she was omniscient as far as future events were concerned. I'll point out that, at least in the fragmentary texts that remain from the earliest period, God never claims to be omniscient (though on occasion shows he's much better informed then a regular person would be). Only later does this idea enter the picture.

And, again, I reject Paul's assertion in Romans that no one can truly understand God (Romans 11:33-36), mostly because he turns around in Corinthians and says the opposite (1 Corinthians 14:33) in the Greek. James implies that a personal understanding of God is possible (4:8) which means that the motives of God are not outside the grasp of mortal minds. (Never minding the Apocryphal Gospel of Thomas [believed written between AD 60 and AD 140] where Jesus basically tells us that in no uncertain terms, which was probably why it was declared heretical in the third century. Not because it conflicted with Jesus, but because it conflicted with the policies of the nascent church.)

BaronIveagh wrote:I didn't dispute his/her existence. I disputed that he/she was omniscient as far as future events were concerned. I'll point out that, at least in the fragmentary texts that remain from the earliest period, God never claims to be omniscient (though on occasion shows he's much better informed then a regular person would be). Only later does this idea enter the picture.

And, again, I reject Paul's assertion in Romans that no one can truly understand God (Romans 11:33-36), mostly because he turns around in Corinthians and says the opposite (1 Corinthians 14:33) in the Greek. James implies that a personal understanding of God is possible (4:8) which means that the motives of God are not outside the grasp of mortal minds.

Man can understand God, he cannot fully understand God (the finite cannot fully comprehend the infinite).

when did this stop being about coconuts and evolution?

About a quarter of the way down page 3.

Crom wrote:Someone who existed during the Roman empire that made that much of an impact on society and on religion, would have been written about a lot. Though no philosophers of that time period really wrote about Jesus. In fact, there is really no reference to him at all. That doesn't mean someone like Jesus never existed. I find it hard that someone who had such an impact as Jesus did, actually not get mentioned by any major scholars or philosophers. Furthermore, there is evidence that when Christianity first came about different sects actually fought over the concept if Jesus was a Sun God, the son of a God, or a half man half god and a son of a god.

Except his impact wasn't that great at the time. He was one of countless Jews leading a small flock of followers, why would they write much about him?

His impact came after his death as his story grew.

sebster wrote:

Crom wrote:Someone who existed during the Roman empire that made that much of an impact on society and on religion, would have been written about a lot. Though no philosophers of that time period really wrote about Jesus. In fact, there is really no reference to him at all. That doesn't mean someone like Jesus never existed. I find it hard that someone who had such an impact as Jesus did, actually not get mentioned by any major scholars or philosophers. Furthermore, there is evidence that when Christianity first came about different sects actually fought over the concept if Jesus was a Sun God, the son of a God, or a half man half god and a son of a god.

Except his impact wasn't that great at the time. He was one of countless Jews leading a small flock of followers, why would they write much about him?

His impact came after his death as his story grew.

I find that hard to believe considering there were several sects of Christians fighting each other over who was right. Also, when else in history did anyone make an impact at all, and not get written about? Hell people that made a fraction of the impact that Jesus did made more history books and were written a lot more by the philosophers and writers of their time. Now take into an account that Jesus is an exact parallel of Horus, it goes on even further to suggest that perhaps he is not a real person. The parallels between Horus and Jesus are very strong, and the story of Horus existed 5,000 years before the story of Jesus did.

In the Bible it makes it pretty clear the Roman Government did not approve of Jesus, and that is why he was punished. The Bible talks about how big of an impact his sacrifice was. Why was he not written about, by the writers of his times? Why would he be nearly the only exception?

Crom wrote:

I find that hard to believe considering there were several sects of Christians fighting each other over who was right. Also, when else in history did anyone make an impact at all, and not get written about? Hell people that made a fraction of the impact that Jesus did made more history books and were written a lot more by the philosophers and writers of their time. Now take into an account that Jesus is an exact parallel of Horus, it goes on even further to suggest that perhaps he is not a real person. The parallels between Horus and Jesus are very strong, and the story of Horus existed 5,000 years before the story of Jesus did.

In the Bible it makes it pretty clear the Roman Government did not approve of Jesus, and that is why he was punished. The Bible talks about how big of an impact his sacrifice was. Why was he not written about, by the writers of his times? Why would he be nearly the only exception?

Tacticus, the Roman Historian, mentions Jesus as having "suffered the extreme penalty (meaning crucifixion) during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus" (Pilate himself has been confirmed to have existed during the reign of Tiberius through other archaeological finds in the former Judea). Jesus is also mentioned by the historian Josephus in his Antiquitates Judaicae. Both were written during the first century. (Remember at hte time books were expensive things that one had commissioned, and they took years to complete.)

Many books about him were written within a few years of his death, around 30 ad. Luke points out that he gathered together several existing accounts to cross reference with his own experiences. However, take into account that this religion was being suppressed by the Romans, and it's really not surprising that many early texts do not survive. Others were eliminated by the early church, deeming them heretical, as they no longer matched the position of the Church. This is, for example, how the Nag Hammadi library came to be buried in the desert.

Crom wrote:I find that hard to believe considering there were several sects of Christians fighting each other over who was right.

Sbuh?

Also, when else in history did anyone make an impact at all, and not get written about? Hell people that made a fraction of the impact that Jesus did made more history books and were written a lot more by the philosophers and writers of their time. Now take into an account that Jesus is an exact parallel of Horus, it goes on even further to suggest that perhaps he is not a real person. The parallels between Horus and Jesus are very strong, and the story of Horus existed 5,000 years before the story of Jesus did.

In the Bible it makes it pretty clear the Roman Government did not approve of Jesus, and that is why he was punished. The Bible talks about how big of an impact his sacrifice was. Why was he not written about, by the writers of his times? Why would he be nearly the only exception?

The story of a guy called Jesus going around giving politically charged religious sermons and eventually attracting the notice of Roman authorities and being crucified is not a unique one. It happened to a lot of folk at the time. He gained no great number of followers during his lifetime, why would people record things about him?

And yes, Jesus story has a lot of consistancies with Horus before him. Which means it is sensible to conclude that a guy called Jesus likely existed, and the telling of his story might have attracted elements of stories that had come before.

It is far more speculative to conclude that there could not have been a guy called Jesus.

sebster wrote:
It is far more speculative to conclude that there could not have been a guy called Jesus.

Yep.

We have about as much evidence that Socrates existed, and no one really questions that. Of course, no one tries to claim that Socrates was the son of Zeus, so that may be part of it.