Religious Spectrum

Snidely · May 2004

There's no reason to pray to such a god, any more than you'd pray to water or enzymes. God doesn't exist for our convenience (if He exists).

Wheeee · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 25 2004, 11:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> As a side note, it seems to me that with the current rate of medical and overall technological advance, human immortality may be realistically possible in the next hundred or thousand years. What would the religious implications of that be? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I should be more concerned about the social and cultural impacts than the religious ones, seeing as how religion has stood up to pretty much every medical and scientific advance thus far.

Aegeri: about attacking the analogy - yes, it fails. but it is easy to construct a similar one that easily avoids the pitfalls that the previous one fell into. So, I'm afraid, it's you that has missed the point.

About comparing Christians to Nazis: Nazi soldiers were willing to die for their country because Hitler told them that it was the "right way." The only way to verify that was to...well...die for their country.
On the othe hand, Christians believed in Christ because He said He would be resurrected, a fact that *many* of the early Christians verified. If a man said that he would be resurrected, and yet his body was still lying there, no one would believe him. In fact, the Jews of that day, especially the Pharisees, would have jumped at such an opportunity to squash Christianity. The fact that they didn't tells us something. Also, if Christ had <i>not </i>appeared to the apostles and others, then they would willingly be dying for a lie.

It is plausible that one or two people should think it funny to die and make people believe a lie, but that hundreds of people would? I find that nigh impossible.

Cyndane · May 2004

Those one or two people are... or in the Christian sense.. four people.. probably thought it was funny.. :-)

I know I do :-)

A little more on topic though, I thought this thread was supposed to be about all the different kinds of religions available to the thread starter who wanted to STUDY them.. I am not sure when it changed but it has been an interesting read.

I say we should all just agree to disagree... because beliefs are the one thing that almost no one can change when it comes to issues such as this one.

Legionnaired · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ May 25 2004, 08:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The NS Commander analogy is flawed, as was pointed out. The commander is still bound by the limits of the NS universe. Like Aegeri said, the comm has a fixed position and can be interacted with and even replaced. If you're an alien, the comm certainly seems even less God-like since you can eat him.

So far, nobody has been able to define God. At best, God seems to be utterly unknowable. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
The point of my analogy was that a being that is of a different "kind" than everything else, has no tangiable matter, and has the power to interact with and control the natural world can still be 'known' without being defined by what that being does.

God himself is only unknowable if He chooses not to show Himself through His works in the Natural.

What the argument defaults to, is, has sufficient means been provided to show reasonable doubt that an intelligent, supernatural force exists?

I would argue that <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=69790&view=findpost&p=1063092' target='_blank'>predicting the actions of a single person with a precision of 12 hours, over 175,000 days in advance </a>is something that is completely beyond the realm of science, and provides just the reasonable doubt that is required to believe in a higher power. Especially when that is <a href='http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Deuteronomy+18%3A21-22&version=NIV' target='_blank'> exactly the test that the God is question supposedly set out to prove His own authenticity.</a>

EDIT:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
In the end religion is an entirely selfish thing, you worship so that you can live for ever, become powerful and to get absolution/avoid responsibility.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I worship God as a means of thanking Him for what He has already, without being asked, done for me and my life.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Romans 5)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.
7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.
8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

B33F · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Verse 24 states that "seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city." In Hebrew the word translated as "weeks" is pronounced "shabua" and literally means a week of years. The word shabuim would readily be understood as a seven of years in this context, much like the word decade means ten years in English.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

BS. "Shabua" means nothing beyond "a week". Anyway, make enough vague predictions, make some assumptions, and then play with numbers and you'll always be able to make a "true" prediction. Now, if it literally said "On September 11th, 2001, two planes will fly into two buildings named the World Trade Center", then there would be something serious to consider.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Jewish (and Babylonian) calendars used a 360-day year;4 69 weeks of 360-day years totals 173,880 days.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Kind of BS. The Jewish calendar varies in length, with some years having 12 months and some having 13. Overall, it does average out to about <b>365</b> days, because 19 Jewish years take up the same amount of time as 19 "normal" years.

Aegeri · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The point of my analogy was that a being that is of a different "kind" than everything else</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

But as I pointed out, he is not.

You might as well have made the analogy simply using someone posting these very kinds of messages on a computer. That would be the exact same concept as what you tried (and failed) to do with your analogy, except as it isn't trying to use something that is directly fantasy, the immediate flaws in it shine out completely. For example, people on the internet cannot be seen, have no direct physical interaction with whoever is on the other side, but can be assumed to be 100% real because it can be directly proven. People leave an IP that traces back to an actual computer that will have a log or record of someone using that machine at X time.

God does not, and therefore your analogy, and the argument designed with that supporting analogy falls to bits. Again, just with the application of basic logic.

Still as badly flawed and with as poor a supporting argument.

As mentioned previously, the intangible gardener or the pink rhino called "skippy" in my closet is more appropriate and closer to the truth. Those make for better analogies, because they are actually analogous.

In fact, I'll elaborate even further.

For an analogy (and hence your argument) to stand, it must first be analogous, or have enough similarities to what you are drawing your analogy with to be actually valid.

The NS commander can
Seen (It is a real person by gameworld terms, just in a fancy chair)
Directly communicated with
Can be destroyed/killed (emphasising that it is a real entity)
Has an overt and obvious effect on the world (The aforementioned appearing medpacks).
Has a direct scientific explanation by the games world view.

God (as you tried to draw your analogy too).
Cannot be seen
Cannot be heard (No direct proof of this, you cannot record a conversation with God!)
Cannot be destroyed or killed (though this is arguable on a philosophic level).
Has no direct effect on the world or surroundings
Has no direct scientific explanation

Going back once again, your analogy is irrelevant and as such, the arguments that go with it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>God himself is only unknowable if He chooses not to show Himself through His works in the Natural.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Which he hasn't pretty much.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What the argument defaults to, is, has sufficient means been provided to show reasonable doubt that an intelligent, supernatural force exists?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Aha, and what did I point out earlier?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The other main problem of the analogy is that is not actually analogous to the discussion. God does not interact in peoples lives directly and there isn't evidence to support that, without falling back into a "prove/disprove God" argument which we are already aware is pointless. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Predicted++

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I would argue that predicting the actions of a single person</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I guess I must be God then, I picked you very well right down to how you would try and defend your analogy.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>with a precision of 12 hours, over 175,000 days in advance is something that is completely beyond the realm of science</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I would say predicting the exact weather formations and other phenomena for the next 50-100 years is a far more impressive a feat. That is being done by science right at the moment.

Also as mentioned, there is still a fair amount of leeway to dispute that due to how people can basically interpret whatever they want to fit what they want. The nostradamus two towers comparison is a prime example. Hell, if you like, nostradamus could of predicted virtually anything he wanted! Just fudge the words to fit the event.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>, and provides just the reasonable doubt that is required to believe in a higher power.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Not really.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Especially when that is exactly the test that the God is question supposedly set out to prove His own authenticity.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I'd rather something a little less vague and completely indisputable myself.

Then again, I don't require anything to believe in God anymore*, I simply do because the idea seems fairly logical to me. I don't base it on any proof, because there simply isn't any. You see, while the Bible holds up in many areas for historical accuracy and even archaelogically, it doesn't in many areas as well. To me, seeing that as proof and then not accepting things like mythical beasts and Achilles indestructibility from the Illiad (For example), also based on real events that can be proven to have happened, is a tad silly and contradictory.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>but it is easy to construct a similar one that easily avoids the pitfalls that the previous one fell into. So, I'm afraid, it's you that has missed the point.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Care to explain then? Or have you missed the point of what *I* pointed out?

We've already had two analogies which demonstrate the point much better (Intangible Gardener).

*And yes, I do regard this whole "I demand proof" attitude of today for the inrease in things like atheism. As people demand that something be proved, particularly with regards to religion, they forget they should instead have faith that something is correct and follow what is taught (not literally said, because what is literally said really isn't very sensical overall). It isn't surprising to me that people cannot find the proof in God they want to see (there is none) so claim they are Agnostic (to me just a confused Atheist) or simply disbelieve in God anyway.

Wheeee · May 2004

*warning* Long post ahead

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 25 2004, 10:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> BS. "Shabua" means nothing beyond "a week".
[snip]

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Jewish (and Babylonian) calendars used a 360-day year;4 69 weeks of 360-day years totals 173,880 days.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Kind of BS. The Jewish calendar varies in length, with some years having 12 months and some having 13. Overall, it does average out to about <b>365</b> days, because 19 Jewish years take up the same amount of time as 19 "normal" years. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Care to back up your rebuttal? "Shabua" means "Seven". It doesn't say "seven days" and Biblically it is only ever used in the sense of "seven years."

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>QUOTE
with a precision of 12 hours, over 175,000 days in advance is something that is completely beyond the realm of science

I would say predicting the exact weather formations and other phenomena for the next 50-100 years is a far more impressive a feat. That is being done by science right at the moment.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Just a second here, you're not "predicting" weather formations, you're using a mathematical model in a supercomputer to crunch math and say "this should happen". It's rather more impressive when you remember that they didn't have such things in the past. They didn't plug some numbers into a Cray and BAM, come up with Jesus Christ. I'll be impressed when a Joe Schmoe is able to "predict" weather formations in 100 years by intuition.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In fact, I'll elaborate even further.

For an analogy (and hence your argument) to stand, it must first be analogous, or have enough similarities to what you are drawing your analogy with to be actually valid.

The NS commander can
Seen (It is a real person by gameworld terms, just in a fancy chair)
Directly communicated with
Can be destroyed/killed (emphasising that it is a real entity)
Has an overt and obvious effect on the world (The aforementioned appearing medpacks).
Has a direct scientific explanation by the games world view.

God (as you tried to draw your analogy too).
Cannot be seen
Cannot be heard (No direct proof of this, you cannot record a conversation with God!)
Cannot be destroyed or killed (though this is arguable on a philosophic level).
Has no direct effect on the world or surroundings
Has no direct scientific explanation

Going back once again, your analogy is irrelevant and as such, the arguments that go with it.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>but it is easy to construct a similar one that easily avoids the pitfalls that the previous one fell into. So, I'm afraid, it's you that has missed the point.

Care to explain then? Or have you missed the point of what *I* pointed out?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

First of all, the Commander analogy is flawed - after all, it's a separate set of game mechanics adapted to an illustrative purpose. But so is the intangible gardener analogy, which was specifically constructed to address this issue.

However, back to the issue of the "differences" between the comm and God -
1) "Cannot be seen" This is irrelevant - the commander could sit in a command chair, or he could be in a special part of the map inaccessible by anyone else. This is mainly a game-mechanics problem. As it is, you cannot see the commander during normal play - you can only see the command chair (and in some builds, the comm-chair animation was broken, so you couldn't tell if a CC was occupied or not).

2) "Cannot be communicated with" You can record a conversation with your commander since you have a built-in demo recorder. Let me see... oh yes, we have our memories!

3) "Cannot be killed" Remember the F4 bug? The commander couldn't be killed. And he very literally could not be seen, or touched, or killed after that.

4) "Doesn't have an effect" I would argue that God *does* have a direct effect on this world - it exists, doesn't it?

5) "Can't be explained" That's like asking a sand castle to explain the little boy who built it.

Anyway, let us suppose the following:
There is a patch of barren land. One day, a man comes and builds a house on it. While the man lives there, the patch of barren land begins to produce flowers, trees, and wildlife previously unknown to this patch of barren land, without the man planting anything himself. The man discovers from his neighbors, to his surprise, that there had never been anything living there before - in fact, the soil below his house was only inches thick, with an underlying layer of bedrock. And yet his garden continues to flourish. Then, one day, he claims that he has an "invisible gardener" that he interacts with. No one else can see, hear, or otherwise interact with him (let's just suppose this for the moment, just for the sake of you nay-sayers who say that we can't have possibly "experienced God"). And yet there is no other explanation for why the patch of barren land is fertile.
This would be a much better way to describe the Christian God.

Lest you take this example too literally, let me point out that the fertile patch of land is a metaphor. Science is based on causality - something behaves such-and-such a way, given such-and-such initial conditions, because of such-and-such laws.

You could view the whole of the universe as summarized by these laws. However, a difficulty arises - who set up these laws? Why are they here? If, as such, something akin to the Big Bang happened, what caused it? Current physics breaks down at "crunch time." This whole chain of causality that science is based on,

P.S. </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Omitting the gameplay device of the CommChair, could you please describe the Commander in NS for me?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You probably didn't see that. Looks like he predicted your objections too. But that's immaterial to the argument.

One last thing, I went through the thread again and would like to address some people's skepticism based on the fact that there are a multitude of other religions "based on the same values" or something of that sort.

I would like to encourage you guys to read C.S. Lewis. He is a fairly good Christian apologist, and while I disagreed with some of his speeches/writing, overall he presents fairly sound arguments. Basically his answer to this is that Christianity is the fulfillment of all the other religions in the world. They aren't "wrong" necessarily, just incomplete or off-track.

Aegeri · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ May 26 2004, 12:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 25 2004, 10:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> BS. "Shabua" means nothing beyond "a week".
[snip]</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Care to back up your rebuttal? "Shabua" means "Seven". It doesn't say "seven days" and Biblically it is only ever used in the sense of "seven years."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Technically, you just agreed with him (unless you took exception to the second passage).

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Just a second here, you're not "predicting" weather formations, you're using a mathematical model in a supercomputer to crunch math and say "this should happen".</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Sometimes, this forum lacking a roll eyes smiley is a severe disadvantage.

And what do you think that is.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It's rather more impressive when you remember that they didn't have such things in the past.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And? This makes Nostradamus a genius because you can literally interpret what he says any way you want to theoretically match any event?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They didn't plug some numbers into a Cray and BAM, come up with Jesus Christ. I'll be impressed when a Joe Schmoe is able to "predict" weather formations in 100 years by intuition.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I see you've missed the point.

Of course, this depends on something: What do you actually understand of how difficult it IS to predict atmospherics even remotely properly. More importantly, if the new machine actually ends up being right, that would make a HUGE difference to what currently happens.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>1) This is irrelevant - the commander could sit in a command chair, or he could be in a special part of the map inaccessible by anyone else.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It doesn't change

The NS commander can
Seen (It is a real person by gameworld terms, just in a fancy chair)

God (as you tried to draw your analogy too).
Cannot be seen

Because you are now applying a game engine limitation to what would be their "real world". By the fluff of the NS universe the aliens could pound their way right too him eventually. As he has to be locally present he must be hacking directly into the nanite system in order to do anything. Therefore he MUST be present and must be able to be seen at some point, if it before they get to their destination (the mess hall on the ship) or during it as the aliens overrun the facility. Inevitably, he will have to be seen, even if it is somewhere that is hard to reach, because he himself MUST have gotton there somehow.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This is mainly a game-mechanics problem. As it is, you cannot see the commander during normal play - you can only see the command chair (and in some builds, the comm-chair animation was broken, so you couldn't tell if a CC was occupied or not).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, but this wouldn't be a problem for them, remember I used the world "verisimilitude" when talking about what goes on. That is, if we treat their world as real the minor graphical bugs are unlikely to occur, because their world doesn't incorporate just a game, but also the science fiction writing that people have contributed.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>2) You can record a conversation with your commander since you have a built-in demo recorder. Let me see... oh yes, we have our memories!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, but you cannot play memories to other people for them to directly see as they happened.

Again, you're making more flawed arguments to support a flawed analogy.

Would you deny that if you heard a tape recording of two people, that it was two people speaking (especially if they had two different pitches, tones and speech manners). If someone was telling you a memory, how are you sure if it is a real memory, something they have made up, or something they have heard?

For a further refutation to this rather silly argument, if you were in court, would a jury take a video of you stabbing someone as better evidence than someone denying you stabbed someone from their memory.

Why?

Once you've realised that, you have realised why your argument is irrelevant. I could, for example, claim there are communists under my bed and that a voice in my head is telling me so.

Does that mean there are communists under my bed?

Have a think on that one.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>3) Remember the F4 bug? The commander couldn't be killed. And he very literally could not be seen, or touched, or killed after that.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Is there an F4 bug in the universes fiction? Funny, there isn't.

Next.

[See point 1]

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>4) I would argue that God *does* have a direct effect on this world - it exists, doesn't it?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I've already said I think so, but that doesn't mean there is any direct proof of it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>5) That's like asking a sand castle to explain the little boy who built it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Good dodge!

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Anyway, let us suppose the following:
There is a patch of barren land. One day, a man comes and builds a house on it. While the man lives there, the patch of barren land begins to produce flowers, trees, and wildlife previously unknown to this patch of barren land, without the man planting anything himself. The man discovers from his neighbors, to his surprise, that there had never been anything living there before - in fact, the soil below his house was only inches thick, with an underlying layer of bedrock. And yet his garden continues to flourish. Then, one day, he claims that he has an "invisible gardener" that he interacts with. No one else can see, hear, or otherwise interact with him (let's just suppose this for the moment, just for the sake of you nay-sayers who say that we can't have possibly "experienced God"). And yet there is no other explanation for why the patch of barren land is fertile.
This would be a much better way to describe the Christian God.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Actually, you could assume that his presence provide metabolites through his feces, sweat, bacteria sloughing off his skin (appromiately 10:1 bacteria for every human cell) which could provide the basis for a food chain. Bacteria that adapt to the soils conditions allow for the growth of protozoans and fungi that are able to use them as metabolites. These bacteria can share genes, including nodulation genes, with other existing soil bacteria which allows for nitrogen to be fixed into the soil. Nitrogen fixation into the soil allows for plants to grow.

No need for God at all.

Incidently, the concept that land is barren is rather silly to me, especially as extromophillic (yes they are called that) bacteria exist that can grow in nuclear waste.

It is worth noting, that just because you can't see something, doesn't mean there isn't anything there. Unless they had the facility to test what bacteria were there before and after human settlement, there is no way to say 100% certain that it HAD to be an outside force.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Lest you take this example too literally, let me point out that the fertile patch of land is a metaphor.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, but nothing in your example precludes things arising from reasons that are directly testable by the right minded people. You don't need an invisible gardener, just bacteria that can't be seen to the naked eye unless you had a microscope.

They are then your not invisible, invisible gardener.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Science is based on causality - something behaves such-and-such a way, given such-and-such initial conditions, because of such-and-such laws.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Not exactly true. Science is about forming an idea (hypothesis) about an observation (bacteria seem related to disease) and then designing a test that proves or disproves your initial hypothesis (Kochs postulates). There doesn't need to be a cause, just an observation or a line of enquiry.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You could view the whole of the universe as summarized by these laws.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, if someone wants too and that is in fact perfectly valid.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>However, a difficulty arises - who set up these laws?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That is philosophy, not science. I think you are not entirely sure on what science is.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why are they here? If, as such, something akin to the Big Bang happened, what caused it? Current physics breaks down at "crunch time." This whole chain of causality that science is based on,</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Considering that science isn't based on cause, it is based on observations that lead to empiracle experiments that explain why those observations occur, that is rather irrelevant. For example, I can make the observation that <i>Mycobacterium bovis</i> is extremely hard to destroy. I can then wonder as to why that is, and being a scientist I don't go "Oh well, its God" and move on, I design an experiment that tests the idea. In this case I would pick on cell surface lipid molecules that I believe make the organism more resistant to macrophage mediated destruction. I would delete them out and against a control I have not affected, I would <i>observe</i> if the bacteria were destroyed more easily. I could then say that the reason for this is that those lipids are present, but I <i>couldn't</i> give a mechanism on that experiment alone. I would need to do further experiments to observe if changing different aspects of the structure altered destructability etc.

So your argument that it is about causality is wrong, it is about <i>observation</i>. Only once I have observed and understood an effect, can I even remotely understand why an organism can cause disease (by living in macrophages in this example). But I must first make observations and experiments to get my answer, which is the important aspect about science.

Testing and proving or disproving observations made by both myself, and other scientists.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You probably didn't see that. Looks like he predicted your objections too. But that's immaterial to the argument.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I weaseled him (and apparently you), I ignored "gameplay" and used the word verisimilitude and went to the games FICTION not the gameplay. So I could do whatever to his argument I wanted based on the actual fictional world NS is staged in <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />

Marine0I · May 2004

Ahhh gotta love analogy wars - so pointless <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Here is what I consider God to be/what I know about him.

A) He is the supernatural. By that I mean he is outside of nature. He created it, but he does not exist exclusively in it. He is not subject to its laws and rules. He enters it and exits it at will, or exists both in the natural world and the supernatural at the same time.

As he is outside of nature, it is impossible for humans to find out anything about him unless he chooses to reveal himself.

B) He exists outside of time. This theory is connected to his claims of omniscence, being all knowing. I get the impression that he knows everything because he can go anywhere in time he wishes.

C) He has made several claims about himself - most of which siruis/legionairred have already stated, and then claimed the facts should back him up.

All up, I reckon those 3 pretty much sum up what I know about this God character. It in no way excludes him from being able to be known.

CMEast · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I say we should all just agree to disagree... because beliefs are the one thing that almost no one can change when it comes to issues such as this one. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Totally (though it is fun) <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>*And yes, I do regard this whole "I demand proof" attitude of today for the inrease in things like atheism. As people demand that something be proved, particularly with regards to religion, they forget they should instead have faith that something is correct and follow what is taught (not literally said, because what is literally said really isn't very sensical overall). It isn't surprising to me that people cannot find the proof in God they want to see (there is none) so claim they are Agnostic (to me just a confused Atheist) or simply disbelieve in God anyway.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Again, I agree. The whole point of God is that there isn't any proof, I don't have faith in tables because my keyboard is leaning on one. I've said it before and I'll say it again, because there is no proof people basically fall into 4 camps, believers, disbelievers, indecisive and don't care. You can't get someone to believe by talking to them. They have to experience something life changing if they are going to change and I'm sure there are just as many people who lose their religion as gain it when something bad happens.

Cyndane · May 2004

Whoohoo CMEast... agreed they do fall into 4 simple categories.

The only thing that causes religion to be such a large debacle is the fact that so many (not necessarily those on these forums) attempt to influence someones choice when it comes to faith. There are only two religions in the world that do just that (actively recruit). Islamic, Christianity (I mean all sects of those two) therein lies the problem. Now if everyone would just accept the fact that neither of those two are more correct then the other, guess what.. a lot of problems would be solved. I don't think this will happen anytime soon unless one or the other dies out. Although I don't think that would solve anything really, they seem to like to fight each other as much as everyone else. :-)

CMEast · May 2004

Yeah, it is a pretty good excuse, as we've just shown you can't really prove them wrong.

We'd find some other excuse to fight over if it wasn't religion.

Wheeee · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ May 26 2004, 01:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ May 26 2004, 12:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Care to back up your rebuttal? "Shabua" means "Seven". It doesn't say "seven days" and Biblically it is only ever used in the sense of "seven years."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Technically, you just agreed with him (unless you took exception to the second passage).
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
eh?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
It's rather more impressive when you remember that they didn't have such things in the past.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And? This makes Nostradamus a genius because you can literally interpret what he says any way you want to theoretically match any event?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The difference is, Daniel's prophecy (which I assume we're talking about here) is a long string of predictions, exactly in order, which are historically proven to happen, starting soon after Daniel's time.

Nostradamus, on the other hand, consists of 4-liners that are easily historical coincidences. Monkeys with typewriters...y'know. There are also scholars who believe he was demon-possessed, etc etc. Whatever.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They didn't plug some numbers into a Cray and BAM, come up with Jesus Christ. I'll be impressed when a Joe Schmoe is able to "predict" weather formations in 100 years by intuition.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I see you've missed the point.

Of course, this depends on something: What do you actually understand of how difficult it IS to predict atmospherics even remotely properly. More importantly, if the new machine actually ends up being right, that would make a HUGE difference to what currently happens.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I understand it fine. I still find it more difficult to predict someone's actions almost 500 years in the future.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>1) This is irrelevant - the commander could sit in a command chair, or he could be in a special part of the map inaccessible by anyone else.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It doesn't change

The NS commander can
Seen (It is a real person by gameworld terms, just in a fancy chair)

God (as you tried to draw your analogy too).
Cannot be seen

Because you are now applying a game engine limitation to what would be their "real world". By the fluff of the NS universe the aliens could pound their way right too him eventually. As he has to be locally present he must be hacking directly into the nanite system in order to do anything. Therefore he MUST be present and must be able to be seen at some point, if it before they get to their destination (the mess hall on the ship) or during it as the aliens overrun the facility. Inevitably, he will have to be seen, even if it is somewhere that is hard to reach, because he himself MUST have gotton there somehow.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You missed my point also. There is no requirement for himself to have "gotten" there in any way. He could be remotely controlling and interface from somewhere else. Why are we even arguing this anymore?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This is mainly a game-mechanics problem. As it is, you cannot see the commander during normal play - you can only see the command chair (and in some builds, the comm-chair animation was broken, so you couldn't tell if a CC was occupied or not).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, but this wouldn't be a problem for them, remember I used the world "verisimilitude" when talking about what goes on. blablah blah</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

yeah. refer to above.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>2) You can record a conversation with your commander since you have a built-in demo recorder. Let me see... oh yes, we have our memories!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, but you cannot play memories to other people for them to directly see as they happened.

Again, you're making more flawed arguments to support a flawed analogy.

Would you deny that if you heard a tape recording of two people, that it was two people speaking (especially if they had two different pitches, tones and speech manners). If someone was telling you a memory, how are you sure if it is a real memory, something they have made up, or something they have heard?

For a further refutation to this rather silly argument, if you were in court, would a jury take a video of you stabbing someone as better evidence than someone denying you stabbed someone from their memory.

Why?

Once you've realised that, you have realised why your argument is irrelevant. I could, for example, claim there are communists under my bed and that a voice in my head is telling me so.

Does that mean there are communists under my bed?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Eh. Refer to Daniel prophecies above.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>3) Remember the F4 bug? The commander couldn't be killed. And he very literally could not be seen, or touched, or killed after that.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Is there an F4 bug in the universes fiction? Funny, there isn't.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I don't even see the need to reply to this one :roll:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>5) That's like asking a sand castle to explain the little boy who built it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Good dodge!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Why thank you <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>[snip]</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Actually, you could assume that his presence provide metabolites through his feces, sweat, bacteria sloughing off his skin (appromiately 10:1 bacteria for every human cell) which could provide the basis for a food chain. Bacteria that adapt to the soils conditions allow for the growth of protozoans and fungi that are able to use them as metabolites. These bacteria can share genes, including nodulation genes, with other existing soil bacteria which allows for nitrogen to be fixed into the soil. Nitrogen fixation into the soil allows for plants to grow.

No need for God at all.

Incidently, the concept that land is barren is rather silly to me, especially as extromophillic (yes they are called that) bacteria exist that can grow in nuclear waste.

It is worth noting, that just because you can't see something, doesn't mean there isn't anything there. Unless they had the facility to test what bacteria were there before and after human settlement, there is no way to say 100% certain that it HAD to be an outside force.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Lest you take this example too literally, let me point out that the fertile patch of land is a metaphor.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, but nothing in your example precludes things arising from reasons that are directly testable by the right minded people. You don't need an invisible gardener, just bacteria that can't be seen to the naked eye unless you had a microscope.

They are then your not invisible, invisible gardener.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Jeebus man, you seem not to understand the point of analogies - to illustrate a point. If we made an accurate analogy to the world, it would take us years of squabbling, and no one would ever agree. Give it a rest already. BTW, extromophilic bacteria - your version seems to have them spring up from nowhere <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' />.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Science is based on causality - something behaves such-and-such a way, given such-and-such initial conditions, because of such-and-such laws.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Not exactly true. Science is about forming an idea (hypothesis) about an observation (bacteria seem related to disease) and then designing a test that proves or disproves your initial hypothesis (Kochs postulates). There doesn't need to be a cause, just an observation or a line of enquiry.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

By forming the hypothesis, you are presupposing that there *is* a guiding principle behind the observed behavior. Science is about describing observed events, yes, but there is an inherent assumption that there is something to be found at the end - some overarching physical laws that determine how things react.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>However, a difficulty arises - who set up these laws?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That is philosophy, not science. I think you are not entirely sure on what science is.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I've moved beyond science at this point. Scientific laws can't explain its source.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why are they here? If, as such, something akin to the Big Bang happened, what caused it? Current physics breaks down at "crunch time." This whole chain of causality that science is based on,</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Considering that science isn't based on cause, it is based on observations that lead to empiracle experiments that explain why those observations occur, that is rather irrelevant. [snip]
So your argument that it is about causality is wrong, [snip] I even remotely understand why an organism can cause disease (by living in macrophages in this example). But I must first make observations and experiments to get my answer, which is the important aspect about science.

Testing and proving or disproving observations made by both myself, and other scientists.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Again, there is an underlying assumption that there is causality in these things. Let's say that you found a strange trait in some fruit flies. Wouldn't you go "hmm, I wonder what causes those" and attempt to isolate a cause, by, say, breeding them and observing the results? I mean...there's a reason experimental physicists are trying to find several specie of quarks right now. I affirm that science is based on cause. In fact, your very argument "I could attribute it to God" is an inherent admission that when you encounter behavior not already explained by current models of the universe, you must try to explain away its "cause."

*edit* addendum
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I weaseled him (and apparently you), I ignored "gameplay" and used the word verisimilitude and went to the games FICTION not the gameplay. So I could do whatever to his argument I wanted based on the actual fictional world NS is staged in.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Then what about the hivemind, from the marine perspective, or the marine commander from the alien perspective?

Cyndane · May 2004

Well.. in that case since you men are being so silly... we women shall RULE THE WORLD....

Wheeee · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (WoT|Lanfear @ May 26 2004, 01:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well.. in that case since you men are being so silly... we women shall RULE THE WORLD....  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
You can start your own religion <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

Cyndane · May 2004

yeah.. we can all worship me now :-)

Aegeri · May 2004

As you clearly ignored 3/4 of my points Wheeee, I'll just ignore everything I've already answered and answer your (few) new points.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Jeebus man, you seem not to understand the point of analogies</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, you certainly don't. I've given the definition several times now and incidently, my post was a direct rebuttal that you don't need an invisible gardener, just invisible friends that can't be overtly seen. They are there though.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Give it a rest already. BTW, extromophilic bacteria - your version seems to have them spring up from nowhere <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' />.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Got reading comprehension?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Actually, <b>you could assume that his presence provide metabolites through his feces, sweat, bacteria sloughing off his skin (appromiately 10:1 bacteria for every human cell)</b></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Incidently, a couple of extremophiles are also human pathogens too.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>By forming the hypothesis, you are presupposing that there *is* a guiding principle behind the observed behavior.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Correct, but you've missed the first key point: That you must first observe that something is different before you can test it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Science is about describing observed events, yes,</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Good we agree.

End of this line of argument.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Again, there is an underlying assumption that there is causality in these things.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

But you've missed the point. You must observe something and then investigate it. You do not have a cause/observation/test.

You MUST observe something to test it to determine ANYTHING else.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Wouldn't you go "hmm, I wonder what causes those" and attempt to isolate a cause</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You assume the first task is to isolate a cause, rather than to observe and compare that flies environment to other known species. As mentioned, in order to have a new trait, you must first have to observe a difference or some form of alteration FIRST AND FOREMOST.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I mean...there's a reason experimental physicists are trying to find several specie of quarks right now. I affirm that science is based on cause.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And fail miserably.

I say science is based on observation, you say causality. I point out that you cannot have a cause without first observing some sort of phenomena to investigate. You go, ummmmm ahhhh crap, got me there, and start quoting me incorrectly (see below).

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In fact, your very argument "I could attribute it to God"</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Pardon? Where did I say that, I did say

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I can then wonder as to why that is, and <b>being a scientist I don't go "Oh well, its God"</b></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Quoting out of context to make your opponent say what you want is the first sign you're losing a debate incidently.

Using the almighty power of control F, I cannot find me saying that anywhere in this debate.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>is an inherent admission that when you encounter behavior not already explained by current models of the universe, you must try to explain away its "cause."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Funny, that isn't what I said but at least we've got to the route of your misunderstanding.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Then what about the hivemind, from the marine perspective, or the marine commander from the alien perspective?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Answered already by another poster.

As you ignored all of my arguments, except what you evidently thought you could rebut (badly too) and have resorted to quoting me out of context (in fact, putting words in my mouth) I can assume you're running out of ground to stand on then? Therefore we can probably cease arguing, you are not interesting in arguing what points I bring up, and I can't be bothered having a one sided discussion.

Aegeri · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (WoT|Lanfear @ May 26 2004, 01:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well.. in that case since you men are being so silly... we women shall RULE THE WORLD.... </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You already do.

Edit: How the? NOES I DOUBLE TEH POSTED!!!!

B33F · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ May 26 2004, 12:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 25 2004, 10:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> BS. "Shabua" means nothing beyond "a week".
[snip]

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Jewish (and Babylonian) calendars used a 360-day year;4 69 weeks of 360-day years totals 173,880 days.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Kind of BS. The Jewish calendar varies in length, with some years having 12 months and some having 13. Overall, it does average out to about <b>365</b> days, because 19 Jewish years take up the same amount of time as 19 "normal" years. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Care to back up your rebuttal? "Shabua" means "Seven". It doesn't say "seven days" and Biblically it is only ever used in the sense of "seven years." </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Yes, I will back up my rebuttal, even though several posts in the meantime have veered off this topic. "Shabua" does not mean seven. "Sheva" is seven. "Shabua" simply means a week. Nothing else. I speak nearly fluent Hebrew. I really can't say about the Biblical use of it, however. I don't think I've ever opened a Bible. (GASP! Heresy! Heheh.)

EDIT: To add to the "Religious Spectrum" topic, I present the religion of Lord Kelvin! <a href='http://www.zapatopi.net/lordkelvin.html' target='_blank'>http://www.zapatopi.net/lordkelvin.html</a>

juice · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([WHO]Them @ May 8 2004, 04:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I can't explain it or defend it, but I know that <a href='http://www.timecube.com/' target='_blank'>The Time Cube Creation Principle</a> must be thrown into this discussion.

The guy believes in it so fervently that it must be acknowledged as "religious".  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Hey! He bashed my school!

Wheeee · May 2004

nice find <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

Anyway, since you know hebrew and i do not, i want your comments on <a href='http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/ATRJ/proof/ATRJ1103-12.htm' target='_blank'>this</a>.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In context Daniel 9:23-27 demands that the plural word shabuim must refer to units of seven years. Thus, Daniel would be speaking of 70 units, or periods of seven years, or a total of 490 years. Here are the reasons why the context of Daniel demands this conclusion:

? 1. Daniel tells us he has been thinking in terms of "years." He says in verse 2, "I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the Lord to Jeremiah" (Dan. 9:2, emphasis added).

? 2. Daniel had been considering the 70-year captivity. Each year of captivity represented one seven-year "period" or "unit" in which the Sabbath year had not been observed. Thus the context again is in reference to years, not to days.

? 3. In Daniel 10:2, 3, in the Hebrew text, Daniel carefully inserted the word "days" with shabuim to indicate the term weeks is referring to a period of seven days. But the fact that he deliberately excluded the word "days" with shabuim in Daniel 9 clearly indicates he did not intend to refer to days there. Rather, he was speaking about years. Dr. Alva McClain agrees. He has said,

[in Dan. 9:24-27] Daniel used the Hebrew shabua alone when referring to the well-known "week" of years, a customary usage which every Jew would understand; but in chapter 10, when he speaks of the "three weeks" of fasting, he definitely specifies them as "weeks of days" in order to distinguish them from the "weeks" of years in chapter 9.82

? 4. It would have been utterly impossible to restore and rebuild Jerusalem in seven literal weeks (Daniel 9:25 says the city will be rebuilt). Daniel must be referring to years. Again, the context demands seven units of seven "years" (or 49 years).

? 5. The term "shabua" has the meaning of "years" in the Mishna.83

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

*ninja edit*
@Aegeri - Continue this on PM's, if you please.

B33F · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ May 26 2004, 10:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> nice find <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

Anyway, since you know hebrew and i do not, i want your comments on <a href='http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/ATRJ/proof/ATRJ1103-12.htm' target='_blank'>this</a>.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In context Daniel 9:23-27 demands that the plural word shabuim must refer to units of seven years. Thus, Daniel would be speaking of 70 units, or periods of seven years, or a total of 490 years. Here are the reasons why the context of Daniel demands this conclusion:

1. Daniel tells us he has been thinking in terms of "years." He says in verse 2, "I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the Lord to Jeremiah" (Dan. 9:2, emphasis added).

2. Daniel had been considering the 70-year captivity. Each year of captivity represented one seven-year "period" or "unit" in which the Sabbath year had not been observed. Thus the context again is in reference to years, not to days.

3. In Daniel 10:2, 3, in the Hebrew text, Daniel carefully inserted the word "days" with shabuim to indicate the term weeks is referring to a period of seven days. But the fact that he deliberately excluded the word "days" with shabuim in Daniel 9 clearly indicates he did not intend to refer to days there. Rather, he was speaking about years. Dr. Alva McClain agrees. He has said,

[in Dan. 9:24-27] Daniel used the Hebrew shabua alone when referring to the well-known "week" of years, a customary usage which every Jew would understand; but in chapter 10, when he speaks of the "three weeks" of fasting, he definitely specifies them as "weeks of days" in order to distinguish them from the "weeks" of years in chapter 9.82

4. It would have been utterly impossible to restore and rebuild Jerusalem in seven literal weeks (Daniel 9:25 says the city will be rebuilt). Daniel must be referring to years. Again, the context demands seven units of seven "years" (or 49 years).

5. The term "shabua" has the meaning of "years" in the Mishna.83

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

P.S. Since when is paraphrasing (accurately, I might add), putting words in someone's mouth?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Ok, a few things. I have been corrected, it is actually "shavua" and "shavuot", not "shabua". There is a distinct <i>v</i> noise. Anyway, it really means nothing but seven days. It is not a "unit of seven". It is possible that it was used in that way by the people writing the Bible several hundred years ago, but to the extent of my (and my mother's) knowledge, "shavua" means the same as "a week", nothing more. However, you could still interpret that section of the Bible to be referring to years if you want, since the Bible is apparently so easily interpreted to mean whatever you want. There is a saying in Hebrew, loosely translated: "You can find anything you want in the Torah".

I showed my mother Legionnaired's original post and she started laughing. However, she went to check in a Hebrew Torah and what it says is basically "seventy weeks of years, not of days". So, it apparently does mean that. What this means is that whoever did that english translation did a bad job. There's no need to continue this argument. In conclusion, "shavua" in all normal cases simply means a week, but here it is specifically referred to as "a week of years". It's the same as if you said "a week of years" in English and someone could infer you to mean seven years.

What's this about paraphrasing? Huh?

Aegeri · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>P.S. Since when is paraphrasing (accurately, I might add)
putting words in someone's mouth? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Because you were actually completely wrong? As for being accurate, well, we need not go into that.

At least you've aptly demonstrated you can use a word without knowing what it means.

CMEast · May 2004

I worship women already, they seriously pwn <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> (plus 'praying' is alot more fun <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />)

Of course they can be really annoying too but the only reason why we get frustrated with them is because they are so important to us. Men rarely annoy me because I don't really care what they think.

BaconTheory · May 2004

Religions have no real importance to us as humans. Religion is just something that is there to comfort us and give us something to look to for guidance everyday and in times of need. I am a realist when it comes to religion I suppose. I look at religion as historical facts, not some made up book.

Bogglesteinsky · May 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Skidzor @ May 31 2004, 03:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Religion is just something that is there to comfort us and give us something to look to for guidance everyday and in times of need.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
On what do you base that claim?

Wheeee · May 2004

*edit* misread the original post, my apologies.

Actually, taken out of context, that sentence is partially true. What you probably disagree with is the "of no real importance" part and "historical fact" part.

Bogglesteinsky · May 2004

Yes, I disagree with the "no importance" bit, but I do agree with the "historical fact" part. My aim was not to ask about his assumptions, but his statement about what religion is used for.

Religious Spectrum

Comments