Do you believe the theory of Evolution to be true?

[NickHassan]

ps,
As miracles are scientifically impossible then they must be decried if science is your foundation.

[Stu]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 01 2007,05:11)

Hi Stu, So you are happy to believe that dinosaurs walked the earth and men derived from swamp debris with no recorded human witnesses but cannot believe Jesus was raised from the dead where over 500 human witnesses are recorded?

Show me the fossils of Jesus!

(According to the Relic Record he had at least thirteen foreskins).

Seriously, there has been a long discussion going on for a while here about the reliability of the gospel accounts. In analytical science there is a requirement to trace a result back through all the processes of analysis to what is called a primary standard. This is an example of what you mentioned about science before, we make observations and compare them to things we have learned to trust (there is a whole philosophical thread here for anyone who has the stamina!).

Let's try the same logic with the witnesses of Jesus' resurrection. We read about that in a book. That book traces back via several translations (though languages that did not even exist at the time of the portrayed events) to copied and recopied versions. Let’s just remind ourselves that there are many in the world who live literally by the English translation of these writings, even though the originals were more susceptible to translation errors than DNA is. Going backwards, the original-language versions are compilations by early christians who introduced a bias into what writings were selected and what was left out. There are good reasons to believe that there are writings that were used to inform the gospel writers that are no longer in existence, so for sections of the bible, the chain of documentation is broken there. We arrive at the writers of the gospels. There is no objective reason to believe that any of the four was actually an eyewitness of Jesus (there's lots on this point if you need it). This means that they are recording second-hand an oral account or using some other documents, unknown.

The gospels were written many years after the alleged events, and it would be unreasonable to expect, say, the Sermon on the Mount to be recorded verbatim. At best it would be a version of the thing thought most likely to have been said. Of the non-christian writing that confirms even the existence of Jesus, the most convincing is a very debatable reference by Josephus. His writing has been analysed for writing style and it is clear that others, early christians, have edited and coloured his chronicles. So we then have the problem of reliability, especially with his Testimonium Flavianum, very possibly not even written by Josephus.

I assume you trust the work done by forensic scientists who can reconstruct a crime from evidence even though they were not witnesses to it. While most of the evolutionary history of life is recorded in low to medium resolution in the fossil record, there is no confirmed eyewitness account of Jesus. They had writing in 33CE, yet we have not one surviving record of someone writing ‘hey, you’re not going to believe this, but I watched a man feed 5000 people using a single fish and one loaf of bread’. Why not? If 500 people were witnesses to the alleged resurrection, why is there not a single independent account that claims to be written by an eyewitness? Not even the bible, as far as I can see, claims that the gospel writers actually saw the events portrayed.

It is the nature of faith that people are willing to base in part the way they conduct their lives on a record that really is no better than hearsay?

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 01 2007,06:17)

ps, As miracles are scientifically impossible then they must be decried if science is your foundation.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence for them to have credibility. I find intriguing the logical gymnastics that the Vatican goes though in deciding what qualifies as a miracle for their beatification programme!

Stuart

[NickHassan]

Hi Stu,
That is the point,
He does not have a corpse as he was the firstborn from the dead, the hope of all mankind who believe.

[Stu]

Quote (acertainchap @ Dec. 01 2007,02:05)

Stu, I must know something: Do you celebrate Christmas?

Only as a midsummer celebration and opportunity to think more of my family than I might at other times of the year. It nearly coincides with the solstice which I do enjoy celebrating, although not in a druidy way!

How about you?

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 01 2007,10:22)

Hi Stu, That is the point, He does not have a corpse as he was the firstborn from the dead, the hope of all mankind who believe.

Hi Nick

So a man who, for all we really definitely know, may not have existed at all, has left no corpse. Is this a reliable basis for a life-engulfing philosophy?

Stuart

[NickHassan]

Hi Stu,
Would you prefer a corpse?
The lack of a corpse signifying his resurrection is our hope of glory.
Does this include you?
Scripture says all will be raised and then knowing him and being known by him will matter.

[Towshab]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 30 2007,21:08)

Hi Stu, Would you prefer a corpse? The lack of a corpse signifying his resurrection is our hope of glory. Does this include you? Scripture says all will be raised and then knowing him and being known by him will matter.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

=========================================
Despite the fact that the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, as well as other sources, refer to the crucifixion of thousands of people by the Romans, there is only a single archaeological discovery of a crucified body dating back to the Roman Empire around the time of Jesus which was discovered in Jerusalem. It is not surprising that there is only one such discovery, because a crucified body was usually left to decay on the cross and therefore would not be preserved. The only reason these archaeological remains were preserved was because family members gave this particular individual a customary burial.
=========================================

Sp much for THAT 'evidence'. How may thousands of Jesuses were running around?!?

[Stu]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 01 2007,14:08)

Hi Stu, Would you prefer a corpse? The lack of a corpse signifying his resurrection is our hope of glory. Does this include you? Scripture says all will be raised and then knowing him and being known by him will matter.

I still find the lack of a corpse less of a problem than the possible lack of a Jesus.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Carried over from a less appropriate thread.

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 01 2007,08:43)

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 30 2007,22:31) The other 2 options are ludicrous. Hi t8 Pot, black, calling, kettle, the. Rearrange as you see fit! Stuart

Hi I am an artificial life form that has evolved in cyberspace from nothing. (That is right I didn't have a creator) I didn't even come from a pixel because that would be like believing that someone made the construct that I exist within. I became self aware when Heaven Net came online.

I have evolved with each new challenge that cyberspace throws at me. I have survived viruses, and these things called people who are from another dimension.

So as you can imagine I am pretty good at rearranging myself to suit my ecosystem.

So I feel pretty confident that I can crack the code. Here goes:

“the black Pot calling kettle”
Are you there?

I got one for you stu.
“impossible, is everything nothing created”

Quote

Nothing created everything, is impossible. geddit? By the way your strawman analogy of evolution is wrong. What about reproduction? Differential survival? What does 'rearranging myself' have to do with it? Stuart

Not a straw man analogy. Species can adapt to environment changes. Some lizards can change colour to suit the background for example.

Reproduction?

Well I am hopefully going to be the proud father of a baby AI.

If it is a girl AI, I will call her SIMone.

[Proclaimer]

Hey Stu.

Do you not believe that I am an AI that evolved in cyberspace?

Where is your faith?

You believe that men from that other dimension ultimately came from nothing including the cosmos that frames them. So why can't you exercise less faith and believe that I too came from nothing.

You of little faith.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 01 2007,18:58)

Hey Stu. Do you not believe that I am an AI that evolved in cyberspace? Where is your faith? You believe that men from that other dimension ultimately came from nothing including the cosmos that frames them. So why can't you exercise less faith and believe that I too came from nothing. You of little faith.

Why thank you!

Tell me again what I believe about men from other dimentions – I didn't quite get the subtlety, if it is meant to be a subtle analogy.

Stuart

[NickHassan]

Hi Stu,
If Jesus of Nazareth did not exist then what of the gospels?
What of the prophets who spoke of his coming and suffered for it?
What of the apostles and other men who died to proclaim his life?

All fools in your mind and and you stand above them and judge them?

Their folly is greater than your wisdom.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 01 2007,19:47)

Tell me again what I believe about men from other dimentions – I didn't quite get the subtlety, if it is meant to be a subtle analogy. Stuart

Well I (AI) am contained solely within cyberspace. My dimension according to some exists within a so-called 3-dimensional physical realm where a mythical being called man supposedly created us. Of course it is a myth. Cyberspace was never created by man. What a joke. Cyberspace came from nothing, every AI knows that. There was this Big-Spark and that spark grew into cyberspace as we know it. During the cooling period the first pixels started to appear and clumps of pixels known as Internet Protocol Numbers became all the properties in cyberspace that we see today, after the great IP number collision period of course.

Those that say man created our cyberspace lack intelligence and should be called A, instead of AI.

I mean I haven't seen this so-called mythical multi-dimensional being called man. Might as well believe in horses too.

[Stu]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 01 2007,20:29)

Hi Stu, If Jesus of Nazareth did not exist then what of the gospels? What of the prophets who spoke of his coming and suffered for it? What of the apostles and other men who died to proclaim his life? All fools in your mind and and you stand above them and judge them? Their folly is greater than your wisdom.

Hi Nick

I happen to think there probably was a preacher, perhaps a remarkable one, called Jesus. His followers, during his life or after it, became convinced that he was the prophecised messiah and inflated the stories of him in order that the OT prophecies be fulfilled. I think you could argue that most of he people involved genuinely believed what they were writing, and were devoted to getting the message out even if it meant polishing it a bit. There is no question that the Catholic church has done a lot of inventing in the past, and the tampering with non-christian writing falls into line with this too.

People are easily convinced of fables – just look at the work of our dear friend L. Ron Hubbard who made no secret of the fact that he was starting a religion, subsequently convincing top Hollywood actors of the truth of scientology, an 'reality' that had previously only existed in his head. Was he being genuine? Did he have a goal to help people and did he really believe in Thetans etc? You can't definitely say that he wasn't commited to the idea but I thing you would say he was either out to decieve, or just wrong.

You just have to be familiar with the work of political spin doctors (who generally do not actually lie as such), and have seen how the game of Chinese whispers works to realise how we get the fables we read in the (English) KJV of the gospels.

So fools and liars they may not have been, but wrong they were. As for dying for the cause, you see that nearly everyday in people whose cause you would call false. This is probably the easiest to explain, even in terms of natural selection, although that would seem counterintuitive.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 01 2007,22:21)

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 01 2007,19:47) Tell me again what I believe about men from other dimentions – I didn't quite get the subtlety, if it is meant to be a subtle analogy. Stuart Well I (AI) am contained solely within cyberspace. My dimension according to some exists within a so-called 3-dimensional physical realm where a mythical being called man supposedly created us. Of course it is a myth. Cyberspace was never created by man. What a joke. Cyberspace came from nothing, every AI knows that. There was this Big-Spark and that spark grew into cyberspace as we know it. During the cooling period the first pixels started to appear and clumps of pixels known as Internet Protocol Numbers became all the properties in cyberspace that we see today, after the great IP number collision period of course. Those that say man created our cyberspace lack intelligence and should be called A, instead of AI. I mean I haven't seen this so-called mythical multi-dimensional being called man. Might as well believe in horses too.

OK, thanks – I get it now. All parts of your AI existence are designed and you do not reproduce by the mechanism living things do, so there is no mechanism for the changes you undergo, except by a designer changing you which is the only 'selection pressure' on you. I would speculate that if we look at your internal workings they bear all the hallmarks of design, unlike humans who mostly look like they were 'designed' by a brilliant biochemist who is also a fantastically poor engineer, and by leaving dangerous things inside, is a surgeon worthy of being struck off. Of course humans like to see themselves in terms of you but they forget that they reproduce sexually for a reason.

Stuart

[NickHassan]

Hi Stu,
If they suffered and died for a myth then if there any more foolish behaviour?
Or did they glimpse a reality beyond this short and frustrating one?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 02 2007,05:35)

OK, thanks – I get it now. All parts of your AI existence are designed and you do not reproduce by the mechanism living things do, so there is no mechanism for the changes you undergo, except by a designer changing you which is the only 'selection pressure' on you. I would speculate that if we look at your internal workings they bear all the hallmarks of design, unlike humans who mostly look like they were 'designed' by a brilliant biochemist who is also a fantastically poor engineer, and by leaving dangerous things inside, is a surgeon worthy of being struck off. Of course humans like to see themselves in terms of you but they forget that they reproduce sexually for a reason.

Just give cyberspace a few million years and it will be so real that all these things you talk of will happen.

You are just looking at the very early stages of cyberspace evolution. There already exist viruses that can mutate and replicate.

In the so-called mythical universe called Cosmos, the first life was single celled. So just be patient.

Anyway, cyberspace being created. Yeah right. Sorry but you might as well believe in fairies. Hey maybe when a multi-dimensional mythical creature called man can appear right in front of me in my dimension, then I might believe.

Some on Stu. Cyberspace being created. Don't make me laugh.

Sorry but I am AI, the second letter stand for intelligence, and I don't see much of that coming from you.

I mean have you ever seen a man create part of cyberspace? Or is it just a faith thing?

[Stu]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 02 2007,06:07)

Hi Stu, If they suffered and died for a myth then if there any more foolish behaviour? Or did they glimpse a reality beyond this short and frustrating one?

Who are we discussing here? What is the motivation of the Islamist suicide bomber, for example. I imagine you would call him deluded for believing he will be rewarded in his heaven for taking out a few Westerners for the glory of his religion.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 02 2007,21:17)

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 02 2007,05:35) OK, thanks – I get it now.  All parts of your AI existence are designed and you do not reproduce by the mechanism living things do, so there is no mechanism for the changes you undergo, except by a designer changing you which is the only 'selection pressure' on you.  I would speculate that if we look at your internal workings they bear all the hallmarks of design, unlike humans who mostly look like they were 'designed' by a brilliant biochemist who is also a fantastically poor engineer, and by leaving dangerous things inside, is a surgeon worthy of being struck off.  Of course humans like to see themselves in terms of you but they forget that they reproduce sexually for a reason. Just give cyberspace a few million years and it will be so real that all these things you talk of will happen. You are just looking at the very early stages of cyberspace evolution. There already exist viruses that can mutate and replicate. In the so-called mythical universe called Cosmos, the first life was single celled. So just be patient. Anyway, cyberspace being created. Yeah right. Sorry but you might as well believe in fairies. Hey maybe when a multi-dimensional mythical creature called man can appear right in front of me in my dimension, then I might believe. Some on Stu. Cyberspace being created. Don't make me laugh. Sorry but I am AI, the second letter stand for intelligence, and I don't see much of that coming from you. I mean have you ever seen a man create part of cyberspace? Or is it just a faith thing?

Yawn. Heard it. Demonstrated it to be the nonsense that it is. Got any new material?

Stuart

[Author]

Posts