New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Woodgate on 20 Aug 2006 15:39 In message <44E8B4C8.CFFF0E50(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes >> It's a poem; it was not intended to be taken literally. Using a literal >> interpretation to devalue it isn't playing fair. > >Interesting that you should say that. Were you taught to understand the >bible like this or was it something you became aware of later ? A bit of both, I suppose. When you find that the Psalms are songs, and hymns have refrains, it isn't a great leap of imagination to see that a text with a repeated phrase 'And the evening and the morning were the ...' is also likely not to be prose. Religious teaching at school was pitiful, but was not assertive. > I was taught a literal interpreation you see and that's one reason >that age around 9 I concluded that religion was hokum. I'm not surprised. > Consider fossils. I believe it is held by the creationists that they were put there to simulate Earth being much older that the 6000 years it really is, according to them. But the fossil record is inconsistent with the order of creation of living creatures in Genesis 1. Did someone lose the list? -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
From: Eeyore on 20 Aug 2006 16:13 bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > John Fields wrote: > > > Time, and its restrictions as we know them, don't exist for a > > supreme being. > > You've got that the wrong way around. Nobody has any time for > discussions involving a supreme being, because his, her or its' > existence involves too many logical fallacies to allow useful > discussion. I rather liked the supreme being in Time Bandits. http://imdb.com/title/tt0081633/ Graham
From: bill.sloman on 20 Aug 2006 21:18 John Woodgate wrote: > In message <1156095216.284861.175260(a)m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, > dated Sun, 20 Aug 2006, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org writes > > >You've got that the wrong way around. Nobody has any time for > >discussions involving a supreme being > > > No, Bill, that's the problem. Too many people DO have time. Nobody worthy of attention. > >, because his, her or its' existence involves too many logical > >fallacies to allow useful discussion. > > That's partly because they envisage something like a Greek god, with > human emotions and other characteristics, totally underestimating the > powers such a being must have. It's practically blasphemy! > > IF an omnipotent, omnipresent Supreme Being (or several) exists, it MUST > be not subject to time, which is, after all, just another dimension, one > which we perceive to have peculiar properties, maybe because we (all > matter) travel through it (whatever 'travel through it' means in a > one-dimensional system) at the speed of light, just as photons travel > through the spatial dimensions at that speed. You can't have two omnipotent supreme beings - and there is your first logical fallacy. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Woodgate on 21 Aug 2006 01:27 In message <1156123089.816396.92340(a)75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, dated Sun, 20 Aug 2006, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org writes >You can't have two omnipotent supreme beings - and there is your first >logical fallacy. I don't want one at all. If a being is omnipotent, it can copy itself. Ergo, more than one can exist. Any paradox so created it ITS problem, not mine. But of course, being omnipotent, it can solve any such paradox. It's turtles all the way down!(;-) -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
From: xray on 21 Aug 2006 06:14
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:14:02 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <C10DCD14.3FB89%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, dated Sun, 20 Aug 2006, >Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> writes > >>What was the length of a week at the time of the big bang, compared to >>the length of a week as we define it now? No problem. > >It was 3.773 US pints longer. Good of you to use US units for the measurements at the time of the big bang. Seems to me British pints might work better, being warmer on average. But, why would it be longer? I thought everything was shorter then. |