|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
 Posted - 06/21/2011 : 18:19:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
If they're repeating claims that have no evidence to back them up, then they may be "egyptologists", but they sure aren't good ones. |
What proof do you have that they are repeating the claims instead of reading the actual information and telling what they know? That in itself is a claim that you need to back that up with evidence. |
Once again, if they had the actual information, then mythicists wouldn't have such a hard time finding the actual information.
| No, I think that the good Egyptologists go where the evidence actually points. The bad ones don't. |
But yet, when they give it to you, you say that they are just "repeating claims" |
No, when they just repeat the claims (which is mostly what they do), then I say that they are just repeating claims. I've never accused someone of just "repeating the claims" on the rare cases where they presented actual pre-Christian evidence.
| For most of the claims? No, they have not. If they had, mythicists wouldn't have so much trouble finding this evidence. |
Again, you are repeating a claim, thinking that if you repeat it enough, it will come true. |
It is true. I've already had about a dozen people promise me that they would find the evidence and win the $1000. Not one of them ever got back to me. Sounds to me like they had trouble finding the evidence.
Maybe you missed the question specifically about repeating Tom Harpurs claims? Only one of those websites mentioned anything about Tom Harpur or any of his claims and that one website was someone accusing another of reading Tom Harpur.
All four of them repeat Harpur's "iusa", "krst", "virgin birth", and "12 disciples" claims.
| I am reading it correctly. You're saying that none of them disagreed with the virgin birth, but only with other claims. I'm asking where you're getting the idea that none of them disagreed with the virgin birth. |
Exactly, Gasque doesn't not mention any one of those Egyptologists disagreeing with the virgin birth. |
If you read the article, it says, "While all [egyptologists] recognize that the image of the baby Horus and Isis has influenced the Christian iconography of Madonna and Child, this is where the similarity stops. There is no evidence for the idea that Horus was virgin born." It's safe to say he wouldn't be saying this if none of the egyptologists disagreed with the virgin birth.
| I didn't say he "quoted" Harpur. I said he's relaying what Harpur is saying. If you read the paragraphs before and after, it's quite clear that this is what he's doing. |
No, actually, it isn't quite clear that isn't what he is doing, because if he was doing that, then he would have said that Harpur claims these things, which he didn't. |
The context makes it clear.
Then who gets to decide what is real or not in the bible david? |
Everyone is welcome to their opinions.
| When your evidence is posted, we'll just see how many of the Zeitgeist claims you back up with the actual text, okay? |
That is fine by me, but there will be no moving the goal posts when this happens. The forum members caught on to your tactics faster than I did. |
What tactics are you talking about?
| I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt when you said you wanted the evidence, but after 5-6 months of giving it to you, I found out that you didn't want the evidence. |
No, I wanted it. I still do. At best, we discussed a handful of the claims. I want to see if there is evidence for the majority of them, not just a handful.
| I haven't given it because it's not an issue I'm debating in this forum. |
Actually, someone mentioned that way before I did. I think you chose to overlook his comment because you didn't want to discuss your lack of evidence of your god. |
I didn't want to discuss whether God existed or not, but whether omniscience was incompatible with free will.
| Most of them? No. You argued a handful at best. |
Yes, most of them. |
Nowhere near. I don't think we even moved much past the Horus claims alone, which is itself a minority of the Zeitgeist claims.
| I never said it was the "only thing" you did, but when I said you sent me links to other people's videos, you called me a liar, saying "I didn't shoot you to the links of other people's videos". You most certainly did, and we both know it. |
Because as always you minimalize everything that doesn't go along with your ideology and that includes me giving you evidence. |
Which makes me a liar when I said you sent me links to GA's videos?
If, indeed, you submitted evidence here for most of Zeitgeist's claims, this will be the first time you (or anyone) has done so. But we'll see once it's formatted and posted.
| I asked for sites that take a skeptical look at the claims. I don't see where either site does so. |
They did, then they came to the same conclusion that I did based on the mounting evidence. |
What convinces you that they took a skeptical look at the claims?
I checked out each of those sites, and am not seeing where they've taken a skeptical look at Zeitgeist's claims and found them to be valid. Can you be more specific? |
| Edited by - KingDavid8 on 06/21/2011 18:54:18 |
 |
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2011 : 18:52:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm only asking you to assume such a thing exists for the sake of putting this question to the text. |
It's been tested, and found contradictory. |
No, we've never tested whether omniscience is possible, given the existence of free will or a truly-random number generator.
| The problem is that if you're arguing that they're paradoxical, then you're arguing that either one can exist individually, but not both simultaneously. You were willing to assume (for the sake of argument) that God is omniscient, but we never really got anywhere in whether it disproved free will or not. |
And why not? Because you couldn't show how a decision known ages before you were born was actually yours to make. |
I know you're tired of me saying this but...knowing isn't controlling. If, hypothetically, the decision was truly mine to make, God, being omniscient, would still know what I will choose. Only if we're assuming that I didn't actually make the choice do I not make the choice.
| So I tried turning it around, so that we're assuming (for the sake of argument) that we had free will so that we could show whether or not God's omniscience would be impossible. |
And I'd already explained that that was irrelevant. It doesn't matter which one you start with: if they're mutually contradictory, then proving one can't follow from the other is the same as proving the "turned around" version to be false. |
The problem is that we didn't prove that, given God's omniscience, we can't have free will. You argued that this was so, and I argued that it wasn't. I don't think either one of us had their position altogether disproven. But I do believe that if we turn it around, assuming free will and then questioning God's omniscience, we'll get somewhere. If you'd rather not assume such, that's fine. But then we won't get anywhere.
| With the software example, we absolutely disproved randomness given omniscience (because the programmer has complete control over the sequence and cannot abdicate that control) |
Yes, I'm going to say it again. Knowing isn't controlling. Obviously, an omnipotent computer programmer could control the sequence if he wants to, but if he'd rather the numbers be truly random, he could do that as well. But simply knowing what the numbers are going to be does not equal controlling what the numbers will be.
| Let me try it a different way: on any given set of hardware, there is a large but finite number of ways to create a random number generator. An omniscient programmer knows every one of those sets of code, and knows the output of every one of them. The output from his generator then can only be due to his choice of which generator to create. |
Okay, but say he chooses generator A over generators B - Z, for whatever reason. If generator A is a truly random number generator, then its numbers will still be truly random. That doesn't change just because he didn't use the other generators instead.
Only if we're assuming that he turned down generators B - Z because he didn't like the numbers they would have created would you possibly have a point. But assuming he just wanted a truly random number generator and any one of them would have done and he just went with generator A for some reason, we still have truly random numbers.
| No sequence can be declared "random" when every one of them is implemented through an act of will. Why the numbers go 43, 65, 13 instead of 43, 66, 13 can only be due to the programmer's intentions ("plan"), and not to any amount of randomness. |
If his "plan" was simply to generate random numbers, then the exact sequence is not due to the programmer's intentions.
| So, if the programmer is omniscient, then the output cannot be "truly random." That having been proven, |
It hasn't been proven, though. Just argued.
| if we are presented with a sequence of numbers that is "truly random," we can know without question that it cannot have come from an omniscient programmer's generator. |
I'm sorry, but if it comes from a generator that creates "truly random" numbers, then we can know without question that the sequence of numbers is "truly random". Either the sequence is "truly random" or it's not "truly random". It can't be both.
| The premises have been tested and found to be mutually contradictory. If you won't acknowledge that, it's your problem, not mine. |
In my eyes, it has not been found to be "mutually contradictory". But I think we can agree that we don't seem to be getting anywhere, so if you want to stop this discussion and declare it whatever you want to declare it, I'm fine with that. It's more your board than mine, and I don't want to be a pest. |
| Edited by - KingDavid8 on 06/21/2011 18:54:42 |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2011 : 20:08:53 [Permalink]
|
| Once again, if they had the actual information, then mythicists wouldn't have such a hard time finding the actual information. |
The only one I see repeating claims here is you, and those claims aren't backed by evidence, scholarly or other. Please show me a Egyptology scholar that says that Egyptologists watched Zeitgeist and are going around repeating the claims on there.
| No, when they just repeat the claims (which is mostly what they do), then I say that they are just repeating claims. I've never accused someone of just "repeating the claims" on the rare cases where they presented actual pre-Christian evidence. |
First of all, since you made the claim that they are just repeating claims, then you need to back it with evidence. Please, be forthright with that evidence.
| It is true. I've already had about a dozen people promise me that they would find the evidence and win the $1000. Not one of them ever got back to me. Sounds to me like they had trouble finding the evidence. |
No, it sounds to me as if they saw you were pushing the goalposts and decided not to fool with you.
| All four of them repeat Harpur's "iusa", "krst", "virgin birth", and "12 disciples" claims. |
This website has nothing besides a first page.
http://webspace.webring.com/people/ci/inquisitive79/godmen.html
This website doesn't give Tom Harpur as a reference. You are presuming that they used Harpur as a reference.
http://www.interferencetheory.com/Blog/files/b32c1b2958b586c586edcae1b01c42db-109.html
This website doesn't give Harpur as a reference either. Again, a presumption.
http://www.christplagiarized.com/Christ_Plagiarized/Christ_Plagiarized.html
This one is just a repeat of the article that you gave to begin with about Gasque.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1344643/posts
Again, this is the type of research you do, it is neither scholarly, nor is it valid.
If you read the article, it says, "While all [egyptologists] recognize that the image of the baby Horus and Isis has influenced the Christian iconography of Madonna and Child, this is where the similarity stops. There is no evidence for the idea that Horus was virgin born." It's safe to say he wouldn't be saying this if none of the egyptologists disagreed with the virgin birth.
|
But yet, I have already proven to you that Isis was in fact a virgin. So again, all you are doing is proving that Gasque is a liar for Jesus.
*Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible DDD By K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter Willem van der Horst#65279; Page 891
"In Egypt the epithets 'dd.t, rnn.t and hwn.t, 'girl; young woman; virgin', are applied to many goddesses — eg-* Hathor and
;Isis — who had not yet had sexual intercourse."
The Nostratic macrofamily and linguistic palaeontology"
A. Dolgopolski#301;, Colin Renfrew, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research - 1998 - 116 pages - Snippet view
Egyptian hwn 'boy, young man; (one's) child, son', hwn.t 'girl, virgin', hwn v. 'become young' || Uralic *wa"NV > [1] Finno-Ugric *warju 'daughter's husband, younger brother' >
Andrew Colin Renfrew, Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, Ph.D., FBA, FSA, HonFSAScot (born 25 July 1937 in Stockton-on-Tees) is a prominent British archaeologist and highly regarded academic, noted for his work on radiocarbon dating, the prehistory of languages, archaeogenetics, and the prevention of looting at archaeological sites.
| The context makes it clear. |
That he wasn't quoting nor implying that is what Harpur says.
| Everyone is welcome to their opinions. |
And this is why science and the bible cannot co-exist. Scientists do not rely on opinions when they read data. They rely on facts.
| What tactics are you talking about? |
Dude covered them all, as I had many times before that.
No, I wanted it. I still do. At best, we discussed a handful of the claims. I want to see if there is evidence for the majority of them, not just a handful. |
You want to say that you debunked it. Which means you are propping up your faith by saying that you debunked ZG.
I didn't want to discuss whether God existed or not, but whether omniscience was incompatible with free will. |
Of course, you wouldn't want to discuss that here. That is because there is no evidence for your god's existence, nor that of Jesus.
| Nowhere near. I don't think we even moved much past the Horus claims alone, which is itself a minority of the Zeitgeist claims. |
So you are saying that you never seen the massive list that Teched and I posted many times over? Are you sure you want to do that kingdavid because I can go and prove that you did see it. I am really getting tired of your infinite amount of lies.
| Which makes me a liar when I said you sent me links to GA's videos? |
Do I need to explain that again?
If, indeed, you submitted evidence here for most of Zeitgeist's claims, this will be the first time you (or anyone) has done so. But we'll see once it's formatted and posted. |
So you missed reading the thousands of books out there because they hadn't "submitted it to your website", you didn't accept them because it was in the "wrong format". Do you remember what I said about you covering your eyes to the evidence? Pick up one of the thousands of books out there that discuss this topic endlessly.
What convinces you that they took a skeptical look at the claims? |
1. It is a skeptic website full of skeptics.
2. They think the claims are valid.
I checked out each of those sites, and am not seeing where they've taken a skeptical look at Zeitgeist's claims and found them to be valid. Can you be more specific?
|
That is because you tend to "look for things" with your eyes shut.
Try again.
And you have obviously never read Joseph McCabe's book either.
The Story of Religious Controversy
Joseph McCabe, Emanuel Haldeman-Julius
"Whatever we make of the original myth, however, Isis seems to have been originally a virgin (or, perhaps, sexless) goddess, and in the later period of Egyptian religion she was again considered a virgin goddess..."
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2011 : 13:54:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
No, we've never tested whether omniscience is possible, given the existence of free will or a truly-random number generator. |
No, we've determined that given omniscience, free will and truly random number generators are impossible, so the converse must be false as well. If we prove "Joe cannot eat bananas" to be true, and we find a half-eaten banana, then we know that Joe didn't eat it. Similarly, if we have free will, then we know god isn't omniscient.| I know you're tired of me saying this but...knowing isn't controlling. If, hypothetically, the decision was truly mine to make, God, being omniscient, would still know what I will choose. Only if we're assuming that I didn't actually make the choice do I not make the choice. |
No, we're assuming no such thing. You're assuming that somehow you make the decision, when what you would do was known long before you were born.| The problem is that we didn't prove that, given God's omniscience, we can't have free will. You argued that this was so, and I argued that it wasn't. I don't think either one of us had their position altogether disproven. But I do believe that if we turn it around, assuming free will and then questioning God's omniscience, we'll get somewhere. |
No, because you started asking for a mechanism through which omniscience could prevent free will (or vice versa), at which point I had to say that such a request is silly, since neither free will nor omniscience exist.| If you'd rather not assume such, that's fine. But then we won't get anywhere. |
I don't see where there's anywhere to get. The choices you make are predetermined by god's already knowing what they will be. Your allegedly free will doesn't trump god's all-knowingness, does it?| Yes, I'm going to say it again. Knowing isn't controlling. |
In the case of the programmer, they are the same.| Obviously, an omnipotent computer programmer could control the sequence if he wants to, but if he'd rather the numbers be truly random, he could do that as well. |
No, he knows every possible sequence of numbers every possible generator will create, and so he's forced to pick between them when he implements the code. We cannot ignore the fact that he controls every bit of output data, since he knows them all and knows how to implement generators for them all.| But simply knowing what the numbers are going to be does not equal controlling what the numbers will be. |
Since he is the programmer and he is omniscient, then he absolutely controls what the numbers will be. How could he not?
I'll tell you: either the randomness comes from some source outside the computer like a digital Gieger counter (in which case the software is not a random number generator but is instead data translation code), or the programmer is ignorant of what the output sequence will be (in which case he's not omniscient). Either one fails to match your hypothetical, though, so neither possibility can be considered.| Okay, but say he chooses generator A over generators B - Z, for whatever reason. If generator A is a truly random number generator, then its numbers will still be truly random. |
No, output sequence A will have been chosen instead of sequences B through Z. That's a non-random determination of the output.| That doesn't change just because he didn't use the other generators instead. |
I just realized it's actually a red herring. It doesn't matter what generates the sequences. The programmer knows all the possible sequences his code might create, and chooses between them. The output is determined by him. Even if it's a "truly random" generator, he knows its output will be 7, 93, 54, 5, 13... or 76, 24, 20, 55, 11... or 3, 3, 3, 86, 3... or whatever.
In fact, if a "truly random number generator" were possible, there would probably be a large (but finite) number of different ways to implement one, most with unique outputs. So the programmer would have a large array of different "truly random" sequences to choose from, the output of the final pick thus being not random at all.| Only if we're assuming that he turned down generators B - Z because he didn't like the numbers they would have created would you possibly have a point. |
I don't care why he chose one set of software over another, the important part is that no matter what he chooses, he knows the output beforehand and can't help but know the output beforehand, and so he's forced to choose one or another. The final output is thus pre-determined by the programmer's choice of implementations. Thus the numbers that come out will not be due to chance.| But assuming he just wanted a truly random number generator and any one of them would have done and he just went with generator A for some reason, we still have truly random numbers. |
Except by the Cambridge Dictionary definition, as soon as he picks sequence A over sequence B, the output is defined by a non-random choice, and so isn't random at all, much less "truly random."| If his "plan" was simply to generate random numbers, then the exact sequence is not due to the programmer's intentions. |
He doesn't get to not know what the sequences are, he's omniscient.| So, if the programmer is omniscient, then the output cannot be "truly random." That having been proven, |
It hasn't been proven, though. Just argued. |
If you accept that the programmer is omniscient, then it's been proven. He can't not know what the output will be for any generator, thus making his choice of generator the determining factor for the output, regardless of how he implements the code.| I'm sorry, but if it comes from a generator that creates "truly random" numbers, then we can know without question that the sequence of numbers is "truly random". Either the sequence is "truly random" or it's not "truly random". It can't be both. |
I didn't say it would be. I said that if a sequence we encounter is "truly random," then we know that the programmer who designed the generator of that sequence cannot be omniscient. That's the "turning it around" conclusion.
Besides, we need a strictly-defined "system" here to make sense of this. The "system" in question is the set of software plus computer plus programmer. Your "truly random" generator doesn't stand in isolation, and it's quite easy to show that a "truly random" generator feeding into a larger system can result in non-random output: simply divide each number in the generator's sequence by itself, and the output from the whole system will be 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1... So yes, we can have a "truly random" generator which, through other parts of the system, yields a non-random output sequence. In your hypothetical, the programmer is a part of the system, and his omniscience can "ruin" the randomness of other parts of the system.| But I think we can agree that we don't seem to be getting anywhere, so if you want to stop this discussion and declare it whatever you want to declare it, I'm fine with that. It's more your board than mine, and I don't want to be a pest. |
Believe me, you're no pest. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2011 : 17:23:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
KingDavid8
No, when they just repeat the claims (which is mostly what they do), then I say that they are just repeating claims. I've never accused someone of just "repeating the claims" on the rare cases where they presented actual pre-Christian evidence. |
First of all, since you made the claim that they are just repeating claims, then you need to back it with evidence. Please, be forthright with that evidence. |
Okay. Here are several websites where the claims are repeated:
http://fringe.davesource.com/Fringe/Religion/The-Jesus-Myth.html
http://www.christplagiarized.com/Christ_Plagiarized/Christ_Plagiarized.html
http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/Jesus%20is%20Horus.htm
http://fireintheocean.com/wordpress/?p=44&cpage=2
| All four of them repeat Harpur's "iusa", "krst", "virgin birth", and "12 disciples" claims. |
This website doesn't give Tom Harpur as a reference. You are presuming that they used Harpur as a reference. |
Huh? All I'm saying is that they repeat the claims. It hardly matters if they're using Harpur as a reference directly, or are just copying them from someone else who used Harpur's claims. I'm just talking about them repeating the claims.
If you read the article, it says, "While all [egyptologists] recognize that the image of the baby Horus and Isis has influenced the Christian iconography of Madonna and Child, this is where the similarity stops. There is no evidence for the idea that Horus was virgin born." It's safe to say he wouldn't be saying this if none of the egyptologists disagreed with the virgin birth.
|
But yet, I have already proven to you that Isis was in fact a virgin. |
You did? When?
*Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible DDD By K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter Willem van der Horst#65279; Page 891
"In Egypt the epithets 'dd.t, rnn.t and hwn.t, 'girl; young woman; virgin', are applied to many goddesses — eg-* Hathor and
;Isis — who had not yet had sexual intercourse." |
So this means that the Egyptologists that Gasque contacted agreed that Isis was a virgin? How does that work?
No, I wanted it. I still do. At best, we discussed a handful of the claims. I want to see if there is evidence for the majority of them, not just a handful. |
You want to say that you debunked it. Which means you are propping up your faith by saying that you debunked ZG. |
Debunking Zeitgeist doesn't prop up my faith, though. If Zeitgeist is false, that doesn't make Christianity true.
| Nowhere near. I don't think we even moved much past the Horus claims alone, which is itself a minority of the Zeitgeist claims. |
So you are saying that you never seen the massive list that Teched and I posted many times over? |
Yes, I have. But that didn't cover the majority of the Zeitgeist claims, either.
If, indeed, you submitted evidence here for most of Zeitgeist's claims, this will be the first time you (or anyone) has done so. But we'll see once it's formatted and posted. |
So you missed reading the thousands of books out there because they hadn't "submitted it to your website", you didn't accept them because it was in the "wrong format". |
If these "thousands of books" had the actual evidence, then those who have read them wouldn't have such trouble finding the evidence. I'm expecting those who are trying to convince me that the claims are true to provide the evidence for them, not to tell me to go look for it elsewhere.
| Do you remember what I said about you covering your eyes to the evidence? Pick up one of the thousands of books out there that discuss this topic endlessly. |
Discussing the topic isn't the same as providing the evidence.
What convinces you that they took a skeptical look at the claims? |
1. It is a skeptic website full of skeptics.
2. They think the claims are valid.
|
Seriously?
I checked out each of those sites, and am not seeing where they've taken a skeptical look at Zeitgeist's claims and found them to be valid. Can you be more specific?
|
That is because you tend to "look for things" with your eyes shut.
Try again. |
You can't find it either, huh?
|
| Edited by - KingDavid8 on 06/23/2011 17:24:08 |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2011 : 18:09:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by KingDavid8
No, we've never tested whether omniscience is possible, given the existence of free will or a truly-random number generator. |
No, we've determined that given omniscience, free will and truly random number generators are impossible, so the converse must be false as well. |
We haven't determined it though. Obviously, you believe it to be true and I believe it to be untrue, but neither one of us proved our side.
| I know you're tired of me saying this but...knowing isn't controlling. If, hypothetically, the decision was truly mine to make, God, being omniscient, would still know what I will choose. Only if we're assuming that I didn't actually make the choice do I not make the choice. |
No, we're assuming no such thing. You're assuming that somehow you make the decision, when what you would do was known long before you were born. |
I'm not assuming I made the decision. I'm saying that if, hypothetically, the decision was truly mine to make, then God, being omniscient, would still know what I will choose.
I think that one of the things complicating this issue is that you don't believe free will really exists. Whether God exists or not, or whether He is omniscient or not, your ultimate conclusion is probably going to be that free will doesn't exist. And, personally, I believe that free will does exist whether God exists or not, or whether He is omniscient or not, so, yes, my ultimate conclusion is probably going to be that free will exists. I'd say I'm more sure of free will's existence than I am of God's omniscience. So I'd rather not have the question of free will being what is ultimately debated, since I think we're both being influenced by our attitudes towards free will in our conclusions.
| The choices you make are predetermined by god's already knowing what they will be. |
Knowing isn't determining, though. It's just knowing.
| Your allegedly free will doesn't trump god's all-knowingness, does it? |
One doesn't need to trump the other, since one isn't dependent on the other.
| Yes, I'm going to say it again. Knowing isn't controlling. |
In the case of the programmer, they are the same. |
Not if the computer creates the truly random numbers.
| Obviously, an omnipotent computer programmer could control the sequence if he wants to, but if he'd rather the numbers be truly random, he could do that as well. |
No, he knows every possible sequence of numbers every possible generator will create, and so he's forced to pick between them when he implements the code. We cannot ignore the fact that he controls every bit of output data, since he knows them all and knows how to implement generators for them all. |
You're trying to make this a lot more complicated than it is. All I'm saying is that if the computer generates truly random numbers, the programmer, being omniscient, will still know what those numbers will be. Assuming multiple possible generators is unnecessary and seem to be a way to complicate, and perhaps avoid, the issue. Let's simplify the issue and suppose that there is only one way to create a truly random number generator, that he isn't forced to choose between multiple generators. The sooner we narrow it down to one, the sooner we can put this issue to the test.
| But simply knowing what the numbers are going to be does not equal controlling what the numbers will be. |
Since he is the programmer and he is omniscient, then he absolutely controls what the numbers will be. How could he not? |
Because knowing isn't controlling. If the program creates truly random numbers, then he doesn't control them.
| I'll tell you: either the randomness comes from some source outside the computer like a digital Gieger counter (in which case the software is not a random number generator but is instead data translation code), or the programmer is ignorant of what the output sequence will be (in which case he's not omniscient). |
He needn't be "ignorant" of the sequence for them to be truly random. If they're truly random and he is omniscient, then all it means is that he "knows" what those truly random numbers will be. It doesn't mean that they're not truly random.
If the numbers are not truly-random, then an omniscient programmer will know what those not-truly-random numbers will be. And if they are truly-random, then an omniscient programmer will know what those truly-random numbers will be. |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2011 : 21:28:37 [Permalink]
|
So you are claiming that those are Egyptologists that have watched Zeitgeist and made websites to repeat those claims? Because that is what I was asking for, because that is what you claimed. David, either you are thick, you do not have a lick of reading comprehension, or you are an outright liar.
Huh? All I'm saying is that they repeat the claims. It hardly matters if they're using Harpur as a reference directly, or are just copying them from someone else who used Harpur's claims. I'm just talking about them repeating the claims. |
You said that they repeated the claims, but yet, you have no proof that they repeated it, you are just claiming that they are and that is not evidence. I want the actual evidence that they repeated it, just like I want the evidence that Egyptologists watched Zeitgeist and are going around repeating the claims from it. That was your claim, now back it up with actual evidence.
So are you lying now and saying that you didn't concede about Isis's virginity? Because I have proof that you did. Do you want me to show the people of this forum your repeated lies david? Honestly, I am sick and tired of dealing you because you are a habitual liar. You know as well as I know that you conceded.
The Nostratic macrofamily and linguistic palaeontology"
A. Dolgopolski#301;, Colin Renfrew, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research - 1998 - 116 pages - Snippet view
Egyptian hwn 'boy, young man; (one's) child, son', hwn.t 'girl, virgin', hwn v. 'become young' || Uralic *wa"NV > [1] Finno-Ugric *warju 'daughter's husband, younger brother' >
Andrew Colin Renfrew, Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, Ph.D., FBA, FSA, HonFSAScot (born 25 July 1937 in Stockton-on-Tees) is a prominent British archaeologist and highly regarded academic, noted for his work on radiocarbon dating, the prehistory of languages, archaeogenetics, and the prevention of looting at archaeological sites.
You would rather take Gasques word for it rather than a linguistic palaeontolist? This is the type of work Gasque does:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s37yJ_nB7Nc
Apparently, Gasque thought that none of us knew that a fictional book was fictional, so he spent his time going over it to show that it was fictional. Seriously.
This is the type of BS that he says:
http://www.susyflory.com/2007/interview-with-ward-gasque/
"And the idea that Goddess worship is uplifting to women and that the worship of Yahweh/God is the source of both war and oppression (especially the oppression of women) is simply unsubstantiated."
Gasque has apparently never actually read the bible.
So this means that the Egyptologists that Gasque contacted agreed that Isis was a virgin? How does that work? |
Wow, another straw man. Go figure... .
That is not what I said or implied and the fact that you have to twist it into something to create a straw man argument means that you are a liar, like I have said since the beginning. The sad part is david, is that you are lying to others as well as yourself and to me, that isn't cool.
No, I wanted it. I still do. At best, we discussed a handful of the claims. I want to see if there is evidence for the majority of them, not just a handful. |
And you got it, many times over, but you shut your eyes and said "no it ain't." Just like you always do. As a matter of fact, Jcm, Teched, Naneux and myself are still providing evidence as we read it, like Horus being anointed, Horus being the called the Morning Star and so forth, but you just refuse to see it.
| Debunking Zeitgeist doesn't prop up my faith, though. If Zeitgeist is false, that doesn't make Christianity true. |
Then why the constant lies kingdavid?
This: "If Zeitgeist is false, that doesn't make Christianity true." is the first bit of truth that you have said since this thread was started.
| Yes, I have. But that didn't cover the majority of the Zeitgeist claims, either. |
Actually, it covered more that ZG claims, but you would never admit that.
If these "thousands of books" had the actual evidence, then those who have read them wouldn't have such trouble finding the evidence. I'm expecting those who are trying to convince me that the claims are true to provide the evidence for them, not to tell me to go look for it elsewhere. |
So...you haven't read the books, but you know what is in them to know that they don't have the evidence of the claims, thus presuming that people are having a problem finding the evidence for the claims that are written in the books which you refuse to read.
Sounds like circular logic to me.
Discussing the topic isn't the same as providing the evidence. |
The books give the evidence then discuss it. But you wouldn't know that because you haven't actually read the books.
Yes. That is how skeptics decide, by looking over the evidence and deciding on the validity. Didn't you know that?
You can't find it either, huh?
|
Yeah, I did, and I provided the links for it. Apparently, you cannot read or you would rather just go on lying to yourself and to others. |
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
| Edited by - changingmyself on 06/23/2011 21:36:39 |
|
|
|
teched246
Skeptic Friend
123 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2011 : 21:38:57 [Permalink]
|
Ok, this has gone to ridiculous lengths. Kingdavid, what is the purpose in creating people who aren't going to fulfill the purpose you have in mind for them? Why build a piece of hardware to perform a certain task if you were sure that it wouldn't do so? The proposition, itself, is an oxy-moron because if you knew it wasn't going to perform the task then in no way have you have created it for that task. God knew who wasn't going to "do right by him", right? So what was god's purpose in creating this group, and how is God not complicit to some degree -- totally complicit -- in what ensues from their creation?
Suppose violent psychopaths (of whom there is a certainty of harming anyone they encounter while free) are suddenly set free from prisons and institutions deliberately, and in their freedom they harm others, wouldn't the the person who set them free be complicit in the harm done by these mental cases? Afterall, this person who set them free was 100 % percent sure of what would happen. God "setting loose" (creating) people of whom he was 100% sure would commit "evil" and not repent, is complicit on a grander scale. If you don't want sin to occur, don't create people of whom there is a 100 percent chance will commit sins without repenting. It's from this perspective that "freewill" becomes truly irrelevant; when we start dealing with certainties (100 percent chance) a person's path becomes CERTAIN, their actions are inevitable. God creating such people, in full knowledge of their path, would be contrary to his own will, hence, god would be a self-contradicting "god", as there is no one or no circumstance that would force or compel god to create... or is there (?) (God's OWN creator dum duh-duh dum)
|
"For all things have been baptized in the well of eternity and are beyond good
and evil; and good and evil themselves are but intervening shadows and damp
depressions and drifting clouds.Verily, it is a blessing and not a blasphemy
when I teach: ‘Over all things stand the heaven Accident, the heaven
Innocence, the heaven Chance, the heaven Prankishness." -Nietzsche |
| Edited by - teched246 on 06/23/2011 21:56:56 |
|
|
|
Philo
Skeptic Friend
66 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2011 : 09:26:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hercules
The Mythicist Position:
"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not “real people” but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called “astrotheology.”
"As a major example of the mythicist position, various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon & Jesus Christ, among other figures, in reality represent mythological characters along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."
- Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, page 12
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html |
|
It is fallacious to assert that every character claimed to possess supernatural attributes was mythical. Abraham and Moses were probably not real persons (persons like Noah and Adam and Eve obviously weren't). Jesus and king David propably were historical figures. However, the realm that king David ruled was not a grand empire, but a tribal chiefdom. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2011 : 16:59:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
You're trying to make this a lot more complicated than it is. All I'm saying is that if the computer generates truly random numbers, the programmer, being omniscient, will still know what those numbers will be. Assuming multiple possible generators is unnecessary and seem to be a way to complicate, and perhaps avoid, the issue. Let's simplify the issue and suppose that there is only one way to create a truly random number generator, that he isn't forced to choose between multiple generators. The sooner we narrow it down to one, the sooner we can put this issue to the test. |
Whether it's one or many, the fact is that the programmer will know what sequences will be output, has to choose between them and not "truly random" generators, and so the output of the system is determined by the programmer's choice, and so isn't random at all, even if he chooses the "truly random" generator.| If the program creates truly random numbers, then he doesn't control them. |
He's chosen to use the truly random number generator instead of any other generator. Tell me how that isn't controlling the output.| He needn't be "ignorant" of the sequence for them to be truly random. If they're truly random and he is omniscient, then all it means is that he "knows" what those truly random numbers will be. |
And he's chosen to have that sequence output from his program instead of the myriad of other possible sequences, all of which he "knows" and so he's forced to choose between them.| It doesn't mean that they're not truly random. |
Given the definition of "random" that you provided earlier, it does.| If the numbers are not truly-random, then an omniscient programmer will know what those not-truly-random numbers will be. And if they are truly-random, then an omniscient programmer will know what those truly-random numbers will be. |
And he's forced to choose what the numbers will be. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2011 : 19:32:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
So you are claiming that those are Egyptologists that have watched Zeitgeist and made websites to repeat those claims? Because that is what I was asking for, because that is what you claimed. |
When did I claim that Egyptologists watched Zeitgeist then repeated the claims?
So are you lying now and saying that you didn't concede about Isis's virginity? |
No, I never conceded that, per pre-Christian mythology, Isis was a virgin.
| Because I have proof that you did. |
Then provide it.
No, I wanted it. I still do. At best, we discussed a handful of the claims. I want to see if there is evidence for the majority of them, not just a handful. |
And you got it, many times over, |
I never got it at all.
| Debunking Zeitgeist doesn't prop up my faith, though. If Zeitgeist is false, that doesn't make Christianity true. |
Then why the constant lies kingdavid? |
I've never lied in this thread.
If these "thousands of books" had the actual evidence, then those who have read them wouldn't have such trouble finding the evidence. I'm expecting those who are trying to convince me that the claims are true to provide the evidence for them, not to tell me to go look for it elsewhere. |
So...you haven't read the books, but you know what is in them to know that they don't have the evidence of the claims, |
If they had the evidence for the claims, the people who have read them wouldn't have so much trouble finding the evidence for the claims.
Yes. That is how skeptics decide, by looking over the evidence and deciding on the validity. |
No, skeptics do not just look at the evidence and decide its validity. They question the claims, approach them with doubt and skepticism. Where's your evidence that these sites did so with the claims? Do you see them approaching the claims skeptically, or just saying that they're true?
|
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2011 : 19:43:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Let's simplify the issue and suppose that there is only one way to create a truly random number generator, that he isn't forced to choose between multiple generators. The sooner we narrow it down to one, the sooner we can put this issue to the test. |
Whether it's one or many, the fact is that the programmer will know what sequences will be output, has to choose between them and not "truly random" generators, and so the output of the system is determined by the programmer's choice, and so isn't random at all, even if he chooses the "truly random" generator. |
The purpose of me narrowing it down to one was to simplify the issue. Can we please assume He's not choosing between multiple generators, but just deal with there being one? If there is one generator generating truly random numbers, then an omniscient programmer will know what the truly random numbers will be. That doesn't mean that they aren't truly random.
| If the program creates truly random numbers, then he doesn't control them. |
He's chosen to use the truly random number generator instead of any other generator. Tell me how that isn't controlling the output. |
Because the output is truly random, meaning he isn't controlling what it will be.
| If the numbers are not truly-random, then an omniscient programmer will know what those not-truly-random numbers will be. And if they are truly-random, then an omniscient programmer will know what those truly-random numbers will be. |
And he's forced to choose what the numbers will be. |
Assuming a single generator, he's not choosing what the numbers will be. I'm not sure I'd say he's "choosing what the numbers will be" even if he's choosing between multiple (though finite) generators. That's certainly a more complex issue, though. But I'm trying to keep it simple so that we can get to the heart of the matter. So, again, suppose that there's only one generator, that he's not choosing between several of them. If the one generator is generating truly random numbers, wouldn't you agree that an omniscient programmer will know what the truly random numbers will be? |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2011 : 19:54:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by teched246
Ok, this has gone to ridiculous lengths. Kingdavid, what is the purpose in creating people who aren't going to fulfill the purpose you have in mind for them? Why build a piece of hardware to perform a certain task if you were sure that it wouldn't do so? |
We aren't hardware set to perform a certain task.
| God knew who wasn't going to "do right by him", right? So what was god's purpose in creating this group, and how is God not complicit to some degree -- totally complicit -- in what ensues from their creation? |
God wants us to choose to do right by Him or not. Retroactively aborting anyone who wouldn't makes the choice essentially meaningless.
And think about this - when America's founding fathers gave us freedom of speech, don't you think they knew that people would occasionally use it say things that they (the founding fathers) would disagree with? Does that make the founding fathers complicit in the saying of things they would disagree with? You could, perhaps, answer "yes" to this question (at the very least, they're complicit in the same sense as God is for giving us free will), but in neither case does it make their doing so a bad idea. We SHOULD have the free will to choose God or not, just as we SHOULD have freedom of speech
| If you don't want sin to occur, don't create people of whom there is a 100 percent chance will commit sins without repenting. |
Sin would still occur, though. It would just be repented of. Besides, I think even unrepentant sinners are worthy of life. But, basically, you're suggesting that God give us the ability to do something, and then prevent anyone who would do so from existing in the first place. Maybe you don't see how silly that is, but I do. |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2011 : 07:10:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
|
| By me: So you are claiming that those are Egyptologists that have watched Zeitgeist and made websites to repeat those claims? Because that is what I was asking for, because that is what you claimed. |
| When did I claim that Egyptologists watched Zeitgeist then repeated the claims? |
So far, you have said that Egyptologists go around repeating claims, but where did they get those claims to repeat if they didn't get them from Zeitgeist and haven't read them in the original hieroglyphs?
I specifically asked for proof that Egyptologists are going around repeating claims like you accused them of.
| No, I never conceded that, per pre-Christian mythology, Isis was a virgin. |
@changingmyself Has David#65279; conceded that Isis was indeed a virgin? Or is he still disputing it?
Jcm9991 1 month ago
@Jcm9991 He#65279; conceded, but yet, he wont change his website to show that one...but did he not just admit yesterday that you sent him 4 more?
changingmyself 1 month ago
@changingmyself Ahh, finally! I actually sent him more than four via PM. I don't think he read the PM#65279; correctly.
Jcm9991 1 month ago
@changingmyself
"He conceded, but yet, he wont change his website to show that one..."
I did#65279; change it, and already told you that. It's changed on the two pages that deal with this claim:
kingdavid8(dot)com(slash)Copycat(slash)JesusHorus(dot)html
kingdavid8(dot)com(slash)Zeitgeist(slash)Home(dot)html
kingdavid246 1 month ago
And yet, for some odd reason, you fail to mention anything about Isis's virginity not being pre-Christian mythology on your website: "Horus being born of a virgin is iffy. None of the stories seem to suggest that Isis was a virgin, though I've seen a few university-level scholar who see to think she was."
As a matter of fact, you failed to mention "pre-Christian mythology" at all concerning Isis's virginity.
Yes, you did, but you repeatedly close your eyes and deny it.
I've never lied in this thread. |
Yes, you have repeatedly, not only that, you have made false claims against Egyptologists claiming that they repeat claims, but yet, you have failed to say where they get the claims to repeat or providing evidence that they just repeat claims.
If they had the evidence for the claims, the people who have read them wouldn't have so much trouble finding the evidence for the claims. |
David, you claim that you want the evidence. If you want the evidence and it is in the books, then why not read the books instead of asking other people to do the work for you? Isn't that common sense?
No, skeptics do not just look at the evidence and decide its validity. They question the claims, approach them with doubt and skepticism. Where's your evidence that these sites did so with the claims? Do you see them approaching the claims skeptically, or just saying that they're true? |
You seem to be confusing skepticism with denial.
Skepticism isn't automatically denying things david, it is looking for at the empirical evidence to back up what ever claim is made. Skeptics look at the evidence and weigh it. Skeptics would not claim that Egyptologists are just going around repeating claims, because that would be a conspiracy theory that would need evidence to back it up, which you have no evidence for.
Automatically denying claims is called denial. That is what you do.
And yes, the websites do approach the claims skeptically because they actually look for the evidence to back up the claims instead of asking for others to provide it for them and then denying it when they do, like you do. Then they weighed the empirical evidence and found it to be true.
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
teched246
Skeptic Friend
123 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2011 : 08:12:26 [Permalink]
|
| God wants us to choose to do right by Him or not. Retroactively aborting anyone who wouldn't makes the choice essentially meaningless. |
It wouldn't be retroactive nor would it be abortive; it'd be preemptive and an exercise of his infinitely better judgement (omniscience) to not go through with creating unrepenting sinners to begin with. By not going through with that half of creation to begin with he wouldn't be affecting freewill, and yet his creations would still choose to do right by him in their own freewill...win-win outcome.
| And think about this - when America's founding fathers gave us freedom of speech, don't you think they knew that people would occasionally use it say things that they (the founding fathers) would disagree with? Does that make the founding fathers complicit in the saying of things they would disagree with? You could, perhaps, answer "yes" to this question (at the very least, they're complicit in the same sense as God is for giving us free will), but in neither case does it make their doing so a bad idea. We SHOULD have the free will to choose God or not, just as we SHOULD have freedom of speech |
You're making an analogy between two completely opposite ideas. Freedom of speech means, to say what you want WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES. The founding fathers didn't say that you would be *punished* for choosing to say things that they disagree with, otherwise "freedom of speech" would be a farce. Deterministically speaking, god, the creator of evil, is complicit in the grand scheme of things, and you're counter-claim is that, the choices of us lowly mortals somehow supercede the actions of an omniscient, omnipotent god who was certain of the outcome of creation (the creation of unrepenting sinners, that is) and still went ahead with it. And so by your rationale, the actions of Man carry more weight than the actions of god. Why do I sense another flawed analogy involving the anthropomorphosization of god on the way (can't use the founding fathers again).
| Sin would still occur, though. It would just be repented of. |
To create something with hopes in mind, means that creations were counted on to fulfill hopes. However, if a creator knows with absolute certainty that it's creations aren't going to fulfill those hopes, then it turns out that the creator wasn't counting it's creations to fulfill it's hopes, and thus didn't have hopes in mind for it's creations, afterall. It's a little hard to explain oxy-morons without getting tongue-tied.
| Besides, I think even unrepentant sinners are worthy of life. |
An eternity of torture would outweigh a finite life. Next you'll say, "Oh well, it's their fault", but god could've avoided the situation altogether by not creating that lot. It's not like he would be compelled to create that group, nor would he have hopes for it; he's omniscient. The creation of that group would be a complete waste of time, unless, of course, "god" is a sadist. 
Come to understand that, once we throw the element of purpose in the mix something's gotta give. You can't say that a creator, was omniscient and yet had hopes (a purpose) in mind for unrepenting sinners. We either throw out omniscience, or the idea that god had hopes (a purpose) for the undesirable half of creation, OR that he had good intentions for this group. Of course, there's also the problem with the logic behind biblical determinism and freewill, but freewill is irrelevant to purpose so long as god was able to see what we would do in our own freewill -- so long as the choices we make are certainties. |
"For all things have been baptized in the well of eternity and are beyond good
and evil; and good and evil themselves are but intervening shadows and damp
depressions and drifting clouds.Verily, it is a blessing and not a blasphemy
when I teach: ‘Over all things stand the heaven Accident, the heaven
Innocence, the heaven Chance, the heaven Prankishness." -Nietzsche |
| Edited by - teched246 on 06/28/2011 08:16:19 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Mythicist position
