Enlightenments, comments and understandings about the book's title and the atheistic essence
The article appeared on the website Hospitals And it is published on the Hedaan website courtesy of the author, who is one of the heads of the Freedom Association
"Religion has managed to convince people that there is an invisible person - who lives in the sky - who keeps an eye on everything you do, every minute of the day. And the invisible man has a list of…things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do one of those ... things, he has a special place, full of smoke and fire and torture and suffering, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and suffocate and scream and cry forever and ever until the end of all time [...] But he loves you!" (1)
George Carlin
Quoted by Richard Dawkins on the cover of the eighth chapter of his book "Is There a God?"
The last book of Prof. Richard Dawkins "there is a God?"It received, and very rightfully so, a wide resonance throughout the entire world, and the 'Freedom' website has so far published two evaluations about it, one by Prof. Yaakov Malkin, who referred to the book in its English edition, even before the Hebrew translation appeared, and the other by Dr. Moshe Garnot. Like Moshe Garnot, I too "jumped" out of my chair more than once to read one or another sentence of Dawkins, which came out of my mouth or my mind many years ago. But this should not be surprising, since atheistic thinking goes against not only religious thinking, but the culture and lifestyle of the religious believer, in any religion, especially the one that adheres to the laws of religion and is enslaved to them, mild or severe. Such a confrontation between two cultures, which is expressed in all areas of life and at all hours of the day, gives birth to universal reactions, and it is no wonder that more than one person expresses them in a similar way in different places and in different languages, even if there was no connection between them.
Dawkins' book is rich in many aspects, formulations, definitions and statements, from his own and from others, but Moshe Granot rightly wrote about them that Dawkins' treatment of monotheistic religion is based on the principles of the Christian religion and its worship. We, the members of the Jewish people, who know the Jewish religion better, especially those of us who are closely familiar with the religious-missionary preaching system (the 'repentance' systems in Israel) have quite a few comments and misunderstandings about some of the things that appeared in Dawkins' book, all without diminishing Such is the value of the book and the courage of Dawkins' heart, that as a "de facto atheist" (see below) he was not afraid to openly say what was in his heart and mind about God, about those who believe in Him, and about religious faith as a whole. In this article I will address only two points - the title of the book in its Hebrew translation and Dawkins' atheism.
A. The name of the book translated into Hebrew
The first thing that caught my eye in the two editions of the same book (the original in English and the Hebrew translation) was a fundamental and fundamental difference in the names of the two books. The original name (in English) given by the author to his book is "The God Delusion". The name in which the book appears in its Hebrew translation is "Yes God?" And below it a subtitle in smaller fonts - "The Great Illusion of Religion".
The "Attic Books" editor, responsible for the book published by "Yediot Ahronoth", saw fit to explain to the reader the reason for the name change. In the section "with the Hebrew edition" - which is cited as a footnote to "Petah Dever" by the author, the Israeli system explains that no suitable word has been found in the Hebrew language for the English term Delusion, and that its translation 'delusion', known and accepted by many, does not correspond to the meaning of the word in English. The system also brought Dawkins' explanation in choosing the name, according to which he chose the word Delusion based on dictionary definitions. According to the Penguin dictionary, the meaning of the word is "false belief or impression", and the Microsoft dictionary writes that the meaning is "a false belief that is persistently held even in the face of strong counter-evidence that contradicts it, mainly as a sign of a mental disorder".
According to the editors - "of all the words that could translate this Delusion into Hebrew - illusion, hallucination, mirage, eye catching, mislead, and even fraud - none completely conveys the content that Dawkins wants to convey", similar to its sister Illusion, the word Delusion can certainly to indicate an illusion that the person deceives himself, but Dawkins "also presents (and attacks) the other version of the illusion - the one in which another person deceives another person, that is, she is deceiving, deceiving or deceiving".
Indeed, as the system's explanation, the word Delusion is inherently more acute compared to Illusion, because in Illusion there is good faith, innocent belief, while in Delusion there is an element of deception, fraud, (self) coercion, that is, awareness, lack of good faith . Delusion is also a preposition, as in delusions of grandeur = megalomania (AA).
Delusion in English can be both self-delusion and the delusion of others. (In English - unlike Hebrew - the same verb can be stand, go out and return: for example, I dress will be translated according to the context: "I dress", "I dress", "I dress".). So is the verb delude which is understood: both to err in an illusion and to mislead others. The English noun Delusion is understood in Hebrew as both "delusion" (description of a situation) and "placenta" (action noun, active construction). And it also has another meaning, "psychological", "mental" clinical = frenzy, madness. The English name The God Delusion is therefore used intentionally and wisely in these three senses, which makes the translation into Hebrew very difficult (AA).
Because of the syntactic difference between the languages and because of the lack of an equivalent word for Delusion in the Hebrew language, there is a problem of accuracy in the translation. The Hebrew language does not distinguish between these two levels of illusion, and this word is actually used for both meanings. Hence, the use of the word 'illusion' in the Hebrew language does not initially define which of those two meanings is meant, and its meaning becomes clear and understandable from the content of the sentence in which it is associated, or from the content of the book for which it is used as a title and name. That is, only the context gives the term its meaning.
Even if there is no word in the Hebrew language with the same meaning as the English word Delusion, there was no justification for giving the book a name whose meaning is not only different from the meaning of the original name, but also contradicts it and deviates from the meaning to which Dawkins aimed. Yes, the Hebrew name that can be told - "Is there God?" He turned it from a distinctly atheist expression, according to which God is nothing but an illusion - "The God Delusion" - to a distinctly agnostic expression that places a question mark, literally, in relation to the existence of God: "Is there a God?"
Dawkins in his book attacks the belief in God from all its sides, directions and origins, and his conclusion is clear, sharp and unmistakable: God does not exist. Dawkins not only did not place a question mark next to the word delusion - Delusion, but devoted an entire chapter to the different definitions of disbelief (atheism) or skepticism about the ability to know if it exists (agnosticism). The question mark placed in the Hebrew name constitutes a wrong and unfair contrast to the intentions of the author, who wanted to establish a fact: God is an illusion, and it does not matter whether it is a self-inflicted illusion or a manipulative one or both. It was wrong and unjustified to present God as a possibility to the reader, doubt exists doubt does not exist, in the form of the name carries the question mark "Is there God?"
there is a God?
It wasn't just a question mark that the system placed next to the word God which is printed in black font, but rather a question mark printed in red font, which amplifies the very question, which in essence symbolizes and marks a doubt: Is there God, or is there no God?
Doubt about the possibility of God's existence is the basis of the agnostic. In the second chapter of his book - "The Hypothesis in the Word of God" Dawkins analyzes the different attitudes of humans to the concept of God, and already in the introduction to the deep and wide discussion presented in the chapter, he states the "bottom line": God is a destructive illusion. "The hypothesis about the word of God", as it is presented and constructed in the various religions", writes Dawkins, is based on the existence of "superhuman and supernatural intelligence, which deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it". Dawkins precedes and explains to the reader, that in his book he will present an alternative view: "Every creative intelligence... comes into existence only as the final product of a continuous process of gradual evolution". Such intelligences "since they are the product of evolution... cannot be responsible for its design. God, in the sense defined here, is an illusion; And as the following chapters will show, a destructive illusion" (p. 52).
This assertion of Dawkins's about God is unquestionable, and no faithful translation would alter this fact. Dawkins does not write, for example, "Is God, in the sense defined here, an illusion?" But in a sharp and clear way, which leaves no room for the shadow of a doubt, he concludes with the absolute sentence: God is a destructive illusion.
The name that can be told from the hands of the Israeli system - "Is there God?" It is therefore not a correct translation of the original name "The God Delusion". A more accurate translation would be: "God - fraud?" Or maybe even "madness of the divinity", on the weight of "madness of greatness", because in light of the content of the book it must be assumed that Dawkins wanted to say that belief in the divinity is nothing but some idee fixe, some kind of conceptual fixation, a hallucination, a madness that humans have put into their heads without any connection to facts or reality (AA). Or simply use the word illusion, since it is the least included in the name of the subjunctive that can be told.
Also the subtitle given to the book in its Hebrew translation - "The Great Illusion of Religion" - not only does not exist in the original name, but also has an incomprehensible change of the original name. The illusion is not of religion alone, and its origin is not in religion. This is a human illusion, and originates from a mystical belief in super-human and supernatural powers, which began long before the founding of religions, certainly long before monotheistic religions, and Dawkins also discusses this in his book.
B. On Dawkins' atheism
Already at the beginning of the book, in the second chapter, Dawkins analyzes and details the various forms of human belief in gods, those superhuman and natural intelligences [and we can add extraterrestrials as well], beginning with polytheism in its varied forms (pp. 60-53), through monotheism ( pp. 62-60) to secularism (pp. 113-63) on its two main branches: agnosticism and atheism. Dawkins associates agnosticism, along with the philosophers Proudhon and Popper, with the "philosophy of poverty", and essentially divides it into temporary agnosticism in action (AZB) and eternal agnosticism in principle (ANB). Resolutely for a temporary category, for the Azev". For, "one of the two", he explains, "either he [God, DM] exists, or he does not exist. This is a scientific question; One day we may know the answer, and in the meantime we can say something based on the probability."
From here Dawkins opens a long and detailed discussion on the issue of the probability of the existence or non-existence of God, and in order to avoid doubt about his personal position on this issue, he ends the second chapter with the statement "... I actively do not believe in the existence of God...".
Dawkins is not just a scientist. Science is in his soul, and as such he does not allow himself to deviate to the right or to the left from the scientific track in which he walks and parades his readers-students, and therefore Dawkins the scientist took care to note, in his great fairness, next to the clear statement of Dawkins the man that "I actively do not believe in its existence of God" (p. 113). Dawkins the scientist's statement, that "this is a scientific question; One day we may know the answer" (p. 75).
The thesis that God exists is not a scientific question, but a belief without an evidentiary-factual basis, which in all religions relies on a claim in the name of one person to whom God allegedly and so-called was revealed. The delusional statements of men cannot form the basis of a scientific question, unless the same revelation can be repeated, and shared objectively by more than one person. Not every opinion held or spoken by any person is a theory, and in this basket of beliefs that are not theories are included all the vanity beliefs that humans have conceived since they became thinking humans (homo-sapiens), and all the beliefs in the various idols and mystical magical powers, including the various beliefs in God.
* Author's note: My thanks to the linguist and translator Aryeh Uriel (hereafter: AA), who enlightened my understanding of the terms Delusion and Illusion in the English language and their connection to the Hebrew word Ishliya
Read more about:
245 תגובות
Search the Torah codes yourself. View amazing codes and tables. Torah innovations that connect the Talmud with the Bible and its reception. Initials search, Torah study, Gemara and Mishnah online.
An excellent Israeli rock clip that presents the absurdity of belief in God:
https://www.facebook.com/tzur.aviram/videos/vb.136735038081/10154286292028082/?type=2&theater
An interesting lecture on suicide attacks and the relationship between them and religion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpImeYCZKBk&feature=youtube_gdata
point:
In any case - even if the Torah was written before the days of Josiah (and there is no proof of that since in the days of Josiah no one knew it and there is evidence of this in the Bible itself) - it may have been written by a madman and it may have been written for entertainment purposes.
In other words - even according to the Jewish scriptures, the Torah assumed its historical role only in the days of Josiah and according to his commandments.
Neither Josiah nor any of his contemporaries knew about the status of Mount Sinai.
From the book Rashith Israel, by Prof. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silverman, Tel Aviv University Press
Hi Abby,
Where did you get what you said about the date of writing the story of Matan Torah..?
ah,
If you are willing to accept the giving of the Torah as evidence of the existence of the Jewish God, why wouldn't you also accept Jesus' walking on water and his return to life as evidence of the existence of the Christian God?
The story of the giving of the Torah was first written about a thousand years after the date attributed to it. In a thousand years a story can unfold in a million versions. What's more, it's not pleasant for a person to write such a thing (especially since a large part is the ancient Mahmorbi) so he told his friends that God had dictated to him.
The thesis that God exists is not a scientific question, but a belief without an evidentiary-factual basis, which *in all religions relies on a claim in the name of one person to whom God allegedly and supposedly revealed himself. The delusional statements of men cannot form the basis of a scientific question, unless the same revelation can be repeated, and shared objectively by more than one person. (end quote).
*Also in Judaism?? What if Matan Torah?!
Indeed, it sounds amusing to me that the question has to be repeated and revealed every time someone tries to deny it. Imagine Tzipi Livni surfing for hours and responding to all the talkbacks "Sorry, the people have spoken - I am the Prime Minister!".
By the way, in my opinion, those who seek God will find and will find!
The creation of a Hamas suicide bomber:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfbYtpviai0&eurl=http://www.jihadwatch.org/
Higgs:
I don't eat fish either.
I eat animal proteins like milk and eggs but not those obtained through murder.
I understood in advance your intention in the discussion against the low-minded, but since it is much more pleasant for me to argue with a cultured person like you - I continued the debate 🙂
Michael
I didn't deal with the section of before the Torah and who wrote it and philosophical questions I leave that to the Panchayats. The text of the Talmud was created by the conditions and said by way of discussion according to the above rules.
The tradition of the transmission of the Talmud from Sinai to Moses and so on deals with the definition of the Talmud as dynamic information that develops from a nuclear state to a collection of the Shas and so on.
When I answered, I treated as FACE VALUE what things are supposed to be to specific claims and not to their consequences, i.e. what and how to eat by the way I am also a vegetarian but eat fish. Do you also not eat fish?
What turned me on in the first place to intervene here is that one Win-Dos comes like many who have come before him and declares I have an answer but don't stop me like that gnome who threatens to hurt you if they don't stop him.
At that moment I got fed up and started gently challenging him to do DELIVERY according to his words
And what will become of it nothing but a collection of egg tarts.
If I were you, I wouldn't bother to answer these questions and that's it.
Anyone who believes in what he wants and will eat or not eat from me will eat dragons.
Michael:
You're probably not hungry :)
But thank God, thank God, you underestimate the energies/virtuality of those who come to this site,
will guarantee you
Higgs:
My words (in this specific case) were not directed against Judaism but against the claim that God wrote or dictated the Torah.
I mentioned later that it is also impossible for him to have dictated the Torah by heart because it is also full of factual errors (some of which I pointed out).
Of course, this also drops the ground under Judaism, but as mentioned - that is not the point here.
Therefore there is no point in your attempt to defend Judaism as a whole within the framework of this discussion. The only thing to deal with are the two claims I talked about:
First claim: It is not possible that an all-powerful and all-knowing God wrote or dictated the Torah (unless he decided to work for us).
Second claim: It is impossible for an all-powerful and all-knowing God to have dictated the oral Torah.
Hugin:
Many people do not serve me and yet I do not see fit to eat them.
And for everyone:
I guess you will joke about it again but I think vegetarianism is the way.
At some point in my life I decided to stop eating others - regardless of their racial affiliation.
There will be those who ask themselves how this aligns with the concept I am presenting according to which the soul is also a result of the laws of nature. Whoever asks himself this question is a sign that he did not understand that my above position is actually an excellent reason for vegetarianism.
This is related to my response (195) to Isaiah.
I respect life despite it being a chemical reaction and this because I have not succumbed to the religious brainwashing that holds that matter is bad or inferior.
I also know that the soul does not remain after the death of the body and that as soon as I participate in the process that makes the killing of animals profitable I contribute to the extinction of life.
cannibalistic mood?
In short: you don't eat things that 'serve' you if there is another substitute for eating (survival/existence), which is of lesser importance to your service and, according to orders of precedence in the 'food' chain. Interest! (Utilitarian intelligence / or delivered conclusion = morality).
I would like to consider the camel from a different angle.
The very fact that the writers of the Torah decided to prevent the believers from eating the camel, prevented all the mobile inhabitants of the desert, for whom the camel is a way of life required by their harsh reality, from joining the new religion.
The attempt to say that Hagar was only a slave and from whom all the Ismailis came was condescending towards the people of the desert and a basis for a different future development of a new monotheistic religion - Islam.
Islam immediately saw fit to qualify the camel, and of course Shuhagar is Avraham's qualified wife.
It is said that there is a strategic mistake by the writers of the Torah. It wouldn't hurt if Judaism had a billion believers and maybe a camel steak is actually delicious??
Please respond gently
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Laighs
But even in the Talmud we are aware of the situation that sometimes things don't "work out" and that's where the concept of "tiko" came from, an acronym for "Tishvei will explain questions and problems" meaning that Elijah the prophet will explain to us when he comes back to life.
Personal Knowledge.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael
Now I noticed that you brought up other matters, I didn't check, so I don't know.
But I can say one thing simply, the Talmud takes care to maintain integration and consistency rather jealously. On almost every page you will find some rumor or rumor that will even be on the edge and even if there is a doubt brought from another place and each time they try to contradict or establish a conclusion opposite to what was said in its place. I doubt there will be such a place that remains unresolved and the contradiction has not been properly addressed.
Michael
There is no such thing here, if you follow the method of the Karaites who do not accept the Torah, you are XNUMX percent right. However, as we know, there is no situation for Judaism to exist without the Torah
*** The Talmud unequivocally states that the hare and the rabbit are not above me. ***
And all these excuses that appear to demand other precisions from them.
And like this thing there are many dozens that are required from a Bible that has unnecessary parts or those that are generally considered to be borderline cases. I am currently remembering about lost matters that the scripture uses a number of examples, some of which are unnecessary and come to teach. I need to look to bring some specific examples when I have time. I will try not to promise.
Total Torah 13P is not what Michael or someone will be the wisest to analyze and conclude, but what is received according to the order of Kabbalah written in the divisions of ancestors. The Tanaim and Amoraim developed all these discussions and used the rules of analysis XNUMX dimensions that the Torah requires. It's easy and the same derivation equals a building av from one scripture, a building av from two scriptures, etc. See there in the Mishnah to the end.
So much for this matter.
I took the trouble to stand up and answer this matter and the matter of the "sea" and it was for the simple reason of showing that these pans are not literate
But those who repented and never really learned and know the methods and ways of the Talmud.
What mainly caught him were the stories and other talk of miracles and nonsense and there is no point in referring to them at all.
Some links about the exploits of religions nowadays.
It must be said that the vigils of chastity, the cattle procession, ministers who shake the earth and ultra-Orthodox who fight science, women who are enslaved and refused a divorce and all the other disasters that the Jewish religion lays upon us are nothing compared to what other religions perpetrate.
At the same time - there is no room for complacency.
Our situation is also bad and getting worse.
Here is a film about radical Islam.
The film is in English with a French translation.
Those who do not speak both languages will encounter a problem in the sections where Arabs speak Arabic because there are only the subtitles.
In any case - this is an important film:
http://blip.tv/play/AdmXMI6nSg
And here is a film in several parts about the exploits of Christianity in Nigeria:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUJSME0TORw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7C8Znyf510&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE8epBkSPfo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYG-h1avVrc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nH8ZJbJ9lY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXUKF8dHf4A&feature=related
Higgs:
It's not relevant.
Almighty God would not write or dictate wrong information.
Nor would he be confused about the sources of the Euphrates and Tigris.
And if we want to derive the words of God specifically from the words of the Sages, then what about the lice that grow from human sweat and about mice that grow from mold?
And in the same matter - of course - what about the trachea of the cow?
The business just doesn't work out.
Michael
The main thing is how it was required by the sages, no mistake was made either here or here
The Talmud quotes Rabbi Ishmael's words everywhere as determining how the scriptures should be understood
below
"My religion is Rabbi Ishmael and the camel because he is the ruler of his world who knows that there is nothing more unclean and unclean than a camel"
That is, only the camel alone has a distinct sign of being up and does not turn a horse.
And the rabbit and the rabbit are required for the purpose of restricting the issue of rumination, meaning that even if it seems as if a certain animal is rummaging and not spreading a hoof, it is not in the same rule. The reason, as I mentioned, is to teach the limit, but also to teach about each other about another sign given by sages related to the teeth of pure animals only below and not above. Whereas the rabbit and the hare have both. One of the questions asked there is whether a young camel that does not have upper teeth is considered.
All these precisions are done in order to learn through the rules of analysis which are 13 all the other limits and criteria of purity signs.
And I have already mentioned that Rabbi Ishmael's declaration that only the camel is the only one with this characteristic, not the rabbit and the camel, and in the same way he defines the pig as the only one with a cloven hoof and does not raise a calf
Higgs:
I will not go into the matter of the copper sea - the description you gave is not at all simple, but since we are not talking about the words of the living God - I will limit myself to the matter of the rabbit and the rabbit.
See what is written in the book of Leviticus, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX:
""And the rabbit, because it raises a grass and does not spread a hoof, is unclean for you. And the hare, because it is a living virtue and a hoof, not a spread, is impure to you."
What it means?
This means that in the book of Deuteronomy there was simply a spelling mistake and you built on it a beautiful description that does nothing to solve the problem.
Michael
There is no choice, Win-Dos ran away, so I will answer a simple answer to the matter in his place.
Below is the full quote several things.
Book of Kings XNUMX Chapter XNUMX
(XNUMX) And he made the sea solid ten cubits from its lip to its lip a circle around and five cubits its height and about thirty cubits he turned it around:
(XNUMX) And cocoons under its rim surround it ten times, encircling the sea around the two columns the cocoons are cast in its casting:
(Like this) stand on twelve corners three faces north and three faces south and three faces Negva and three faces east and the sea is on them from above and all behind Her home:
(XNUMX) And his thickness was a palm, and his tongue was like the tongue of a cup of a thousand-thousand lily of the valley:
The answer is simple, the edges of the "sea" were not straight at all but folded outward like petals. This is what is written in verse XNUMX: "His lips are like the lips of a cup of a lily flower"
That is, the sea in the upper part looks like a cup of a lily flower and its petals slope outward. The circumference under these rims was probably 30 cubits in a perfect circle and from this it can be calculated that most of the rims as petals was 0.7 cubits which is about 32 centimeters around and as mentioned it was not like a completely round cornice but curled like petals.
Beneath these edges around around on the wall were cast rows and rows of bulbs and it is difficult to tell if they were in the shape of a closed lily flower nor do we know if the scripture says 10 in a cubit it means a scattering of every 10 cubits one of these or within an area of a square cubit there were 10 and all these were arranged in two rows and here it is also not clear if it divided the height 5 cubits into 3 equal parts, meaning two rows of tubers at equal distances all around. It is possible that it was intended for a double purpose, both to be used as a ladder to go up to the cornice of the edges and also for beauty.
From the calculation of the liquid volume 2000 bat which is approximately 50000 liters, it corresponds to its shape according to the description. It's a good idea to take into account the measurement of a fathom about 45 centimeters (with freedom) and the thickness of the sea one fathom, that is, with the outer diameter under the hem 30 fathoms the outer diameter is about 9.5 fathoms and from that subtract 2 fathoms which is a third of a fathom and also from the height one must subtract at least one fathom from the bottom and it's hard to know how much The edges were rounded and how they were grooved to the closed inner part of the "sea".
And as for the rabbit and the hare
-------
Here, too, the answer is not complicated.
Below is the quote from the Bible:
Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter I
(XNUMX) But you shall not eat it of the animals that move and of the hoofs that have been cloven, the camel, the hare, and the hare, because the animal is a horse and a hoof has not been cloven. And they are unclean to you:
This is what the Talmud refers to as a combined verse according to general and particular rules, etc.
As you know, the Talmudic analysis is done according to 13 rules according to which the practical meaning of the verses can be precisely determined.
The verse opens
In the definition of two signs, a horse and a horseshoe together, "from the top of the horse and from the spreaders of the cloven horseshoe"
and then indicates three animals a camel a rabbit and a rabbit then he divides the two signs
and writes "Ma'ala Gera" in the singular and then "and a horseshoe did not spread" in the plural
The first in the singular refers to the camel only and the second to everyone.
And the reason is required in the Talmud.
Tractate Chulin NT XNUMX
"My religion is Rabbi Ishmael and the camel because he is the ruler of his world who knows that there is nothing more unclean and unclean than a camel"
Rabbi Ishmael says the same about the pig as an individual with opposite signs.
That is, the rabbit is not at all on the leaves of the garden at all according to the Talmud, so why did he bring them
The reason is to teach marginal cases, the Talmud discusses the cases of cattle and animals whose hooves split for whatever reason, that is, how do we distinguish them as not belonging, and the Talmud also discusses raising a grah.
Because it is actually an action and not a fixed form. The question arises what happens if a certain animal burps once a day or once a month or just when it eats a certain food that causes it to belch.
That is, the Talmud uses the rules of analysis of rule and detail and the like to define where the borderline cases cross exactly in practice. The discussions on this topic are scattered in different endings and it is quite long.
Win - dos
I didn't see the other comment from before.
According to your words on the matter, a claim of logic on the one hand and a claim of illogical interpretation on my part on the other.
Things go back to your first response and my response to yours.
You announced in a simple and clear way that you have a simple explanation for the copper sea pie, you promised to give a logical and simple explanation and here you come with a lot of words and philosophies and I still haven't seen the simple and clear interpretation that you promised to provide only if you are not censored God forbid.
We are all looking forward to finding out from your keyboard, please, words of wisdom at ease.
Win - dos
You can help Michael, he is excellent in mathematics and is very good at the various non-linear functions.
Win - dos
Note that you are naming yourself crowns of XNUMX by your custom of naming those who are in front of you with the land.
It's a bit problematic isn't it.
And for that matter, it doesn't matter how you curve the circle, flattened or curved, an exact 30, you didn't come up with any calculation, please check, Mr. Talmid Hacham.
Higgs - and a claim of logic: after all, in the Bible the value of pi is not mentioned, but, according to your opinion, the starting values for its calculation. You mean to tell me that they couldn't retrospectively measure the circumference and diameter of the "Copper Sea" with a rope and then write the correct results? As you said, they could have indicated her mother's parts. What's simpler than that? It doesn't require knowing pi, just measuring a length of rope. And the three-quarters of the forearm looks like a fat deviation worth noting, doesn't it? Well - this shows that your interpretation of the verse simply does not make sense and brings things to the point of absurdity.
Higgs - A. Sermons are made instead of trying to reach a contradiction. Therefore, wherever there seems to be a difficulty, at least according to the words of the people of Haaretz, they interpret it correctly. B. You are trying to attribute to the term "calf around" a Euclidean meaning that had not even been created at the time. third. "Simply of a Bible" - maybe tell me what is the simple of, for example, "Vaku" because you don't know the meaning of the word. I'm not sure of its meaning either. d. "From his lip to his lip" - from the inner side of the lip to the inner side of the opposite lip? From the outside of the edge of the lip to the outside of the opposite lip? And how do you know that the measured circumference passed through those points? God. I was not talking about an ellipse but about a rounded but irregular closed shape. Like, for example, the earth is not a perfect sphere, but somewhat flattened, but it is not a perfect ellipse either. and. How come you don't know that "from lip to lip" goes through the center of the shape? G. "Seventh" in the Bible is usually used to order multiples of seven and not parts of seven. Had it been said seventh, you would have scoffed that it was only close to the final value of pi but not exactly what you would expect from God, right?
Win - dos
There is no need for decimal fractions. The Bible uses a lot of fractions such as a quarter, a third, a half, etc
0.14 is about a seventh so there is no reason to use it.
10 cubits times 3 and a seventh could write 31 cubits and 3 sevenths.
The ancient Egyptians used a lot of fractions, which are still called Egyptian fractions.
Win - dos
Sermons are given when there is a reason to go beyond the simple. As I initially asked you for a simple and reasoned logical answer and not excuses and gibberish.
Vin Doss:
You didn't argue with me before either
Win - dos
When he says "from his lip to his lip a calf around" you can't get the calf out of here regardless of the diameter, he uses the pair of words "calf around" also later in the description of the machines and says there "one size". So it is taken out of the simple hands of Mikra for no reason. And you would even say round is elliptical so in a mathematical calculation of whether you measure the long or short diameter you will not get 30 in circumference.
Higgs, really?
And mother is more accurate than pi equals 3?, whose mother?. Look at the means of the period, calculate the relative error and see that close pie is not the problem. If you were to guide those ancient builders, how would you guide them?
Also look at the alternatives: scientists throughout the past were not wrong?, didn't they think that life was created from flesh standing in the sun?, didn't doctors think in the past that drinking mercury was beneficial to health and bathing was harmful to health?
Why do you go after cheap demagogues?, is it so hard to find better arguments?
Higgs - remember that this was written before Pythagoras, Euclid and Archimedes were born and that decimal fractions had not yet been "invented".
Higgs - a. It is impossible to know for sure just by the data given in the verse. If you want to arrive at a small contradiction that will satisfy you, interpret as if it meant an exact circle and that the circumference and diameter were measured exactly in relation to each other. It could be that the sea was in a form that was not a perfect circle (then the ten cubits were between two specific points on the rim only), or that the ten cubits did not pass through the center, or that the thirty cubits were not measured from the inner rim of the sea, etc., etc.
Win - dos
Please come and explain the shape of the sea according to the following verse:
Book of Kings XNUMX Chapter XNUMX
And he made the sea solid, ten cubits from its lip to its lip, round about, and five cubits high, and thirty cubits round about:
Michael R. - I'm not arguing with you anymore.
Win-DOS:
You are probably testing kidneys and heart.
I have been studying all my life, but you decided that I don't want to study.
nonsense! It's just an excuse because you have no answers!
The joke about the rabbit is very interesting! If God told people only things they believed beforehand - why didn't he tell them to bow down to idols?
After all, they had no problem catching a rabbit and seeing that it did not ruminate. After all - if God said it - you should at least check - right? But this is it - the answer is no - the religious believe all the nonsense even without checking.
By the way - if God wanted the Torah to survive for thousands of years - how come no one knew it already in the days of Josiah?
And you describe yourself as a scientist. You made me laugh!
And lastly for Higgs - the Holocaust is like slavery in Egypt and wandering in the desert. A way to unite and refine a people whose ways you have corrupted and corrupted during the long years of exile and slavery until it is worthy of life in its own country. And this is also a way to soften the hard hearts of the nations of the world, like Pharaoh in his time, until they forgive and let the people of Israel go free and return to their people and their country. And if you ask why the slavery of Egypt and the holocaust came upon us in the first place, I will answer you that no one knows, but there are those who fear that the hand of instigators and spoilers and infidels and species and others caused this by the evil of their deeds, and it is enough for the wise to hint.
Lahiggs - regarding the pie lesson in the Copper Sea. Why don't you think the copper was an exact circle? Maybe it was in a different way?
Michael R. - If I thought for a moment that you really wanted to learn, I would invest in you. But from your response I see that you want to mock and mock and put everything to laugh and I will not give my hand to that.
I will limit myself to just a general answer, which is the key to understanding and justifying all the difficulties you raise: there is no mistake and there can be no mistake in the perception that God will transcend reality. His word is the reality for his will and all his words are true until the will arises before him for them to be otherwise.
But may - just as a loving parent does not feed his baby food that is too rich for him to digest, God will not raise morals to his people but information as all their minds are capable of understanding. And that's why the discoveries keep coming.
D. in his wisdom preferred that the things be accepted according to the opinion of the first generations of faith, according to what was known to them at the time (and then - the people thought, perhaps, that the rabbit is alive - for example), knowing in advance that this way the Bible would survive for thousands of years as a living and breathing thing that is read every day . And it will be the end of many days, when the people will learn about the digestive system of the rabbit, there will no longer be a marginal matter to uproot the thousand-year-old belief from their hearts. Our eyes see that God's counsel is resurrected in our day. In vain heretics, rabbit eaters, rabbits and vermin swallow the rabbit's mouth everywhere and in every argument. There is no evidence in this except for the wisdom of G-d Yatala.
Win - dos
I'm with you please go ahead but without scrolls something simple and clear 1.2.3.
Each topic separately or maybe start with no more than two or three topics, start with a pie and continue with a rabbit and add one to choose from. But in short, without a lot of words, a simple and comprehensive logical answer please.
I promise you that no one will censor this kind of comment.
Windows:
If you are already writing - please add explanations for the origin of the cow and the Tigris from the same source, that the Sages thought that the windpipe of the cow splits into three parts, one of which reaches the liver, that they claimed that lice are created from human sweat and mice from mold.
Please also explain to us why it is a mitzvah to kill homosexuals and Sabbath-breakers and why it is forbidden to break the Sabbath in order to save a Gentile.
On that occasion, please explain to us the exact mechanism by which an underlying cause is remembered for earthquakes, how 13.5 billion years are shrunk to less than 6000, why the sun orbits the earth and why the earth is not a sphere.
After you explain all this - I will bring you the next portion of nonsense.
I have patiently read all the conversations above, and I have a few comments: you repeatedly bring up, and not only here, some claims as if from the Bible, ignorance, so to speak, regarding the natural sciences. I think we should not be silent about such claims. I have explanations regarding your difficulties, both regarding "Hasfen Maale Gera", both regarding the pie lesson in the "Copper Sea", both regarding the Holocaust and regarding the claim that God supposedly denies his people, Hoch. The question is if you would be willing to publish here my full reference to the subject, without editing and without omissions that would take things out of context or try to make fun of the Bible.
amateur scientist:
I certainly agree with you here.
It's not just about evolution.
As a principle, people should be taught philosophy and trained to deal with the truth - whatever it may be: it was not for nothing that the phrase "look at things philosophically" was invented.
The thing is that actually this shouldn't be such a big problem because the sense of loss that some people feel in the face of the discoveries of science stems only from the wrong expectations planted in them by the education they received - education that even in the secular system is fundamentally based on religious belief. As soon as the education system does not deceive them - disillusionment will not be problematic (because there will be no disillusionment - the person will be sober to begin with).
How does Eric Einstein sing?
"Don't wear glasses, neither dark nor pink..."
There are many, many unsuccessful people, so it's not one person's problem...
Your question is very difficult, I think that along with evolution studies, philosophical studies will also have to be combined with it, because the in-depth understanding of evolution will have a great impact on many people.
For example, what you told me, that the very understanding gives you immense pleasure..and I understand exactly what you are talking about because I also feel it many times...(such a view is excellent)
It is forbidden to teach evolution without giving answers to the essential questions that arise from it in matters related to the meaning of life... (It is also possible to combine values of tolerant religions that do not oppose anything that contradicts them... (Buddhism)...
amateur scientist:
There is a difference between the attitude towards a specific person and the attitude towards humanity.
Hiding information from a person who clearly does not want to receive the information is something that can be understood, but deciding to be a censor who will withhold information from all of humanity is unjustified arrogance that may - in the end - cost humanity its very existence.
Beyond that, I repeat and ask you what I also asked you then: how do you intend to determine who is allowed to know what?
There is no point in presenting ideas that are not applicable.
Hello Michael, sorry for interrupting the discussion with you, I simply had nothing to add...
Isaiah the servant of God was good at formulating my thoughts (much better than me)
At the same time, I will try to explain myself with a more specific example: let's take a strong, sturdy person with beautiful courage and resourcefulness, and in contrast, let's take a disabled, ugly person (Michael). universal...) and other negative traits... and then that person is told that there is some random mechanism that very simply condemned that person not to pass on his genes (in an extreme case...) That person will simply lose his will to live as soon as he truly understands the theory of evolution...
On the other hand, I believe that if science continues to develop at the speed it is developing today, eventually we will reach a perfect state: immortal life, advanced genetic engineering, and more... that will be able to correct the injustices of nature's determinism... but science will probably reach these achievements in a long time...
Isaiah:
First of all, it sounds like the feeling of living in the real world must be terrible.
This claim contradicts the findings because I feel wonderful.
In fact, most scientists feel wonderful and really enjoy the complex and wonderful puzzle of the world.
So what if I'm a chemical reaction?! It's just great fun to have such a reaction! Fact! thats what I feel!
It is you who is trying to sow depression by underestimating the value of the chemical reactions and you are doing so for reasons that are supposed to be cold logic and in fact a fundamental mistake that is in contradiction to the findings.
This defiance of yours towards knowledge and understanding is an acceptable defiance and many scientists have taken the trouble to address it.
Daniel Dent wrote as an answer to it his book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" and Dawkins answered it in his book "Unweaving the Rainbow".
Feynman also referred to her a lot in his conversations and this is reflected in the autobiographical books he helped write ("You must be joking - Mr. Feynman" and "The Story of a Strange Man").
You can find an expansion on some of my thoughts on the subject in a response I wrote as part of one of the discussions here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/meta-beuty-2911082/#comment-144121
What you and the reviewer are proposing is to kill the messenger who brings you the word of truth.
The freedom you preach - the freedom to lie - cannot help but hurt people.
Do you have any method to choose between the lies that are not harmful and the lies that are harmful?
On what can such a method be based if not on ascertaining the truth?
Michael R. - [Sorry for the reactions in a row] - I do not disagree that the scientific example is necessary in certain fields. I would not try to investigate natural phenomena but mainly using a modern scientific example. Nor would I try to build a building or fly an airplane except based on indisputable scientific knowledge. But, in social and spiritual life, I find the answers that science provides me meager, partial and above all - too horrible for me to want to think about them, unless I have no other choice. The world is a truly horrible place. Our lives hang in the balance. It's just a case that we exist at all, at any given moment a cosmologically insignificant change can wipe us out without a trace and a refugee. Our entire being is nothing more than a product, seen as selfish behavior, of random molecular biology, which strives to replicate and reproduce ad infinitum. We have no feelings, we have no purpose, we have no added value over any other orange chemical compound bubbling in a test tube. All of our altruistic actions, all of our art, all of our thinking and philosophy, all of our wonderful music - they are all the products of the fairly random electrical firing of neurons in our nerve center plus hormonal stimulation. No love, no evil, no values. It's all chemicals and genes programmed to replicate themselves over and over and over. We are born by chance, live just like that, and die pointlessly. There is no supervision in the world, there is no reward and punishment and there is no point to our lives beyond the endless replication of our personal version of the corrupted human DNA. We are small, meaningless and unimportant, living on marginal gluttony revolving around a not really big match burning on the edge of a not really big galaxy in some corner of a universe that is expanding at a terrifying speed when most of the existing world is already far away from us a distance that we will never be able to bridge. This is the picture of the world you know to me, Michael R. So let me tell you something - this does not encourage me at all and it does me no good to hear it. If this is the truth - thank you very much, I don't want it and I prefer 1,000 "primitive" rabbis according to your method, over your evil and cold rationalism.
Michael R. – What I like about Glasner's argument is the complete adherence to individual choice. We all remember Orwell's immortal sentence - "Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4." Glasner came, and I agree with him, and in my opinion says - "But the ultimate freedom is to say 2+2=5." Not because the party forces you to think it's a 5, but simply because that's how the hell you feel like it, and as long as it doesn't hurt other people, who are you to tell me it's a 4? I want it to be 5. That's how it suits me right now. do you have a problem with that? True - with 2+2=5 it is impossible to get far in a world that obeys Newton's mechanics. But in the world of spirit and society, there is nothing more beautiful than that. This is the ultimate freedom, even from the rule of the tyrants of rationalism. Only religion can give me that. Science will always give me a 4.
Isaiah:
Indeed an interesting and worthy review, but in my opinion - crazy.
To summarize the critic's intention in a very short sentence, he says that although he is an agnostic very close to atheism, he fears the takeover of reason and he prefers the feeling (even if unjustified) of freedom over reason that shows him its limits and limitations.
To put it figuratively - he prefers a paradise of fools to a prison of the wise - even though the same paradise is nothing but a dungeon inside the prison of the wise only that its inhabitants ignore its limitations and every time their head gets stuck in a wall or ceiling they tell themselves that they finally managed to overcome the speed of light and reach the edge of the universe in a fraction of a second.
What to do? I do not agree with him at all.
Here, in the following link, is a proper and interesting review of the book -
http://www.odyssey.org.il/pdf/אריק%20גלסנר-ביקורת%20ספר.pdf
It is hard to believe... It pains me to see here the responses of people who fall in their claim that there is a God and at the same time claim that they think logically....
Well done, Dawkins. Be strong and courageous!.. and forgive us, thought-challenged!..
Hugin:
You didn't read my words. I only ruled out the first three. The rest is actually fine.
It's hard to believe that out of ten you didn't even find 'one' for comfort..
In the first three commandments, God speaks about himself.
Some of them do not define a requirement at all and the rest he only cares about himself.
There is no need for them.
Michael:
I would be satisfied with the infrastructure of the 'Ten Commandments', this is also difficult to internalize and enforce, it turns out..
Hugin:
I examine people's beliefs before I decide whether I should respect them or not.
This is what allows me, for example, not to respect Nazism.
I thank you from the bottom of my heart for respecting *even* my opinions.
I understand that my views are so terrible in your eyes that respecting them seems to you to be the pinnacle of accepting the other.
No Michael, I do not have any authority to determine for you my happiness, but I have great respect for the faith of other people and even you.
Shabbat Shalom in peace..
Michael, some credibility!
On the one hand, your opinions about the Bible are so negative and resolute and on the other hand, you carry a Bible there!
Maybe decide where you stand before you come to convince others?
(It's like me saying I'm an only child - doesn't make sense, right?)
Hugin:
The fact that there are people who see the Bible as a book of books does not make it so.
Know that a great many people whose entire feeling for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a feeling of deep contempt found themselves forced to deal with them.
The same goes for "Mein Kampf".
There is no connection between the appreciation of the book and the engagement with it and you have no authority to determine my areas of engagement for me.
To Mr./Ms. "Dan Meler??? Are you serious???":
You have nothing to write so you respond to a person's body.
You also forget that with all due respect to the article - the subject of the article is the book written by Dawkins that the religious did not kidnap his son.
Besides, there is no reason why someone who hates religion should not write about religion.
The last one who should give an article on the subject of belief in God is Dan Meler.
Regardless of the facts, the man hates religion in an extreme way and it is enough to read his previous books.
This is after an experience he and his wife went through, as I imagine, following their son's conversion.
They call the religious "black demons" like the name of the book "Demons Emerge from Darkness" or something similar.
In short, it's a bit of a shame that such an article should be written by a person whose rationality is doubtful over emotions, and not by a neutral person.
Michael: The Tanach is still the 'book of books', but maybe scientists really shouldn't engage in it if they don't have reverence for it?
Shahar - you are quite right!
What is without a shadow of a doubt is that the Bible is the book of humanity - the most important book in its influence on the shaping of human history. Certainly and certainly there is no other book that comes close in importance to such a large number of people and for so many years.
A wonderful book that combines the history of the people of Israel with the history of humanity, wisdom and morality, fiction and literature at the finest level.
Dawn:
The Bible needs an interpretation only because it is clear that without an interpretation most of what is written in it is simply a lie.
God probably didn't know how to write what he really wanted to write, so all kinds of people are needed to argue about what he actually meant.
What nonsense!
What is the debate about?
There is no contradiction between science and the Bible. There is a contradiction only in the interpretation.
Some Jews will say that the world has existed for 6000 years, but this is not true. According to the Tanakh - man has existed for almost 6000 years.
It is told about the creation of the world in 6 days.
As of today, we are still on the sixth day and we have not yet reached the "Sabbath" day - that "day" when even God, nature, and evolution stop their work and there is perfection and harmony between all creatures.
Is it possible that all 6000 years for the creation of man are only one day in the eyes of the Creator?
Has science reached the day when humans know how to produce life?
As long as we have not reached this, a simple person cannot claim that people are the highest intelligence in the universe and therefore there is knowledge that exists in the universe that we have not yet discovered - something beyond our understanding - call it whatever you want - God is the general consciousness of all of us - the reason why things bigger than us happen.
The element that is subject to debate is - what they want from us and how we are supposed to behave in this life. For some, the meaning gives them a sufficient reason to continue, and for some, the ability to understand these processes will give them the impetus to continue researching. In any case, we are all looking for the same answer and trying to interpret it each in our own way and according to our perception.
In short, yes or no, no matter what, yes or no?
Good morning everyone..
Michael:
I meant consideration of others in a positive way. I mentioned this to prevent panic from the presenter's visions and the spread of stigmas, by clarifying the aforementioned sincere intentions.
Michael,
I got it, you are right.
This article in particular brought me to the understanding/conclusion that all my other comments on the science site from July 2008 are also a jumble of nonsense that is out of context and a sequence of nonsense that is out of place.
If I were "Abi Bilozovsky" I would do the scientist a favor by selecting and filtering and deleting all the comments related to Hugin Monin and Odin,,, and all the other nonsense attributed to me that is not at all related to the spirit of the scientist/science.
In short, cleans and sweeps the site in order to restore 'sanity' to the place..
All the best.
And another addition for you - Hugin:
Imagine if I hadn't seen the deleted impersonation attempt?
In that case I would not know what you are talking about and since this is usually the case, your defamatory comment would remain unanswered.
I repeat to you and to all the people among the respondents:
Stop the lost custom of referring to a person's body.
I am not telling anyone not to impersonate because in my eyes the impersonator has given up his status as a man.
Hugin:
Fix:
The comment that was omitted was indeed from an impostor, but it was also omitted because of its content and not only because of the impersonation.
There are people whose actions are all vile and sometimes it is difficult to describe all the vileness in one sentence.
Hugin:
The response to the point was from an impostor and was therefore omitted.
I can't believe you didn't figure it out yourself.
And what about the omission of your response ('your word'), as your "warm" recommendation to the point, between my two responses? Wasn't that like the discovery of the "deus ex machina"?
Leave it to the debate Michael, shame on us all.
Indeed, peppers are my love, but not dishonestly.
Good and blessed week.
Since taking things out of context is not an act of hearing, but of speaking - it is more correct to say that the one who takes things out of context is only speaking.
"Those who take things out of context only to the point will hear their own ears." (H.M.)
Philosophy classes at universities deal with the history of philosophy and, in general, confuse students' minds with gibberish and nonsense.
Hugin:
The real philosophers are the scientists.
Philosophy is the love of wisdom and saying things that are not true is not great wisdom.
Those you call "wisdom-loving philosophers" and distinguish from scientists are "language-loving philosophers"
"The eagle came out of the sack and God out of the capsule" (H.M.
"He who blows 'bubbles' with full awareness takes into account that the unconscious 'bubbles' will also be the source of their animation." For them, their bubble is only the 'bone': this is what differentiates a bland scientist from a philosopher who loves wisdom" (H.M.
Those who feel that they are hallucinating their own hallucinations have a doubly complicated mental state, perhaps severe schizophrenia with elements of dissociative disorders and incessant delusions
Hugin:
In nonsense everything is possible.
And how come he didn't take it 70 years ago?
Hugin:
If so then God is delusional.
The situation you describe is really sad because we have anti-hallucination drugs but if we give them to God we will cease to exist.
How fortunate that these are nonsense!
Michael, again: *We are God's hallucination and he is not our hallucination*,,,:) In any case, it is a 'delusion' that takes on reality if you believe in it and nourish it and these are 'all' the facts.
I have a feeling that you will end the sentence as you wish.. and for some reason that is also true..
Michael, my response from this morning was attributed to the continuation of our conversation right here (152-153) from last night.. How did she jump there? Even though it is the same person in a different aspect, I have no idea whose hand it is? I have no idea. Remember that before I left today I responded for you, right here! below the point.
Anyway, my response was in connection with God's 'hallucination'. Read again and link.
If it is still not clear, I will copy the response here again.
point,
I'm afraid that not only has my opinion not changed, but it has even gotten stronger. During the discussion I found the interesting article dealing with the development of the integrated system in the E. coli bacterium, and this is a nice answer to this particular claim of creationists.
As for Isaiah's claim, I find that it ignores the fact that the long-standing tradition of the Jewish people is one of ceaseless change of customs and traditions and their adaptation to the environment. I have no doubt that even if the Jew gives up his grip on the biblical God, he will still have the moral laws and the traditional holidays.
A simple Jew:
Regarding the link: if he explains better than you and they still explain poorly, there is no benefit.
Regarding "that life is not black and white and that the most important thing is that we know how to consider others." This is something I always knew and I don't know why you saw fit to mention it.
By the way, "knowing how to consider others" is also knowing when to whip him and when to even kill him.
Its members,
Can I give you a short summary?
From all the grinding of the finger tendons and the dirtying of the keyboard until the wee hours of the night, did anyone change their mind about anything?
Good night friends..
Balloons:
The Torah (the first part of the Bible) was written by Moses after hearing it on Mount Sinai from the mouth of God.
The first Adam was created on the sixth day.
Michael:
The next section explains things better than I can http://www.machonmeir.org.il/hebrew/main_id.asp?id=7508
I just wanted to say a little something about myself
I was also in the evolution section (actually I still am :)
And I had a terrible aversion to religion and all religious people.
Until I slowly discovered that there are religious and there are non-religious, that life is not black and white and that the most important thing is that we know how to consider others.
Shabbat Shalom.
Hugin:
If we do the "synthesis" you like to do, it will turn out that either God is an illusion or God is an illusion.
Neither option is exactly flattering.
No, no, no, what Dawkins wanted to say is that we are 'God's illusion'...therefore making it difficult for him to see us...
So who is deceiving whom and what..
Hugin:
My response is not a synthesis.
I am merely presenting the corner into which the creationists pushed themselves and the illogicality of it.
By the way - Rudolf Steiner is, in my opinion, quite an idiot.
A simple Jew:
What you attribute a probability to in your response - it does have a probability, but this probability is zero.
In any case - if your requirements for certainty are so high, I ask myself how you can even for a moment claim that there is a God when there is no evidence of his existence.
Isaiah:
I will not repeat what I have said many times.
Religion has a social role but this role is destructive.
Religion is a collection of memes that cares for its own survival and not for the survival of those who believe in it.
Therefore - throughout the generations - Judaism survived and the Jews died.
Religion also tries to educate us on "moral" values that are clearly immoral and I have already talked about this a lot.
It is enough to mention the instruction to murder Sabbath breakers or homosexuals to see this.
The reality is one and you suggest that we consciously decide not to study it so that we don't lose hope.
So I wanted to inform you: I studied and I continue to study and I have hope despite this.
More than that - I'm really happy.
In this context, I suggest you read the book Darwin's Dangerous Idea and the book "Unravel the Rainbow".
Feynman's autobiographical stories will also help you understand how much understanding reality as it is improves the quality of life.
In any case, your suggestion is likened to the suggestion to take drugs to be happy.
It was not for nothing that religion was likened to opium for the masses.
wait wait wait
"And it could also be that whoever counted those six days was very fast in relation to the observed system." So you are saying that one of the writers of the Tanakh was alive at the time of the creation of the universe?
After all, if that's not the case, how was it written?
And if he or she (after all, we don't discriminate against women) was there, it means that God got a little confused with the times... or the writer - and if he got confused about one thing, maybe in a few...
And in the social matter, a moral code does not require a set of laws and the offering of sacrifices.
There is alienation or lack of devotion both among the believers and among those who don't - so don't justify yourself.
After all, you didn't expect a guy like me to be able to read this nice debate without opening my mouth. I lack reference to the very important (in my view) social role of religion, especially in the context of the Jewish people. I have no doubt that our very survival as a nation for thousands of years and despite very difficult circumstances, we owe to the Jewish religion. What is the alternative offered to us by those who follow Dawkins and his teaching? Total alienation from each other? Replacing our entire rich historical, moral and conceptual base with a cold rationalism that knows there is no hope, that the world is a chaotic and terrible place, that has no morals, that has no justice, that at any given moment we can simply become extinct due to circumstances beyond our control? Does humanity want to live its life with such knowledge?
Good morning everyone..
Dear Michael...
First I would like to clarify a very important thing: I strongly recommend everyone to use logic.
Of course, leaving reason at home and going out and crossing train tracks is not a good idea at all.
It is clear that logic is a very important tool and even more so.
But, at the same time, logic alone cannot bring me to certainty,
I can use logic and still not finish crossing the road.
From a logical point of view, it may be that a binding robot creates and it may not,
From a logical point of view, it could be that the rabbits that were tested didn't come up for some reason,
And it could also be that whoever counted those six days was very fast in relation to the observed system.
Although the probability is low, the probability is also a derivative of logic.
Logically, nothing is certain.
Facts and evidence are excellent and based on that I reach decisions in this world,
But in order to understand things beyond this world, in order to find absolute truth, to answer essential questions, I need something more.
Something inner and deeper, that certain point, call it whatever you want,
The wonderful point that Descartes talks about, which is beyond doubt and cannot be proven.
Michael:
Regarding the proposal you make in response 144: What you are actually proposing is a kind of synthesis.
You can find a reference to this in the studies of Rudolf Steiner.
Hugin:
My response to Daniel (115) was completely to the point.
Your response to my response (119) was completely personal.
This is exactly the type of comments you should downplay.
Michael:
In the matter of the 'elevations of the soul' that were required of you, this is your net profit and not mine.
The only benefit I get from this is that you can be talked to in a more humane way and that you might be able to understand that people on the site expect you to treat them with a conditioned and less 'head-of-the-head' attitude.
If I insulted you, I probably resented your response to Daniel in this case, who said things that made sense and you attacked him a little beyond what is acceptable (like the straw that broke the camel's back..).
Besides, I like my minor presence 'at the Hidan Pub', so I will minimize my words.
Something that will not convince anyone but is worth thinking about.
The debate between the creationist and the evolutionist focuses on the question of whether life could have arisen by chance (with the help of the self-evident mechanism of evolution) or whether it required a creator.
Since the Creator himself is supposed to be alive, then in order to evade the claim that this Creator also had to be created and thus would contradict the claim of being the creator of life, the creationists claim that the Creator has existed since time immemorial.
In fact, this is not the only way out because it is equally possible to have an infinite series of creators when the series has existed since time immemorial.
Be that as it may, the creationist's argument is basically based on the claim "I cannot believe that something as complex as life was created by chance - not even if this chance is aided by the principle of evolution" and he prefers to it the claim that this thing was created by a Creator whose origins have existed since time immemorial.
The evolutionist claims that what is improbable is precisely the aforementioned creator and the spontaneous formation of life by chance and evolution over billions of years and across billions of billions of stars is actually probable.
Since this is a probability assessment there is no real way to convince without conducting an experiment.
The point is that it is quite difficult to conduct an experiment that lasts billions of years and spans an entire universe and it is at least as difficult to ask the Creator to create something so that we know it exists.
What can you do?
One can ask if we have evidence for the existence of the two proposed creation mechanisms.
Let's remember them.
The first mechanism is the case plus evolution.
The second is the Creator who has existed since time immemorial.
Regarding the first mechanism - there is no doubt that it exists. The existing creationist does deny that this mechanism created life, but he cannot deny the existence of the mechanism because it is constantly demonstrated in nature. Even the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates it.
Regarding the second mechanism - I would be happy if any creationist could point me to any proof of its existence.
Hugin:
Sight. I don't agree with you on the understanding of Einstein's words, but let's return to the subject of the mental powers.
I agree that it made me ascend, but you must think that the place from which I should have ascended is the low place to which your words dragged me.
Are you really proud that you write things that affect people in this way?
Thank God
Okay. There was an interesting discussion and everyone finished and explained their position. Have a nice weekend too...
I see that the discussion between us has reached an impasse.
Summarize:
1. You constantly return to the argument of 'a point mutation cannot bring about a change in the characteristics of the creature'. But at the same time you ignore proven evolution of organisms like horses, whales and humans, regardless of their genetics. Conclusion: evolution exists and works, regardless of the mechanism, which may or may not incorporate point mutations.
2. Your answer to the existence of fossils and intermediate forms in soil layers is that the Creator put them there, or that he created other worlds before that, if the same creatures (an answer equivalent to that aliens came every century and replaced the entire animal population on earth, so that we see new fossils in each time layer). Why? how? When? What reason did he have to do such a thing? What proof do you even have for this idea, other than one sentence in the Talmud? Do you want us to rely on one sentence to explain several tens of thousands of findings and evidence for the theory of evolution?
In short, you have not provided a logical explanation for the existence of all the fossils in the earth, and they are particularly strong evidence of the course of evolution.
3. Does a binding robot create? And the answer is not necessarily. A robot that is able to assemble other robots, each one a little more sophisticated than the last, does not require a creator. We know that molecules can spontaneously combine to form order. In vitro experiments have already been demonstrated in which simple RNA molecules evolved, replicated and adapted better to environmental conditions. In other words, they created more sophisticated offspring. These were the first and most basic robots, and after several billion years of evolution of small changes accumulating on themselves, the sophisticated 'robots' of today were created from them.
So in conclusion, the answer is no - a robot does not require a creator. And if you insist on using the word robot, then this is also supported by the fields of evolutionary computing that show that it is possible to create computer programs through evolution, and experiments that have proven the evolution of silicon chips to an extremely high level of sophistication.
have a nice weekend,
Roy.
We will conclude where-
legal-
"I'm not trying to find another way because I think the way of evolution is sufficient, according to Occam's principle" - Occam? So according to Occam's razor, does a robot not require a creator?
"As for the grains of sand - go to the desert and see what amazing sculptures there are! And no, it's not an act of the living God!"-What statues are you talking about? Dunes are statues? If you show me Azrieli, I might get excited.
"The clock that gives birth to your clocks does not exist, and if they created one, all the offspring would be identical to their parents, unless they were created as those that change. In such a case, there is no doubt that in the end (add a lot of time!) something completely different, much more sophisticated, would have been created, without the touch of human hands" - a claim of faith. So a robot does not require a creator?
And everything that is said here is true for any technological product - even for a robot!!" - Nice. So you admit that a robot does not require a creator.
to roi-
"entertaining. You very quickly forget the article I attached two comments ago, which shows that bacteria managed to undergo a number of mutations, which produced new complexity (the ability to introduce citrate into the bacteria and digest it)," - you are the one who forgot, that no new complex system was created here, only the missing. Only Point mutations on a control gene. I won't repeat that again.
Thus creating a new species of bacteria.
I mean, you got your proof. In fact, you already received it two responses ago, and you are still repeating the same worn-out claim." -Absolutely not, see above.
"We have no business here with the Creator. I can claim with the same degree of reliability that the Creator created us all a short time ago, and only planted our memories in our minds so that we think we were born many years ago. This is exactly the level of credibility that the argument has - "The Creator created the world 6,000 years ago, and buried dinosaur bones in the ground to confuse all the poor humans." - Where does the existence of dinosaurs disprove the claim that a binding robot creates? A false dichotomy. If you are talking about The Bible, once again, contains descriptions of the creation of ancient worlds and great creatures. But know not to confuse the robot claim with the truth claim of the Bible.
". According to the above documentation, the ages of the fossils were obtained, which also correspond many times to the radioactive date which is considered particularly reliable. "- Huh no. Radioactive dating is limited to only 100000 years as I imagine. And if it is so accurate, why are other methods also used?
"Trying to avoid giving a real answer again? Once it works. A second time they don't notice. Third time and disqualified. How many times have you been disqualified so far?" - Why are you slipping away? I'm not playing word games.
"Let me first answer the question I asked you: explain to me in a logical way why there would be fossils in the ground, which indicate an orderly and continuous succession of organisms from one another during the process of evolution." - I have already answered, I will not repeat it twice.
"After you succeed in doing this, I will explain to you the intermediate stages of the bacterial shoot (guess what - they have already been discovered. You can read about at least some of them in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella)"-Very strange. All I saw there was that they only found homologous systems-
The recently elucidated archaeal flagellum is analogous, not homologous, to the bacterial one. In addition to no sequence similarity being detected between the genes of the two systems, the archaeal flagellum appears to grow at the base rather than the tip, and is about 15 nanometers (nm) in diameter rather than 20. Sequence comparison indicates that the archaeal flagellum is homologous
Only one problem - homology is a huge difference of up to 40 percent. In other words, there is a huge difference between the Shotun and other systems. And you call this evidence for the evolution of the Shotun?
". Kimura's research led to the formation of the theory of neutral evolution, according to which neutral mutations can accumulate in the genetic code until times of distress, and then a few marginal mutations are enough to 'break the dam' and allow all neutral mutations to express themselves and create an especially large leap forward." - How exactly are neutral mutations Suddenly becoming neutral? I have no idea where they got this from
"As for the fossils that show that the order is reversed (for example, dinosaur bones with human footprints), in all these cases it turned out to be a stretch or traces that arrived after the bones were exposed. "-
A hoax? So all these dozens of findings are a hoax? So how can you even find a disproving finding? Everything that is found will be considered a hoax. Or some error in the dating
". In short, you can say until tomorrow "but it's only a point mutation" - and it won't change the fact that the creature in question has indeed undergone a change." Does it make sense to you?"
Yes, it actually makes a lot of sense, because both depend on the change that the DNA underwent. "-I have nothing to reply to this claim. Suri. The great evolutionists recognize the above differences.
"It's an integrated, seamless system. A 'hole' in the membrane is a complicated thing like no other: you have to make sure that only certain substances enter or leave at a well-regulated rate, or the cell will explode or die. In order to create such a hole, special proteins are needed. This kind of protein is one part of the system. Another protein that breaks down citrate, at a good level of control, constitutes the second part of the system." - I said clearly - all the proteins for digesting citrate already exist in the bacteria. What is different is the control. If you claim that a new protein was created there, say how long it is in nucleotides.
"The timing is a big part of determining the shape of the fetus in nature. Today we know that a large part of the assembly and construction plan of an embryo is based on a change in the timing of signal secretion and signal processing. Thanks to such a change in timing, many features of the born creature are determined, such as the position of the organs, the shape of the organs, the number of fingers, etc.
So since you agree with me now that among other things the timing is different, you also agree that evolution can occur as a result of tiny mutations and assign new traits to the resulting embryo. "-slightly different features maybe (like stronger bones), new complex systems not.
"Of course, a horse remains a horse. A creature the size of a fox, with a dog's feet, a short neck and a meat eater... and all this is still a horse. If you're trying to argue that there was no evolution here, it doesn't sound very convincing." - So why are a Pinscher dog and a Great Dane classified as dogs?
” The case of the ape-man. We are descended from the great apes, and we are still endowed with many of their traits, which we inherited during evolution. There is even genetic evidence that supports each other, the connection between us. So since you agree that a fox-horse evolved (not so impressive. Still, just a point mutation, you say!) into a modern horse, surely you have no problem agreeing that a human-transparent evolved into a modern human.” - Seemingly yes. I don't think so. And why not?
A) It is possible that non-homologous genes exist between us.
b) There is a different number of chromosomes
c) There is an inability to reproduce among us.
Try to prove the above.
"Say, didn't we talk about this already? Leave the point mutations, which only indicate a poor understanding of genetics. Focus on field experiments: show in experiments that bacteria can acquire new properties, through the development of systems that combine at least two proteins. They showed in experiments that lizards can develop new organs in the intestines that regulate the passage of food." -Cycal valves may be from point mutations of an existing organ. And if not, let the researchers prove that a new gene regenerated there and what are its chances of being created.
"Experiments have shown that insects can differentiate into new species and undergo an evolution that will protect them from poisons and diseases. Thousands of fossils, also supported by genetic evidence, testify to the evolution of horses from fox-like creatures, of whales from horse-like creatures, and of humans from apes. "-and thousands of fossils are missing, more than there are.
You want to continue talking about point mutations and their inability to bring about evolution? Come on, have fun. Maybe they can, maybe not (most likely yes). But evolution itself - the process of constant and powerful change - is an existing fact, and the experiment that will show otherwise has not yet been found." - So a robot does not require a creator, right?
Have a nice weekend" - to you too...
Michael
I cannot pour content beyond my inner understanding which is essentially the same as his, due to the impersonal personality structure that is inherent in me from the beginning and is the same as his. If you want to understand why my views are the same as his, you can take a look at the comments/discussions I had with Yehuda in 'Science and Nature' regarding the defiance expressed on- His hand on 'God' (which are not much different from your defiance) and on my responses accordingly.
After all, we will not argue about who loves him (Einstein) more or understands him (and God) more or who understands the essence of God more, because it has no value if we lose the image of humanity for the sake of this principle. When we use language to express ourselves in discourse, the semantics also intervenes at the same time when we try to find some kind of equality. Hence, we again touch another essence that intervenes between us, ie the 'paradox' effect.
But if, nevertheless, we can once again use one of Einstein's sentences on a topic close to the 'personal' person in question, I will quote another sentence from Einstein (the shining stars for today...) regarding the human race: The self".
In this quoted sentence, I also answered you at the same time for your claim that I insulted you and that you were required to have 'spiritual strength' in order to answer me matter-of-factly, since by doing so you activated some kind of 'transcendence' from the private 'I' in order to 'reach' the other... and the essence of heart , the heart of our Judaism says: that 'between a person and his friend comes before the place'..
'marine biologist',
"You believe they evolved from each other. Reason shows that this is not possible because of inextricable complexity. Whoever claims that replication + mutations is enough to create complexity, let him prove."
entertaining. You very quickly forget the article I attached two comments ago, which shows that bacteria managed to undergo several mutations, which produced new complexity (the ability to introduce citrate into the bacteria and digest it), thus creating a new species of bacteria.
I mean, you got your proof. Actually, you already received it two responses ago, and you are still repeating the same worn-out claim.
"Are you sure that scientists don't determine the age of the layer according to the fossils instead of the opposite? Does this disprove the idea that a binding robot creates? Didn't the Creator create several worlds at different times? (remind you what is written in some Jewish scriptures?) Is it not?"
We are not dealing with the Creator here. I can claim with the same degree of reliability that the Creator created us all a short time ago, and only planted our memories in our minds so that we think we were born many years ago. This is exactly the level of credibility that the argument has that "the Creator created the world 6,000 years ago, and buried dinosaur bones in the ground to confuse all the poor humans." The Creator's claim is a claim that equates to zero, since we have no way to prove or disprove it, and it does not provide us with new information.
And if we refer to the serious part of your answer, the scientists do not determine the age of the layer according to the fossils. They mainly refer to the radioactive dating of the soil layer and its position in relation to the other soil layers. According to the above documentation, the ages of the fossils were obtained, which also correspond many times to the radioactive date which is considered particularly reliable. All these together lead to an answer based on several claims, the evidence on the ground supports each of them - and all of them together. Because of this, we can be fairly confident in dating the ages of the fossils.
"At even later dates, you can find intermediate forms between amphibians and reptiles, and at even later dates, you can also find reptiles, but not yet mammals?" - ditto. Here's a challenge for you - show the intermediate stages of the bacterial schooner. Let's see if you succeed (And don't bring me Kenneth Miller's lecture because I will discredit it for you)"
Trying to avoid giving a real answer again? Once it works. A second time they don't notice. Third time and disqualified. How many times have you been disqualified so far? Please answer me first the question I asked you: explain to me in a logical way why there would be fossils in the ground, which indicate an orderly and continuous succession of organisms from one another during the process of evolution. After you succeed in doing this, I will explain to you the intermediate stages of the bacterial shoot (guess what - they have already been discovered. You can read about at least some of them in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella)
"-Here's news for you-Kimura's studies showed unexplained jumps. What caused the creation of the neutralist theory. Various other fossils show that the order is actually reversed (such as trilobites and human footprints)"
Let's get things straight, because Kimura's name is often brought up in vain by creationists. Kimura's research led to the formation of the theory of neutral evolution, according to which neutral mutations can accumulate in the genetic code until times of distress, and then a few marginal mutations are enough to 'break the dam' and allow all neutral mutations to express themselves and create an exceptionally large leap forward. Kimura himself claims that the process of evolution is a muscle and exists, but he suggests an additional mechanism to that of natural selection, and does not rule it out. The jumps are well explained in his theory.
As for the fossils that show that the order is reversed (for example, dinosaur bones with human footprints), in all these cases it turned out to be a stretch or traces that arrived after the bones were exposed. The day when dinosaur bones are found side by side with human bones, it will be a truly amazing thing, and all the scientists of the world will praise the one who discovered the find. But to date, no such bargain has stood up to close scrutiny. Each and every one of them turned out to be a hoax or an innocent mistake.
". In short, you can say until tomorrow "but it's only a point mutation" - and it won't change the fact that the creature in question has indeed undergone a change." Does it make sense to you?"
Yes, it actually makes a lot of sense, because both depend on the change that the DNA underwent.
"After several tens of thousands of generations in culture, mutant bacteria were created that could digest citrate, but could not insert it through the membrane. After a few more thousands of generations, another mutation occurred, which resulted in the creation of a protein that allowed the introduction of citrate through the membrane and into the bacterium. It is the creation of an integrated system. "- This is not an integrated system. Perhaps a simple mutation caused a "hole" in the membrane or in the bacteria's control. Of course, this is a lack and not the construction of new systems such as the shoton."
It is an integrated system, one and the same. A 'hole' in the membrane is a complicated thing like no other: you have to make sure that only certain substances enter or leave at a well-regulated rate, or the cell will explode or die. In order to create such a hole, special proteins are needed. This kind of protein is one part of the system. Another protein that breaks down citrate, at a good control level, constitutes the second part of the system. Together, you got a new integrated system, consisting of two proteins that work with each other to get a new property. You can keep arguing that it's not an integrated system, but...come on, aren't you tired of playing with words and saying that a horse is not a horse, and that an integrated system is not an integrated system?
". But the final product: a gene that performs an activity that it did not do before - and does it together with another new gene that digests citrate." - He actually did the very activity - digesting citrate. What is different is only the timing."
Timing is a big part of determining the shape of the fetus in nature. Today we know that a large part of the assembly and construction plan of an embryo is based on a change in the timing of signal secretion and signal processing. Thanks to such a change in timing, many features of the newborn creature are determined, such as the position of the organs, the shape of the organs, the number of fingers and more. So since you agree with me now that among other things the timing is different, you also agree that evolution can occur as a result of tiny mutations and assign new traits to the resulting embryo.
"And to the last point, which makes me very happy. You agree with me that the horse has evolved. Quite an amazing evolution, I must point out: within 50 million years, according to all the fossil evidence available today, the horse evolved from the Hyracotherium - a creature the size of a fox, without hooves and with four toes on its feet, with a short neck and a small head and most amazing of all - with tusks that were also used for eating Meat." - I partially agree - if there are different genes between them then let them try to show what the chances are of finding them during the time that has passed between them. Of course a horse remains a horse just like a Chihuahua and a Great Dane are dogs."
Of course, a horse remains a horse. A creature the size of a fox, with a dog's feet, a short neck and a meat eater... and all this is still a horse. If you're trying to argue that there was no evolution here, that doesn't sound very convincing.
But you know what? Let's take it one step further. Let's assume that you are indeed serious, and that this ancient 'horse' is still a horse, so there wasn't such an impressive evolution here. In this case, let me introduce you to another case: the case of the ape-man. We are descended from the great apes, and we are still endowed with many of their traits, which we inherited during evolution. There is even genetic evidence that supports each other, the connection between us. So since you agree that a fox-horse evolved (not so impressive. Still, just a point mutation, you say!) into a modern horse, surely you have no problem agreeing that a transhuman evolved into a modern human.
As for some of the genetic evidence linking the ancient horses to today's horses - http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Horsemap/Maps/VILA.PDF
"If point mutations separate them and not complex systems. After all, no evolution took place here. Just like you wouldn't claim that a dune of sand is evidence that the Tower of Pisa could be created from the same process that created it. Right?"
Say, haven't we talked about this already? Leave the point mutations, which only indicate a poor understanding of genetics. Focus on field experiments: show in experiments that bacteria can acquire new properties, through the development of systems that combine at least two proteins. Experiments have shown that lizards can develop new organs in the intestines that regulate the passage of food. Experiments have shown that insects can differentiate into new species and undergo an evolution that will protect them from poisons and diseases. Thousands of fossils, also supported by genetic evidence, testify to the evolution of horses from fox-like creatures, of whales from horse-like creatures, and of humans from apes. You want to continue talking about point mutations and their inability to bring about evolution? Come on, have fun. Maybe they can, maybe not (most likely yes). But evolution itself - the process of constant and powerful change - is an existing fact, and the experiment that will show otherwise has not yet been found.
have a nice weekend,
Roy.
By the way, Hugin:
His use of the word "personal" was also not very successful.
He clarified again and again that what he calls "personal" is God who intervenes in what happens in the world - including the physical world.
It seems to me that you are trying to pour into the word a content other than what he intended.
Hugin:
Although anyone can attribute whatever meaning they want to Einstein's words, and religious people specialize in this because they had to practice a lot in giving different and different meanings to the nonsense written in the Torah, but Einstein's words are clear to anyone who is willing to read them literally (and Einstein really did not intend for them to interpret him - he gave the interpretation straight away ).
I completely agree with all of Einstein's words on the subject and only disagree with Shaw's use of the word God for the purpose of describing his feelings - a use that allows all kinds of liars to get a ride on his words.
Of course he himself was annoyed by this use and in the first quote I gave it is well noticed.
Please note that it takes a great deal of effort from me to answer you objectively after the shameful opening of your first contact to me.
I didn't agree that evolution is disproven, just that your attempts to disprove it are not helpful in achieving your goal - proving the existence of your God.
I'm not trying to find another way because I think the way of evolution is enough, according to Occam's principle (when you light a fire in your gas, all you have to do is bring a burning match to the gas and there's no need to spray perfume or mutter Koranic verses!).
Regarding the grains of sand - go to the desert and see what amazing sculptures there are! And no, it is not an act of the living God!
The clock that begets your clocks does not exist, and if they created one, all the offspring would be identical to their parents, unless they were created as mutating ones. In such a case there is no doubt that in the end (add a lot of time!) something completely different, much more sophisticated, would have been created, without the touch of a human hand (or the finger of God!).
And everything that is said here is true for any technological product - even for a robot!!
legal-
"A sufficient accumulation of small changes creates a big change." - Ha no. A grain of sand and another grain of sand do not make a sculpture. Without someone shaping them into a sculpture.
"If a normal window underwent a small change between generations of baby windows that are born into mature windows, an electric window would eventually be created." - This is your argument and my argument is that it is not possible for a simple reason - in order for an electric window to be created from a normal window, we need several completely different components - Some electrical circuit, input and output for that circuit, an activation button for that electric window, electrical wiring and more. This is an inextricable complexity. Even if one part is added there is no point in it without the rest.
"And in any case, we are not talking about technological objects, organisms are something different that by its very nature has change-development and never remains the same (except perhaps partially in cases of asexual reproduction or cloning)." We need to prove how variation + natural selection creates complex circuits like electric windows or shutters in buildings. And as I explained, this is not possible.
"A clock requires an intelligent agent, and not so organisms that are not an engineering product and the evidence - as an engineering product they are so defective that they could not exist as a product." - Another mistake. Even if you see a defective clock, someone intelligent still created it. And there are no defects in the human body, you Feel free to give an example and I'll explain why (appendix, "junk" DNA, hair, nipples for men and more)
"If your watch were to reproduce on its own and pass on most of its properties to its offspring, I would understand (not believe but understand) that it does not have a creator." - It is possible to invent such a watch. It does not belong. It is actually much more wonderful than just a watch.
"The watch does not survive due to the benefit it brings to the hunter, the hunter survives better and therefore keeps it and perfects the next products he produces." - I don't think you understood me. So replace the word watch with the word robot.
"To deal with the details in order to negate the main point, and you also don't pay attention to what they write to you." - You may not pay attention.
And yet, denying the existence of a natural development mechanism does not prove the existence of your creator, at best (from your point of view) it proves the invalidity of this way." - Well if you say. Then at least you will understand that evolution is unfounded.
There is always the possibility of another way of formation that is not developmental and it is also not proven like all the other ways!!"-Try to come up with such a way.
to Yimi who is probably not a biologist,
A sufficient accumulation of small changes creates a big change. If a normal window would undergo a small change between generations of baby windows being born into mature windows, an electric window would eventually be created. In any case, we are not talking about technological objects, organisms are something different that by its very nature has change-development and never remains the same (except perhaps partially in cases of asexual reproduction or cloning).
A clock requires an intelligent factor, and not so organisms, which are not an engineering product, and evidence - as an engineering product, they are so defective that they could not exist as a product.
If your watch were to reproduce on its own and pass on most of its properties to its offspring, I would understand (not believe but understand) that it does not have a creator. The watch does not survive due to the benefit it brings to the hunter, the hunter survives better and therefore keeps it and perfects the next products he produces.
Do you really think your god survives better by having his creatures be helpful?
In any case, you constantly try to drag (and everyone drags after you, unfortunately) into dealing with details in order to negate the main point, and you also don't treat what they write to you matter-of-factly.
And yet, denying the existence of a natural development mechanism does not prove the existence of your creator, in the best case (from your point of view) it proves the invalidity of this way. There is always the possibility of another way of formation that is not developmental and it is also not proven like all the other ways!!
By the way, Yigal-
"When the conditions change, it will not survive because it does not have an excess of features that can be expressed in the appropriate conditions and give it advantages over other watches under the same conditions" - I can find dozens of scenarios for a watch to change due to the pressure of survival. For example - the more sophisticated and accurate the watch, the Humans used it more, because it helped them survive better against timing in hunting animals. Therefore, the more sophisticated clock also survived better.
legal c-
A. "When a big enough change comes, a new and different device is created for us, maybe a car." - And what are the chances of finding the same big change? What are the chances of an electric window being formed from a non-electric window?
"Take the clock in your hands and in your mind take its evolution backwards. You will probably come to the fact that it was created from a simple spring." - No. No primitive clock is built on a spring only. Several components are required for any dial clock.
"But! Watches are technological products and they are created with a purpose: first there is a purpose, then planning and finally execution. All the watch can do is what you designed it for and nothing else. When the conditions change, it will not survive because it has no excess features that can be expressed under the appropriate conditions and give it advantages over other watches under the same conditions." - Very true.
"B. Suppose, as you say, that evolution doesn't work, that it's just the invention of the feverish minds of some crazy scientists and that's not how life on earth was created. What does that prove? That there is a creator? This nonsense simply doesn't prove anything!"-There are only two ways for the creation of the world- Intelligent or not intelligent. If a clock requires an intelligent factor, then someone intelligent created the world.
"C. Here is the challenge for your development: Prove that there is a Creator. No, don't say "I feel it", "I don't need proof", "It's self-evident", "There is nothing else" and so on! Just prove it and that's it! And if you don't prove it - don't demand someone else to prove something else." - here is a test for you - in front of you is a watch whose maker you have not seen. You have two options - either it was created by itself, or someone made it, what is your answer?
And Michael,
I personally loved Einstein because he was 'perceived' to me as very humane and noble, loving creatures, having a sense of humor and honesty, full of admiration for the sublimity of the universe, and humble towards life and the unimaginable..
A man whose likeness inspires a desire to learn from him, he was a living example of good humanity.
He also knew how to distinguish between the personal God (a product of personal ego) and the transpersonal approach that is beyond reach, but refused to define himself as a mystic who errs in false imaginations.
Don't forget that in every generation there is a 'dominant consciousness' that is accepted and determines the mindset and common terminology of that generation.
Michael
In every person throughout his full life, there are parts within him that question and ask questions, yes, they also judge and decide according to the challenges that life poses and according to their basic character/nature.
A. You brought us a certain introduction from a certain chapter in his approaches.
B. The interpretation given by people to his achievements differs from person to person according to the concepts that each one is comfortable holding
in them..and like him...as a genius of a generation...:)
But I will summarize and content myself, according to what is written: from the book that collects from the totality of his history his words at different stations/different times/different places/different situations" as Einstein said"Had Arzi Publishing::"Einstein's 'religion' was, as he sometimes explained Often, an attitude of awe and cosmic awe and of passionate submission in the face of the harmony of nature, more than belief in a personal God who directs the lives of human beings."
Additional quotes attributed to him regarding God, below:
1.) "In every true researcher of nature there is a kind of religious admiration, since it is not within him to pretend to himself that he was the first to discover all the incredibly thin threads that bind his observations together"
1920, quoted in Moshkovsky, Conversations with Einstein, p. 46.
2.)"I cannot understand the idea of a personal God, who directly influences the actions of human beings..
My religiosity is expressed in submissive adoration of the infinitely superior spirit, which reveals itself in that tiny little bit that we...are able to understand from reality.."
Letter to a banker in Colorado, August 1927: also quoted in Dukas and Hoffmann, Albert Einstein, The Human Side, p.66.
3.) "Everything is predetermined... by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as it is for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust - we all dance to the sounds of a mysterious melody, played in the distance by an invisible flute player .”
Saturday evening post
Quoted in Clark, Einstein, pp. 346-347 October 20, 1929
4.) "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings"
Telegram to a Jewish newspaper, 1929: Einstein Archive 272-33.
(According to Spinoza, God and the material world are inseparable. The better you understand how the universe works, the closer you get to God).
5.) "In my opinion, all the beautiful speculations in the realm of science arise from a deep religious feeling... I also believe that a type of religiosity... is the only creative religious activity of our time."
From Forum 83 (1930) p. 373.
6.) "Philosophy is like a mother who gave birth to and nurtured all the other sciences. Therefore we should not despise her in her nakedness and poverty, but rather hope that the don-ornamental part of her ideal will continue to live in her children, so that they will not sink into narrow horizons."
Letter to Bruno Winauer, September 8, 1932: Einstein Archive 532-36: quoted in Dukas and Hoffmann, Albert Einstein, The Human Side, p. 106.
7.) "Anyone who is seriously involved in scientific investigation gradually becomes convinced that the laws of the universe embody a spirit immeasurably superior to that of man. In this way, scientific investigation leads to a unique religious feeling, completely different from the religiosity of someone more naive."
A letter to a boy who asked if scientists pray, January 24, 1936: Einstein Archive 834-54
8.) "All that is divine and good in the universe must come to fruition and be expressed through us. We cannot stand aside and let God do the things."
From a conversation recorded by Algernon Black, Fall 1940 Einstein Archive 834-54.
9.)"It is this symbolic content..of the religious tradition that may come into conflict with science..Therefore, in order to preserve the true religion, it is extremely important to prevent such conflicts, which arise from interests that are in fact not really essential in the search for religious vocations."
Statement to the New York Liberal Pastors' Club: published in June 1948
The Christian Register
10.) "I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for belief in the rational nature of reality, in the sense that it is accessible to human reason. When this emotion is enriched, science deteriorates into uninspired empiricism."
Letter to Maurice Solovin, January 1, 1951, Einstein Archives 474-21 and 871-80: printed in letters as Solovin, p. 119.
11.)"I am a very religious non-believer..this is a somewhat new type of faith."
Letter to Hans Mizam. March 30, 1954: Einstein Archive 434-38
12.) "My religion consists of submissive adoration for the unlimited supreme spirit that reveals itself in the most insignificant details that we are able to grasp in our fragile and weak minds. This deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior intellectual power, manifesting itself in an incomprehensible universe, is the idea of my God."
Quoted in the New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955.
Due to the shortness of time, I cannot carefully read all the responses, so if the things I will write here have already been written by someone else - I apologize.
To a marine biologist, to Daniel and to all other believers:
I'm with you - until the end!
A. Suppose, as you say, that clocks breed and give birth to offspring that have minor changes, then they undergo evolution - the changes are evolution, sometimes benevolent and improving and in most cases harmful and destructive. When a big enough change comes, we get a new and different device, maybe a car. Take the watch in your hands and in your mind take its evolution backwards. You will probably come to the fact that it is formed from a simple spring. but! Watches are technological products that are created with a purpose: first there is a purpose, then planning and finally execution. All the watch can do is what you designed it for and nothing else. When the conditions change, it will not survive because it does not have an excess of features that can be expressed in the appropriate conditions and give it advantages over other watches in the same conditions.
B. Suppose, as you say, that evolution does not work, that it is just the invention of the fevered minds of some mad scientists and that is not how life on earth was created. What does this prove? Is there a creator? Nonsense it just doesn't prove anything!
third. Here is the challenge for the development of wisdom: prove that there is a creator. No, don't say "I feel it", "I don't need proof", "it's self-evident", "there is nothing else" and so on! Just prove it and that's it! And if you don't prove it - don't demand someone else to prove something else.
A simple Jew:
All the people in the whole world watched all the rabbits and none of them discovered a rabbit that ruminated.
Its internal structure is also not suitable for increasing rumination.
Maybe in the future (as you said - through evolution and not through God) rabbits that raise ruminants will develop. It does not belong to the fact that what is written in the Torah is a colossal error.
You did not understand the theory of relativity correctly.
Billions of years may seem like six days to someone in another system (on the edge of a black hole or at enormous speed relative to the observed system).
To claim that the one who wrote the Torah actually described the water of creation from a different relational system is simply ridiculous.
This reminds me that when I read in Isaiah chapter XNUMX the sentence "Because you have forsaken, your people, the house of Jacob - because they are full of old, and they cloud like the Philistines; and children of foreigners, they will have enough." I was joking with myself when I noticed the similarity between the word "Yishfiko" and the verb Speak in English. I said to myself that here he comes with claims that the people of the people are after foreign cultures while he himself includes English in his language.
The difference is that I was joking and you are serious.
You say that you do not doubt only the existence of the inner self.
Why do you call to doubt?
Do you doubt that if you throw yourself on the train tracks just as it is coming you are likely to be run over?
Is there any action you will take due to this doubt?
There are many things that you do not doubt and in my opinion all your statements on this subject are only to negate my other arguments. The problem is that you ignore that this also refutes your arguments.
In fact, you drop the foundation under all logical thought and leave room only for faith.
So why do you complain about the Nazis at the time and the extreme Muslims today who believed/believe that we should be destroyed?
Daniel:
Zvi Yanai's article is not an encyclopedia and Zvi Yanai himself is not a scientist.
The opinion you claim is common among scientists is not common among them at all.
I don't know if you have noticed this but most of my opinions are the opinions of others which I have found appropriate to accept.
What to do with the fact that there are opinions that do not pass the logical criticism test?
Should I get them too?
Know that every argument has two sides where each side thinks (or pretends to think) that they are right.
Do you demand that I accept your opinion because you accepted mine?
Does that make sense?
If you present convincing reasons I will accept your opinion. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
I thank you for another answer that deals with me instead of the subject of the article and ignores most of the things I said in my response.
Good night friends..
In my humble opinion, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, it can be that processes that take billions of years can, in certain situations, add up to six days. If this is the case, then evolution does not contradict the creation of the world.
Michael:
I'm just saying that maybe the rabbits that were tested, at the time and under the conditions that were tested, didn't raise a horn,
Perhaps even, by chance, the specific rabbits chosen were born with a defect and are unable to conceive, perhaps the rabbit will conceive at a more advanced stage in evolution.
Maybe that's a strong word.
The sure assumption is that I exist. I am the inner one. The one who thinks, the one who doubts.
I won't be able to doubt that. And that's where I start.
Hugin:
I see you're back in the hole. I really believed that you had already passed but apparently there are qualities that are not subject to conquest.
I did not become Einstein's spokesman.
He knew how to speak well enough, so he wrote, among other things, the following (which, despite your claim that I am not far from Einstein, they express exactly my feelings. I hope you don't blame Einstein for becoming my spokesperson!):
An article detailing Einstein's quotes was published on the Hidan website.
Here is the source of some of them and additional quotes
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world as far as our science can reveal it. [Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task... [Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941]
The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. [Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]
If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?
[Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years]
The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a
somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere. [Albert Einstein, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, pp 69-70]
The idea of a Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible. [Albert Einstein]
The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events... He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion . [Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions]
Yehuda:
I said in advance that I am only basing myself on what can be understood from Danny's words.
If it's not like that - great.
It doesn't change the fact that everything censored here was profanity.
to roi-
"Let's leave the simplistic clock allegory (not to say, demagogic)." - Why leave? Even Dawkins claims something like - "If there is anyone among the readers, who thinks that such a degree of design does not mean preachy, I raise my hands"
"Watches do not contain DNA. Watches do not bring offspring into the world. The descendants of the clocks do not contain mutations that provide them with different properties from the parents." - True. A DNA molecule also does not replicate without replicating proteins (DNA polymerase). And a replicating clock is a clock for everything, my argument is valid.
"Now let's talk about animals. Animals do bring offspring into the world, and each offspring differs in a number of characteristics from the parents. We find the skeletons of those ancient animals in the ground, and when we find skeletons that are similar to each other, but with different characteristics, we can conclude that those animals have undergone a change - evolution." - You believe that they evolved from each other. The opinion shows that it is not Maybe because of inextricable complexity. Anyone who claims that replication + mutations is enough to create complexity should prove it.
If you want to argue that those animals did not evolve, then you have to explain a lot of problems. Why, for example, on certain dates you can find fossils of fish only, on more advanced dates you can find fossils of fish and amphibians," - there is no problem. Are you sure that scientists do not determine the age of the layer based on the fossils instead of the opposite? Does this disprove the The idea that a robot obliges a creator? Didn't the Creator create several worlds at different times?
"At even later dates, you can find intermediate forms between amphibians and reptiles, and at even later dates, you can also find reptiles, but not yet mammals?" - ditto. Here's a challenge for you - show the intermediate stages of the bacterial schooner. Let's see if you succeed (And don't bring me Kenneth Miller's lecture because I'll discredit it)
How is it that this very beautiful sequence is preserved and not violated? The answer is simple: the mammals evolved from the reptiles, which evolved from the amphibians, which evolved from the fish. "-Here's news for you-Kimura's studies showed unexplained jumps. What caused the formation of the neutralist theory. Various other fossils show that the order is actually reversed (such as trilobite and human footprints)
“Let's move on to your idea of point mutations. You ignore again what I explained, that evolution is evolution regardless of the mechanism." - Here I disagree. There is a difference between a grain of sand and Migdal Azrieli.
". In short, you can say until tomorrow "but it's only a point mutation" - and it won't change the fact that the creature in question has indeed undergone a change." Does it make sense to you?
"In fact, the article I linked to you documents such a system, in which the bacteria underwent at least two mutations that complemented each other. The original bacteria could not digest citrate." - They actually do. Under specific conditions. As proof of this - do you really believe that 2 simple mutations cause the formation of a new gene consisting of hundreds of nucleotides?
After several tens of thousands of generations in culture, mutant bacteria were created that could digest citrate, but could not insert it through the membrane. After a few more thousands of generations, another mutation occurred, which resulted in the creation of a protein that allowed the introduction of citrate through the membrane and into the bacterium. It is the creation of an integrated system. "- This is not an integrated system. Perhaps a simple mutation caused a "hole" in the membrane or in the control of the bacterium. Of course, this is a lack and not the construction of new systems such as the Shoton.
"
Very nice! Watch what you say! After all, earlier you claimed that the formation of a new gene with a new active site and control was never predicted. And here you yourself admit that the gene that controls the digestion of citrate received a mutation, which caused it to digest citrate in an uncontrolled manner. That is, the new gene has a different control site, which reacts differently to the environmental conditions." - error. A new active site with a new enzymatic reaction was not created here. What happened is that the control became rigid. It's like a woman having the ability to produce milk throughout her life. Really There is no example of the formation of a complex system here.
". But the final product: a gene that performs an activity that it did not do before - and does it together with another new gene that digests citrate." - He actually did the very activity - digesting citrate. The only difference is the timing.
Both together form an integrated system. Apparently, one has no point without the other, and yet the bacteria have undergone evolution that allows the creation of such a system." - No. The bacteria will still exist under natural conditions and will digest its natural food. And again - there is no development of a complex system here. Only a lack of it.
And to the last point, which makes me very happy. You agree with me that the horse has evolved. Quite an amazing evolution, I must point out: within 50 million years, according to all the fossil evidence available today, the horse evolved from the hyracotherium - a creature the size of a fox, without hooves and with four toes on its feet, with a short neck and a small head and the most amazing of all - with tusks that were also used for eating Meat." - I partially agree - if there are different genes between them then let them try to show what are the chances of finding them during the time that has passed between them. Of course a horse remains a horse just like a Chihuahua and a Great Dane are dogs.
"Also great! Because what is important to me here is the element of change, which is the essence of evolution. When you agree with me that a change of existing genes succeeded in causing a fox to become a horse, you actually agree on the essence of evolution." - No. If point mutations separate them and not complex systems. After all, no evolution took place here. Just like you wouldn't claim that a sand dune is evidence That the Tower of Pisa can be created from the same process that created it. Right?
Daniel,
I did not come with claims to you or to the scientist who made the program. It is worth remembering that a TV show is just a TV show, and many times it is also subject to the considerations of ratings and popularity that the producers impose on the directors and editors. Gloves like this sometimes also create bad science in the program.
By the way, is the person shown in the following link a 'person'? He has a very interesting mutation that causes a minimal failure in the immune system, and the shocking results are evident. If we were lucky and some of the people who settled Europe (fifty people in total) were endowed with this mutation, then we might all look like this. Note what 'zero difference' in the genome might create.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLAh7P43_uo
Michael,
Since when did you become Einstein's spokesman? There has never been a person born who is more distant from him and his inner understanding than you. Not to mention twisting every source of every person or source that passes through you.
To Roy
It was not a religious man who edited the program, nor a Jew, but a scientist, and he called the program that way, so questions and claims are welcome to be directed to him. The difference between a European and an Asian was zero, this is similar to the variation that exists between pigeons, when every pigeon breeder knows that it is possible after free breeding of strains bred by selective mating to return to the initial form.
To Michael
You will learn to accept other people's opinions as well because I know the types of your response. I quoted from the encyclopedia.
And here's the link http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3036912,00.html
This opinion is also widespread among Pizkaim, what to do that Mahbatim also use it, does that make it less correct?..
Also, the big bang does not depend on the eye of the beholder, the fact is that the inventor of the theory hated the theory he invented, so in English it also sounds like the big bang, one of the reasons that for years science resisted the idea that there was any beginning contrary to the story of creation, what to do he was wrong.
Regarding the cat, until your comment, I was sure that there really was a cat, at least I got wiser today..
By the way, I admit that there has been a certain improvement in your response, that at least you didn't call me a liar, etc., have a nice day.
To Michael, your response is number 107.
Instead of messing around, please go to my blog and see how I'm doing there. I would love to hear comments and clarifications on the subject, in my humble opinion, I maintain everyone's dignity, including yours.
And if someone needs to be slapped on the head because of a disgusting statement, then he is slapped.
Continue like this with your blatant behavior, and you will be almost the only commenter in the knowledge with a few more scumbags.
Good Day
And there will be peace
Sabdarmish Yehuda
http://madaveteva.blogli.co.il/
Daniel,
Again, this is a question of 'what is a person'. It is very likely that the species that eventually took over the earth differed by a number of small mutations from its predecessors. I'm not sure what time period you're talking about, but the findings today show that there was a very strong 'bottleneck', which left a tiny human population in the world (for example, only 50 people inhabited Europe). That bottleneck likely killed off most of the other hominins, leaving only the same population that you and I came from.
If you want to call the entire population since then by the name 'Humans', bless you. But since that bottleneck, human populations have also largely diverged and diversified.
'marine biologist',
"There are also "fossils" of simple clocks in the ground. So? "
Let's leave the simplistic (not to say, demagogic) clock allegory. Watches do not contain DNA. Watches do not bring offspring into the world. The offspring of the clocks do not contain mutations that give them different properties from the parents.
Now let's talk about animals. Animals do bring offspring into the world, and each offspring differs in a number of characteristics from the parents. We find the skeletons of those ancient animals in the ground, and when we find skeletons that are similar to each other, but with different features, we can conclude that those animals have undergone a change - evolution.
If you want to argue that those animals did not evolve, then you have to explain a lot of problems. Why, for example, at certain dates you can find fossils of fish only, at more advanced dates you can find fossils of fish and amphibians, at even later dates you can find intermediate forms between amphibians and reptiles, and at even later dates you can also find reptiles, but still Not breastfeeding? How is it that this very beautiful sequence is preserved and not violated? The answer is simple: the mammals evolved from the reptiles, which evolved from the amphibians, which evolved from the fish.
or…
That God, in India, decided to plant skeletons of creatures in the ground, in a way that would make us reach a very logical decision - but would be completely wrong. Oh, yes, of course. He has nothing else to play for, so that's what he did. Isn't he a little bored?
Let's move on to your idea of point mutations. You ignore again what I explained, that evolution is evolution regardless of the mechanism. Evolution was proven even before we understood how DNA works and what genes are, based on the similarity between existing creatures and the multitude of fossils found. In short, you can say until tomorrow "but it's just a point mutation" - and it won't change the fact that the creature in question has indeed undergone a change. With the same degree of connection you can say, "But I ate purple pudding this morning." This has nothing to do with proving or disproving evolution. In the end, the creature underwent a change - and this is the meaning of evolution.
"The formation of an integrated system of several new components was never predicted."
In fact, the article I linked to you documents such a system, in which the bacteria underwent at least two mutations that complemented each other. The original bacteria could not digest citrate. After several tens of thousands of generations in culture, mutant bacteria were created that could digest citrate, but could not insert it through the membrane. After a few more thousands of generations, another mutation occurred, which resulted in the creation of a protein that allowed the introduction of citrate through the membrane and into the bacterium. It is the creation of an integrated system.
"Inaccurate - the genes that digest citrite exist in the same bacterium. What happened in this case is that the gene that controls the digestion of citrate received a mutation that caused it to digest citrate in an uncontrolled manner."
Very nice! Watch what you say! After all, earlier you claimed that the formation of a new gene with a new active site and control was never predicted. And here you yourself admit that the gene that controls the digestion of citrate received a mutation, which caused it to digest citrate in an uncontrolled manner. That is, the new garden has a different control site, which reacts differently to environmental conditions.
And here's another wonderful thing: in the same bacterium there was another mutation that allowed it to insert citrate through the membrane, by changing the activity of some protein, or creating a new protein that did it. A point mutation? Maybe, maybe not. But the final product: a gene that performs an activity it did not do before - and does it together with another new gene that digests citrate. Both together form an integrated system. Apparently, one has no point without the other, and yet the bacteria have undergone an evolution that allows the creation of such a system.
And to the last point, which makes me very happy. You agree with me that the horse has evolved. Quite an amazing evolution, I must point out: within 50 million years, according to all the fossil evidence available today, the horse evolved from the hyracotherium - a creature the size of a fox, without hooves and with four toes on its feet, with a short neck and a small head and the most amazing of all - with tusks that were also used for eating meat.
So you want to claim that it is only a point mutation? great. Do you want to claim that it is a change of existing genes? Also great! Because what is important to me here is the element of change, which is the essence of evolution. When you agree with me that a modification of existing genes succeeded in causing a fox to become a horse, you are in fact agreeing on the essence of evolution.
Link to the evolution of the horse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Horseevolution.png
What did the horse look like 52 million years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eurohippus_parvulus.jpg
A good week to all of us, especially to the soldiers in the south,
Roy.
Daniel:
Regarding the divine terms - leave us alone. You quote Einstein who completely denied his belief in God and you talk about the divine particle whose name was given to him for exactly the same reason that people sometimes say of good ice cream that it is divine.
What it means? It just means you have no serious arguments!
The fact that something reminds you of the idea of God is your problem. Einstein did not mention this idea.
The big bang corresponds to the creation of the world just as its absence corresponds to the creation of the world. It is a compatibility that is in the eyes of the observer and there is no truth in it.
Thank you very much, all this without Schrödinger's cat. Imagine the cat was there too! What would we do?!
Quantum mechanics has not shown at all that reality is shaped by our consciousness even though the haters who have heard of it always try to tell us so.
You should know that Schrödinger presented his cat as a joke and not as a description of what is really happening.
There is no need for consciousness to cause the wave function to collapse. The existence of a measuring "device" is enough (the quotation marks are there because that "device" can be almost anything and there is no need for it to be man-made).
Your words regarding the first person - they do not contradict Roy's words.
Simple - on the billions of years of development, they determined a certain point that they decided to call the first man.
Of course, this point was not determined randomly but as a point that the changes that have accumulated in us since then are not very significant (and probably would not constitute a barrier to joint reproduction).
To Roy
"Secondly, you are trying to understand when man was created, but you are again confusing concepts here. There is no particular point at which a being called 'man' was created. Man evolved from more ancient creatures, such as the great apes, who themselves evolved from even more ancient mammals. We can find evidence of this evolution in fossils, in evidence left in DNA, in radioactive dating, in geological layers that correspond to dates found by other methods, and so on.
Even today there is no unequivocal definition of human traits, because there are many human populations that have evolved on their own. For example, Asians cannot digest milk, Europeans tend to go bald, and Africans have particularly dark skin."
A few months ago, a program was broadcast on the Science Channel to find "the first man." I won't bore the readers with the details, but the researcher, after collecting DNA samples from around the world, came to the conclusion that the first man developed in Africa and, according to him, even in a certain tribe and from there spread throughout the world, so there was a first man and he is It did not develop simultaneously on several different continents. (Obviously, that "man" before that went through an evolutionary stage of monkeys).
Something to think about.
It is interesting that the field of physics derives many of its terms from the world of divinity "dark energy", "the divine particle", "God does not play dice" and even in measurements in the quantum field it uses the least favorite tool of scientists "statistics" what is more that the "big bang" is compatible with the theory of the creation of the world , and that's without even using the theory of "Schrödinger's cat" and the formula that Einstein worked so hard on towards the end of his life that would unite all the formulas and somehow resemble the idea of God.
Also, quantum mechanics was not content with introducing a built-in element of uncertainty into nature, it challenged the rational and objective nature of material reality, by showing that this reality is shaped by our consciousness no less than by physical forces, since the researcher's decision of what to measure determines which Reality he will discover. Physical reality, the quants argued, does not exist in its own right, it is what we discover through our measuring devices.
So my question to you, dear rationalists, are we only composed of matter or is there something beyond that?
to roi-
"Secondly, you are trying to understand when man was created, but you are again confusing concepts here. There is no particular point at which a being called 'man' was created. Man evolved from more ancient creatures, such as apes, who themselves evolved from even more ancient mammals." - Man apparently started from simple building materials. That is, there was apparently a simple beginning to complexity like a clock.
"We can find evidence of this evolution in fossils," - there are also "fossils" of simple clocks in the ground. So?
"By the evidence left in the DNA," do you mean the contradictory studies that caused the neutralist evolution?
"In radioactive dating, "-radioactive dating only checks an approximate date (not always either). It is irrelevant.
"In geological layers that correspond to the dates found by other methods and so on." - Even simple clocks correspond to the layers in the soil. And refuting findings were also found (which were of course ignored by evolutionists).
Even today there is no unequivocal definition of human traits, because there are many human populations that have evolved on their own. For example, Asians can't digest milk, Europeans tend to go bald and Africans have particularly dark skin." - point mutations. No new genes were created here.
” Let's start by saying that there is no such thing as a 'gene complex'. Genes can create proteins, which interact with each other." - and that's what I mean
"Mutations can lead to a change in genes or in the areas that control the genes, and this leads to changes in the characteristics of the creature, whether it is a bacterium, an algae or an animal." - a claim without factual basis. The formation of an integrated system of several new components was never predicted.
In short, it does not matter whether a point mutation creates the change, or a frameshift mutation (moving the entire reading frame of the gene). What changes is that some kind of mutation created a change, and such changes accumulate." - Again - a claim of faith. After all, there is no point in only one part apart from the whole in a complex system.
"It is interesting to note that only half a year ago an article was published that showed how E. coli bacteria were grown for 40,000 generations, and how they developed an unusual mutation that allowed them to digest citrate (in this way they actually changed from one species to another, because E. coli is defined by its inability to digest citrate ). Since all the previous generations were kept frozen, they were able to follow the course of change in the bacteria, and showed that the final mutation that made it possible to digest citrate was actually the product of several previous mutations." - not accurate - the genes that digest citrate exist in the same bacterium. What happened in this case is that the visitor's gene for Citrite Digestion received a mutation that caused him to digest Citrite in an uncontrolled manner.
"So if I summarize what you have written so far, you definitely support evolution. You agree that bacteria undergo gradual change. All that bothers you is the little garden thing. And therefore I am happy to reassure you - the theory of evolution does not care if it is a point mutation or any other mutation. Only the change is important - and you already agreed with it." - I disagreed, see above. A point mutation is not the creation of a new integrated system. The difference is like water from the earth.
"By the way, how about all the fossils, like the ones documenting the evolution of the horse from a creature the size of a dog? Is this also just a "point mutation!" So is this not evolution?" It's good that I gave this example - the horse remains a horse. What changed was its size = no new genes were created there. Only a change in the visiting genes.
Proof of the non-existence of God appears in the fact that at the time of the Canaanites, there was a local god of the city of Jerusalem named "Elohim", probably a derivative of the Canaanite or Assyrian god "God".
That's why all the Jews, wherever they are, who originally came from the Judean region, believed 3000 years ago in the local god "God" and thanks to amazing marketing, turned him into a global god.
There is no omnipotent being and never has been.
"When the name of God is placed on the operating table, it will not be surprising that all his heirs will throw me close to his will or his will to its parts" (H.M.)
And therefore, every issue and topic is subordinated and subordinated during the discussions about it.
Little Brother,
I share in the pain of the soldier's family and salute the one who protected us with his body, but you are trying to mix oil and water. We are trying to understand in the current discussion the logical existence or non-existence of God. There is no place here to include references to soldiers who were killed, what if they were killed not for God but for their country. What will you say about the Druze soldiers who were killed in Israel's wars? Do they constitute proof of the existence of the Druze God?
'marine biologist',
First, I'm glad you dropped the god thing, and agreed that the universe could have always existed without being created by our hypothetical god.
Second, you are trying to understand when man was created, but again you are confusing concepts here. There is no particular point at which a being called 'man' was created. Man evolved from more ancient creatures, such as the great apes, who themselves evolved from even more ancient mammals. We can find evidence of this evolution in fossils, in evidence left in DNA, in radioactive dating, in geological layers that correspond to dates found by other methods, and so on.
Even today there is no unequivocal definition of human traits, because there are many human populations that have evolved on their own. For example, Asians cannot digest milk, Europeans tend to go bald and Africans have particularly dark skin.
To get more information on the subject, it is highly recommended to read http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/science/homosap.html
On the history of human evolution. The book Mutants by Armand Marie Laroy also provides many colorful examples of the way in which humans have evolved, and today each person contains many mutations and different traits.
As for bacteria, you are again using terms that are unrelated, and should not be. Let's start by saying that there is no such thing as a 'gene complex'. Genes can make proteins, which interact with each other. Mutations can lead to a change in the genes or in the areas that control the genes, and this leads to changes in the properties of the creature, whether it is a bacterium, an algae or an animal.
In short, it does not matter whether a point mutation creates the change, or a frameshift mutation (moving the entire reading frame of the gene). What changes is that some mutation created a change, and such changes accumulate.
It is interesting to note that only half a year ago, an article was published that showed how E. coli bacteria were grown for 40,000 generations, and how they developed an unusual mutation that allowed them to digest citrate (in this way they actually turned from one species to another, since E. coli is defined by its inability to digest citrate) . Since all the previous generations were kept frozen, they were able to follow the course of change in the bacteria, and showed that the final mutation that made it possible to digest citrate was actually the product of several previous mutations.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
So if I summarize what you have written so far, you definitely support evolution. You agree that bacteria undergo gradual change. All that bothers you is the little garden thing. And therefore I am happy to reassure you - the theory of evolution does not care if it is a point mutation or any other mutation. Only the change is important - and you have already agreed to it.
By the way, how about all the fossils, like the ones documenting the evolution of the horse from a dog-sized creature? Is this also just a "point mutation!" So this is not evolution?
good week,
Roy.
my father
Although God is not defined and yet allows everyone the design that suits their needs.
It is a mystery why one type of believer cares about the God that is adapted to his friend's taste and it is right to fight about it.
The only answer I can think of is that it is difficult for humans to accept others as having free will.
Perhaps because it is difficult for them to see themselves as having free choice, therefore they feel the need to limit the choices of others.
This is the paradox of faith because it forces a certain relinquishment of free choice. This despite the fact that a central idea in the faith is the idea of free choice.
Which means that all these things need to be put in order.
Yehuda:
Obviously, counting is not censored here.
Nothing is actually censored here that does not deviate from cultural behavior.
I understand from my father's response (which I allow myself to "guess" is directed at Little Dan) that you do not censor anything on your website.
I can even imagine that the insults Danny tries to throw at me here find a warm home with you, even though I'm sure you don't have any article that deals with me or a response that I responded to your article.
Did I exaggerate? Maybe, but that's what Danny hints at from time to time.
You should read something about the connection between religion and suicide terrorists here:
http://www.onefamilyfund.org/Default.aspx?tabid=757
By the way, the phenomenon that terrorist organizations are aware of the ability of religion to produce suicide bombers for them is interesting.
In this context it is worth reading the following quote from
http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2004/07/dean.html
Quote:
THE LOGIC OF A TERRORIST MIND
The logic behind this 'calculated rationality' is not one that most people would share. As Reuter points out, Palestinians understand only too well their obvious military inferiority to Israel but they also understand that Israelis, like all humans, want to live and are afraid of death. Suicide bombers have developed a mentality that abandons this natural will to live by embracing death. Hence, the essence of Reuter's argument is that: 'When this fearlessness is added to the dynamics of a calculated struggle for power, the old rules of [military] superiority, power, and deterrence simply fall away. Here is the Archimedean point by which we may understand suicide attacks' (p. 15).
The mechanism Hamas and other militant terrorist groups use to 'develop' a mindset that abandons the natural will to live is religion. The religion of the Middle East is Islam. However, any religious tradition can be used to serve the same purpose, as history shows: 'Theological thinking that justifies acts of violence occurs on rare occasions in virtually every religious tradition. ... The Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist cultures ... rely on ... precedents and justifications for their own acts of religious violence' (Juergensmeyer 2000, p. 218).
It is in the lifting of the sanction to kill one's self that religion, of the fundamentalist kind, makes it a potent and deadly contribution. Extreme interpretations of religious texts justify murder by suicide. This is why I think it is misleading to apply terms like 'religiously-motivated' terrorism to suicide bombing. It is more accurate to view 'religion' as the justification of terrorism rather than the motivation for it. In the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, then, Islamic fundamentalism just serves up a spiritual justification (martyr's operations) for the bleakly depressing assessment by would-be suicide bombers and their radicalized organizations of the necessity for armed struggle.
It is also wise to avoid confusing the distinctly Palestinian response of Hamas with Al Qaeda. Both use Islamic fundamentalism and suicide bombing to push their agenda but their agendas are not the same. Hamas is involved in the politics of power to establish a Palestinian State, whereas Al Qaeda feeds on the politics of hate with no political purpose other than to wage a jihad on anything remotely 'Westernised' including other Arab States like Saudi Arabia, which have in Bin Laden's view defied 'true' Islam.
However, the justification for suicide bombing does not have to be exclusively or particularly 'religious'. Other writers on terrorism (Pavlova 2003, p. 31; Schweitzer & Shay 2003, p. 212; Wilkinson 2003, p. 122) make the same point as Reuter that the 'cause' can be either 'secular' as for the Tamil tigers or 'religious' as in radical Islamic fundamentalism or even extreme fundamentalist brands of Christianity like the Christian Identity movement in the United States (Barker 2003, p. 47; Juergensmeyer 2000, p. 218).
Avi,
You can download response 89 or 90 ..accidentally started two..after the first got tangled up on the way.
Pay attention to the new link at the end of the article - A chapter from Sam Harris's book "God's Trouble".".
Avi and Michael, I strengthen your hands in the face of the pressures exerted on you by all kinds of interested parties who want to loosen the hands of the fighters with religious coercion.
It's good that counting is not censored here
with a smile
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Hello Yehuda, because of you it was already 101 and because of my response - 102.
A hundred responses in 48 hours, maybe you will leave God alone?!
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Note that I am not ready for you to get dirty and lie, and the blocks are only for your benefit.
In general, after the email in which you threatened writers on the site, you should leave the site surfers alone. Go write on the blog of my friend Yehuda Sabdarmish. There you are cursing the science site anyway.
Did someone say that everything must be written on the science website? The Internet is vast.
little brother:
With all the sorrow over the death of the soldier - his death does not show that the religious belief is justified.
I hope you know that.
I also hope you know that the suicide bombers sent to us by our neighbors were all religious.
For the common Jew:
You mean to tell me that all the rabbits I've tested are non-ruminant but all the rabbits God made are ruminant? Doesn't this mean that God didn't create the bunnies I saw and that the existence of other bunnies no one has seen is actually similar to the existence of the flying spaghetti monster?
You like certainty ("want to be certain" in your language) so where do you have the certainty that God exists?
And let's say it exists (just for the sake of argument, because it doesn't really exist) so where do you have the certainty that it is good? Does it fit with the holocaust?
And suppose it exists and is good. How do you think he expects something from us?
The truth is that what you call "certainty" does not even come close to what I call delusional speculation.
I don't know a thing or a half about the conversion project you are talking about, but I know the bottom line - the number of Jews has been decreasing for more than a century. Those who know me claim that it is because Judaism does not accept believers into it, but only believers who have caused their death, drained them of their juice, tortured them for at least two years at the hands of various 'diggers' and more abuses over and over again.
That's why I don't understand your eagerness - at this rate and in this way, just wait a little longer patiently and there won't be any more Jews left to upset you.
Good night everyone..
First of all, asking what the halo is made of now, is like asking where the wind comes from before we discovered that it is "made" of air.
First we must understand what we are made of and from there we can continue.
There is no problem with evolution, Einstein himself discovered that time is relative,
And if time is a relative thing, it means that the six days of creation could have been what we feel today as billions of years.
And from the side of the absolute truth, it could be that by chance (or by providence, it depends on you),
All the rabbits you checked, precisely at the same time, for one reason or another did not produce a rumen.
Is the above explanation illogical?
What are you sure of? What are you sure of?
I like Descartes' approach to the matter, I want to be sure.
Also, it is very possible that soon a new Einstein will arrive who will discover that in certain situations pi can be equal to 3.
Our world is called that because it raises the presence of God.
that's the whole "game"
We share in the grief of the family and hope that he will be the last victim of this war, and that we will not be forced into wars like the one forced upon us by a fundamentalist enemy.
God forbid I am not comparing the religions, however, justified criticism against the religion does not mean incitement against it, no one calls for God forbid to kill the religious, but if they are wrong it is permissible to point this out and it is permissible to demand the minimum from them - the cessation of the work of repentance.
"biologist":
I know if Roy has already read your answer, so I don't know if he's already laughing.
I'm already laughing anyway.
"Every living being has a beginning. Where is the evidence that the Creator also has a beginning?"
So now you are telling us that the creator you invented is not alive?
By the way, what is the disease that makes you expect a person who does not believe in the existence of the Creator to bring you proof that the Creator has a beginning?
All your other nonsense has already been answered a long time ago and there is no point in dwelling on it, but I had to address the new jokes.
to roy,
In these days of fighting, the first space in Gaza is Dvir Emanuelof. Dvir postponed his military service in order to study at the Seder Yeshiva in Netivot, volunteered for Golani, was an M.A. at the M.A. School and fought to return to the 'Area' - where he died.
So here it is said that religion is stupidity and like it is a mental illness, the religious are brainwashed and more and more 'compliments'. Religion is a person's right in a democratic country, incitement against it and harming religious people is not like that.
"I'm your brother, don't forget!"
Roy, you're kidding, right?
"A basic law of nature, as it is known to us, is that every living being has a beginning (formation and birth) and an end (non-existence). Any creature that breaks this law will be considered supernatural." - Every living creature has a beginning. Where is the evidence that the Creator also has a beginning?
"well said! And since this projection can also be made on the universe (perhaps the universe was formed from matter, which itself was formed from matter, which itself was formed from matter...), there is no obstacle to declaring that "the universe has always existed." "-So? But I'm asking about man - do you think man has always existed? Yes, no?
"Tell me please, 'biologist', what is the fiction in the evolution of the bacteria" - just choose - an antibiotic attaches itself to a specific part of the bacteria, as soon as it changes even slightly (due to a point mutation) it will cease to affect it. Of course, this is not evidence of the development of a new gene with a site New active and new control, for sure not Complex Genes.
Roy, this just shows you how brainwashed the religious are. They talk so much about a subject they know nothing about. Except for a few stories they heard about him..
'marine biologist'
And again you dodge. A basic law of nature, as it is known to us, is that every living being has a beginning (formation and birth) and an end (non-existence). Any creature that violated this law would be considered supernatural. If you claim that such a creature exists, then again you are confirming the circumvention of the laws of nature. If such a bypass is possible, then there is no preventing it from existing even without the existence of God - and hence there is no need for God again.
"Who claimed that he was created out of nothing? Maybe someone created him from matter? But then you will reach an infinite recursion. A more logical conclusion - he always existed. I don't understand where the problem is with accepting something that has always existed."
well said! And since this projection can also be made on the universe (perhaps the universe was formed from matter, which itself was formed from matter, which itself was formed from matter...), there is no obstacle to declaring that "the universe has always existed." And again we got rid of the need for God.
"All evidence for evolution is fiction (like bacteria and antibiotics for example)"
Please tell me, 'biologist', what is the fiction in the evolution of bacteria.
1. "As is the nature of man, so is the nature of his God, and this is the reason why God was so often mocked and scorned. (Gietha)
2 "God is inside the world and outside the world, because He is the place of His world, and His world has no place. (Rabbi in my life)
Therefore, "Your majesty" what will you be angry about? As you see it, so it will be.. and as it disappears from your eyes, the artist, and if it is not there and it is not in front of you, search! That nakedness like revealing one's heart in public is a thing, unacceptable and not at all profitable..:) Certainly not on the site of science that freezes every warm human photographer..
to roi-
"If God had no beginning, this itself contradicts the laws of nature that you mentioned apply to robots (every creature has a beginning and an end)." - When did I claim that every creature has a beginning? right and can claim to have always existed.
"If he had a beginning, then he was created out of nothing - and this also contradicts the laws of nature." - Who claimed that he was created out of nothing? Maybe someone created him from matter? But then you will reach an infinite recursion. A more logical conclusion - he always existed. No I understand where the problem is to accept something that has always existed.
"And as for evolution, I'm glad to hear that you've heard about the evidence for its correctness (which can be found in many places on the web, in an incredibly detailed way), but you probably haven't heard enough about the theory of evolution itself." - Maybe you haven't heard enough, I certainly have and all evidence for evolution is fiction (like bacteria and antibiotics for example)
"As I already wrote in the previous response, evolution does not claim that a robot or living creature will be created by itself out of nothing, and therefore there is no room for your question at all. It may be a question arising from philosophical curiosity, but it has nothing to do with the issue of evolution." There is nothing but a substance from which a perfected being like man was created.
H,
In fact, the original version of the sentence was Einstein's, who did not believe in a private God (such as the Jewish, Christian or Islamic God), but said that, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". He did not need the existence of God for this, but only the moral laws established by the established religion.
in lones,
ramen
You are all infidels! Logical arguments are used when the truth is right in front of your eyes!
After all, you have proof of existence!
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a perfect thing.
Existence is part of perfection.
Conclusion: The Flying Spaghetti Monster, "Noodle Majestic" exists.
And to all those who believe in you: what is the difference between one God and another? Or as Higgs put it
"Why does each side actually believe that God Almighty would prefer one side over another when in fact they are all His creatures"
"Science without God is like a craft devoid of moral ethics." (H.M.
'marine biologist'
Note your evasion in section number 2. If God had no beginning, this itself contradicts the laws of nature that you stated apply to robots (every creature has a beginning and an end). If he had a beginning, then he was created out of nothing - and this also contradicts the laws of nature. Therefore, your logic requires that the laws of nature can still be circumvented - and hence robots can also be created by themselves, and the existence of God is not required.
And as for evolution, I'm glad to hear that you've heard about evidence for its correctness (which can be found in many places on the web, in an incredibly detailed way), but you probably haven't heard enough about the theory of evolution itself. As I already wrote in the previous response, evolution does not claim that a robot or a living creature will create itself out of nothing, and therefore there is no room for your question at all. It may be a question arising from philosophical curiosity, but it has nothing to do with the issue of evolution.
to roi-
Let's summarize his claims:
1. A basic law of nature is that a robot (sophisticated creature) cannot be created by itself." - Yapa
2. But… God (a highly sophisticated being) can come into being by himself.” - Oops, mistake. Only if he had a beginning. Can you prove that he had a beginning? Yes or no?
4. Conclusion from this short logical chain: there are situations in which the laws of nature can be circumvented, "-absolutely not. Prove that the Creator had a beginning and without any creator.
' For starters, he completely ignores that the theory of evolution also denies the 'creation out of nothing' of robots or living beings. Instead, evolution requires a series of small steps that result in a new species splitting off from an existing population. We witness the same small steps in thousands of cases, which include fossils, DNA evidence and even documented cases of laboratory experiments in which new species of different animals were created.,- I have already heard enough about all the "evidence" for evolution. But I do not want to write a scroll here that will refute these claims. Therefore I will ask - is this why a robot will be created by itself or not?
There is no God, opium for the masses is actually abundant...
The 'marine biologist' is merely playing here on differences in words and definitions.
Let's summarize his claims:
1. A basic law of nature is that a robot (sophisticated creature) cannot be created by itself.
2. But… God (a highly sophisticated being) can be created by himself.
3. This is because God is above the laws of nature, which require that every creature or substance come from previous substances.
4. Conclusion from this short logical chain: there are situations in which the laws of nature can be circumvented, otherwise God would not exist.
And according to the exact same conclusion, a robot can also be created by itself, just as God can be created by itself.
Of course the 'marine biologist' does not address many aspects of evolution. For starters, he completely ignores that the theory of evolution also rules out the 'creation out of nothing' of robots or living beings. Instead, evolution requires a series of small steps that result in a new species splitting off from an existing population. We witness those small steps in thousands of cases, which include fossils, DNA evidence and even documented cases of laboratory experiments in which new species of different animals were created.
Good places to find more information about evolution:
Abrit: http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/science/creationist.html
English (big but very detailed link): http://toarchive.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Excellent movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk
Wishing you a good week,
Roy.
Since when did the religious interest those scientific questions.
People believe that they need to believe like they need to pee. This is not for logical reasons. After all, as is known, most people are idiots.
A robot does not require a creator. What is so hard to understand?
Dear friends. The things are clear and logical and absolutely scientific - either a robot obligates a creator or not. There is no middle ground. Those who believe in evolution believe that robots are created by themselves, so be it.
Michael
Don't you find these loopy arguments tiresome because they lead to no clarification or understanding of value and meaning other than being endless.
God ruling over all creation is a problematic challenge for every believer for many reasons.
An example of this is Hamas in Gaza from its fanatic believers on the one hand and the believers on our side.
Why does either side actually believe that Almighty God would favor one side over the other when in fact they are all His creatures.
In any situation of competition, be it sports or a hostile takeover in the capital market, everyone believes that God is on their side and vice versa on the other side.
We have to admit that this thing is ridiculous. Because whoever is next to you will say that your God is better than someone else's God. Because if you believe that you can influence his preferences by one technique or another, what is the difference between him and an ordinary member of the Knesset or a minister in the government.
It must be admitted that the very definition of an ethereal metaphysical being creates a paradoxical problem for those who define it, no matter how you look at it.
Therefore, a modular, scientific definition of God is necessary to a certain extent in order to at least partially get out of the tangle.
I think it would be better to adopt here the excellent IDF custom of dividing everything into three parts.
1. Defining the axioms and theoretical basis of God.
2. The basic sentences of logic and the basic legality in which God acts according to 1
3. The actual actions that can be attributed to God and how they bind the believers.
In addition, it should be understood that the three above apparently make up one logical system!?
Not true?! and why?
Because according to everyone, God is a metaphysical being, that is, from the first principle of every thought, logic, law, logic and everything that was said above. That is, its definition must be undefinable in some way. And naturally, anything that is not definable or testable can actually be anything.
So surely God is a parametric modular being that every group of believers
Attaches to it the collection of laws preferred by her.
In fact, the above division exists in an unspoken form for all types of believers. and appears in different ways. Everyone is welcome to create their own model and parameters
of the God he prefers.
And to explain the ears of the believers and to calm them, I will end with an example from astrophysics.
As we know, the standard consciousness today requires that the universe consists of 5% known matter and energy (atoms, etc.), 20% dark matter and 75% dark energy. Quite a few of the astrophysicists are ready to admit that the model represents a religion! A belief that does not actually have a testable physical basis. That is, even though the numbers fit nicely, no one has ever put their hand on 95% of the dark mass of the universe.
In this respect it is a belief just like the belief in God so that many properties can be attributed to dark mass and energy without this changing the results.
To 75
I wrote a book for you. It was originally called: "Pearls and radishes for pigs", then its name was changed to
Other on the editor's recommendation...
According to the teachings of Anat (the Ashtorite) two conditions are required in order to be a scientist:
A. Eat pork.
B. Be an atheist
And if you walked in these constitutions..
The scientist is your home.
Everything else doesn't matter.
Why do you keep confusing faith with science?
After all, faith has no basis in science - on this site you will not convince anyone to repent, certainly not with the pseudo-scientific arguments that religion offers.
You believe in God and the Torah and everything that people wrote in it a long, long time ago that will only be truly good for you - just leave us alone (I am including all atheists here - if I do not speak for you, I forgive you). Mind your business and we are ours - I am not trying to convince you to eat pork, stop trying to force me not to eat - sit quietly and read the Torah all day, and leave the science to the scientists.
For a marine biologist with quills instead of scales:
You do not understand the essence of the concept "explanation" and you do not understand, in fact, nothing.
I already answered your claim in the response to which you "reply".
You keep claiming that everything complex requires a creator and now (as I knew you would) you say that this is only true if it has a beginning.
According to your argument - if I told you that the watch you found on Mars had been there since time immemorial you would not have made it difficult for me to create it.
Wow! How many delusions do you have to put together to agree with this nonsense!
or restoration of a facility for rehabilitation.
to Michael-
"How many times do I have to tell you that according to your "logic" if life requires a creator then the creator also requires a creator?" And so the argument is not admissible. I hope this point has been clarified. For my part, you will claim that life has always existed or that someone created the creator. This does not change the fact that *you* require a creator.
To Michael
There is no point in answering your questions for two reasons. The first reason is that you will constantly find new questions (and I have answers to all your questions)
A second reason for answers cannot be answered…..
(In case you are a little difficult to understand, I will explain myself
You don't ask questions about religion because you really want to understand, but you ask to justify yourself and your way of life, so it's actually answers and answers can't be answered)
A "biologist" who is nothing but a fish:
How many times do you have to be told that according to your "logic" if life requires a creator then the creator also requires a creator?
If you make the foolish claim that the Creator has always existed, then you have not explained the origin of life (of the Creator - and therefore - at all).
to noam-
"First of all, it's very nice of you to understand that a cell is actually a sophisticated robot of nature." - and it's also nice of you to recognize this
By the way - those who come even closer to this definition are the viruses, which are on the border between living - and just (organic) matter, since they do not have the ability to reproduce independently." - FYI - there is no clear border between living and inanimate
"
By the way - how does recognition of nature's robots/machines work out for a believer?" - What is so complicated here?
And the bottom line: the existing knowledge shows a much higher probability that a robot was created "by itself" than that an intelligent entity created everything - why? The site discusses this enough." - a sentence that says it all. Any evolutionist who sees a robot on Mars would prefer to think that it was created by itself, over the claim that someone created it. And that says it all.
"There is no evidence of an "intelligent being" except for the very popular intuition of many people who do not deal with science/engineering." - The evidence is the robot itself. Not enough? Have you ever doubted the creator of any watch, even without seeing the process of its creation by him How many watches have you seen without seeing their maker?
"Under the 'evolution' section of the website, you will be able to see articles that show changes in animals/organisms that have happened in recent times. After all, such changes didn't happen *only* in recent times but throughout history..." - not greedy. There is no evidence for evolution. A gene complex in the making was never predicted, not even a single new gene with a new substrate and a new active site. The claim is that it takes millions of years. So Arguably.
The appearance of the first organic molecules is still a hypothesis, but again - at the moment with a much higher probability than the intelligent "being". ?
"Wrote 'The Selfish Garden'. This is a "popular science" book, but nevertheless profound.
If you manage to understand him, and if he speaks to you - it doesn't look like you will continue arguing with me here" - I have already read enough and too much. You are welcome to bring Dawkins here in his own right.
God:
Since your supporters here claim you are undefined I tend to define you as the hole in the divorce and therefore I know you exist.
Since you haven't been here for a long time I haven't been able to ask you so far some questions that bother me, so I take advantage of your ridiculous appearance and ask you:
Why do you lie to us all the time:
1. Why did you write to us that the rabbit is ruminating?
2. Why did you instruct us to build the copper sea in the temple when its circumference does not correspond to its diameter unless pi equals three.
3. Why did you make many of your believers believe that the world is less than 6000 years old?
This is just a sampling of my questions on this topic but I want to ask you a few more questions before you move on again to another galaxy that your sages believed was nothing but a point of light on the firmament. The subject is the subject of morality:
1. Why did you murder innocent people in the Holocaust?
2. Why do you instruct your believers to murder homosexuals that you created as such? Did you know that Turing - one of the greatest mathematicians in history and the one to whom the victory of the Allies in World War II can be attributed due to cracking the enigma died because your believers believed that he should be punished for his homosexuality? Note (if you have an indeterminate heart): someone saves millions of people with his sharp mind and they come and cause his death because of the stupidity you planted in their minds!
3. Why did Abraham instruct our father to abandon his wife and son in the desert? And why did you abuse his other son and make him not want to see his father anymore when you ordered his father to murder him?
again. This is also just a sample, but logical answers (for a change) to these questions will help me not to hate you.
I am glad that most of you still believe in me after several hundred years in which I have not appeared in public
Admittedly, there are quite a few clowns who have lost faith in me
and spreading lies against me
These will be punished
For a tropical marine biologist:
First of all, it's very nice of you to realize that a cell is actually a sophisticated robot of nature. By the way - the ones who come even closer to this definition are the viruses, which are on the border between animals - and just (organic) matter, since they do not have the ability to reproduce independently.
Which can perhaps raise a hypothesis in your mind, that such organic molecules existed before the first replicator appeared.
By the way - how does recognition of nature's robots/machines work out for a believer?
And the bottom line: the existing knowledge shows a much higher probability that a robot was created "by itself" than that an intelligent entity created everything - why? The site discusses this enough.
There is no evidence of an "intelligent being" except for the very popular intuition of many people who do not deal with science/engineering.
Under the 'evolution' section of the website, you will be able to see articles that show changes in animals/organisms that have happened in recent times. After all, such changes did not happen *only* in recent times but throughout history...
The appearance of the first organic molecules is still a hypothesis, but again - at the moment with a much higher probability than the intelligent "being".
I suggest you read one of the books by the aforementioned author, who before coming to upset people like you with "Is there God?", wrote 'The Selfish Garden'. This is a "popular science" book, but nevertheless profound.
If you manage to understand him, and if he talks to you - it doesn't look like you will continue arguing with me here.
Some order:
Responses 52 and 54 are not mine although they seem fine to me.
I was even in the gym when they were written.
It seems to me that recently an impersonator with good intentions entered our ranks, but it's not really clear to me. In my opinion, in the end impersonation is always harmful and I suggest people to identify themselves with their own nickname.
In any case - the nonsense defenders left here are not worth the effort.
Most of them are regulars who have already "heard" all the answers and it turns out that they don't understand them.
Hello..
Maybe I'm a butterfly who dreams that he's Jewish?
Maybe rabbits don't live under pressure?
The philosopher Descartes explained better than I why the sensory world is uncertain.
He was looking for an irrefutable premise.
And found: "I think means I exist" (the "means" in unnecessary translation).
We are all invited to seek, discover and explore this wondrous infinite inner point,
The one absolute truth, which is inside each of us..
The flying spaghetti monster also exists! ! !
what? Who believes this man?
God exists!!!!!!!!
The deity that created all the little crabs that move around in our bodies will also create the robot in question in the comments and solve humanity from all its ills only if we follow the instruction books that the heads of religions strongly recommend
One point, and maybe you will read Psalms for the peace of your friends who are recruited from Yadan and the families of Israel instead
Ask provocative questions at this critical time?
To remind you, Michael comes from a religious home and it is not so easy to escape from those "gardens" associated with that matter.
Cookie. What is God made of?
to noam-
There is no question here which is "more likely" - A or B." - this is exactly the question - is it more likely that a robot will be created by itself or by a planner.
One of the claims that Michael made here, which history proves time and time again, is that human intuition is wrong time and time again (mice from hay, lice from sweat), and by observing reality - we can correct our conclusions." - So can a robot be created by itself or not?
Therefore - don't rely exclusively on your intuition" - I understood - then I have to believe that a robot can be created by itself. Contrary to all existing knowledge.
Mr. Mi-Kal (leave a substitute name for Mi-Kainstein)
Why do you define anyone who has a religious belief as mentally ill if all due respect you are also mentally ill in the same sense...
You claim that everyone will defend the deity for different reasons and you define them as a mental illness. If so, you are also sick, because you also have an excellent reason to defend your belief that there is no deity, because otherwise you will be committed to religion...
You ask for scientific proof of the impossible, no problems you will get:
When we go back to what the world was made of, you can find me any theory you want (explosion, etc.) All theories have to start from any material that was created "somehow" Now explain to me where the material was made? Apparently our world contradicts science, is illogical, etc.
(Don't tell me that I'm sweeping it under the rug by answering that there is a G-d
I brought you scientific proof that science is not scientific or in Hebrew it cannot explain everything since its very existence is not scientific so you cannot treat something that is apparently above science in a scientific way)
P.S.
(In Hebrew, if you lower your nose, it will make the debate matter-of-fact and not a "mentally ill" debate)
For some reason all those who truly disbelieve and believe all kinds of lies like to use the word disbelievers to denote anyone who is not in their community.
Ask an ordinary religious person what God is, and he will start stuttering and smiling, not because he knows too much about God, on the contrary, he knows nothing about him, from the age of 0 he was brainwashed with this word. Other than that nothing. He has no idea what God is, can God speak or not? Can he pee or not?…he has no idea. He just smiles stupidly.
for a marine biologist,
There is no question here which is "more likely" - A or B.
One of the claims that Michael made here, which history proves time and time again, is that human intuition is wrong time and time again (mice from the hay, lice from the grass), and by observing reality - we can correct our conclusions.
Therefore - do not rely exclusively on your intuition...
To Moses
I don't expect you to repent or understand reality more clearly
Because overall I understand that this is part of a mental illness that only time can perhaps heal
"A false belief that is persistently held even in the face of strong counter-evidence that contradicts it, mainly as a sign of a mental disorder"
So I have no purpose here to convince you
Or prove you wrong because of course that would be a waste of time.
I don't understand what all the commotion is about, some bugger named Michael rambles on with wisdom that is not his, and 'with great wisdom' made it clear that he simply has no answers to the root belief that is found in everyone.
Belief in one God is a fact! The repentance movement is stronger than some stupid article that lacks any scientific value.
In a few years, unbelievers like him will be raised for research purposes on the shelves of laboratories in yeshiva for Jewish studies.
He stars here as if he is the guardian of this stupid article that is riddled with lies and internal contradictions throughout.
I don't understand what everyone is referring to?
volunteer:
I enjoyed reading your every word.
To the marine biologist Abu Nafha:
Aren't you tired of repeating the same nonsense over and over again??
Michael…
Just say: I don't understand...
Maybe someone will explain to you someday...
You seem to contain "so many"
Until you just can't "contain any more"
Take time off my friend, looks like you need it.
Only good
"biologist":
When looking for an explanation, you are looking for an explanation, not a rug to sweep the question under.
ravine:
Wow! So many words without saying anything!
Take the same text and replace the word "God" with the word "Schutterloktzuf" and its meaning will not change.
It's strange to me this connection that everyone makes, the religions and God...
True, the religions work the concept of God in their own way...
But without a doubt the religious conception of God greatly diminishes it.
I guess the difficulty of science to prove existence or non-existence
Found in their narrow thinking and arrogance...
Once you try to define something that is both everything and nothing
You immediately point to another side…
And it doesn't make sense as far as God is concerned... neither matter nor energy
And matter and energy...
And yes... I don't want science to go over these stairs
And he will also understand through proofs this tremendous comprehensiveness...
the god
To Noam and Michael - the question is which option is more likely - that a robot obliges a creator or that a robot does not oblige a creator (even a fluoroorganic robot is a robot, like man). What do you think?
To the marine biologist Amalt Hotmani:
So you probably want to argue that if things are so smart then it's clear that "someone almighty" planned them...
Weren't we already in this movie?
To the marine biologist Abu Nafha:
Aren't you tired of repeating the same nonsense over and over again?
Nadav:
To be educated does not mean to adopt a belief in lies.
I know the evasions about the rabbit and they are far from convincing.
The expression raising rumination has a meaning other than "eating shit" and even if you claim that I am raising rumination with this argument, I will not let you feed me shit.
The word "science" is derived from the root "knowledge" and faith does not allow to reach any knowledge.
More than that: as you illustrate - belief allows one to feel superior to others only by the "right" of the fact that they believe lies.
Apology accepted. 🙂
Michael:
I have no intention of arguing with you, I have exhausted the discussion and I am retiring.
In any case, know the difference between us, I strive to be truly educated on all sides of both the unbelievers and the believers, while you constantly run away from the faith and pretend to be educated to understand it from the other side.
This science will read???
If you don't investigate the faith in depth, don't ever pretend to write and explain to me what the faith I'm talking about is.
Regarding the rabbit, check yourself again, with a simple Google search you will find a scientific explanation for the fact that it does live.
The theory of evolution basically claims that everything starts with a replicating molecule (biogenesis). There is currently no conceivable scenario regarding the first replicating molecule or the first living cell, if only because of the low probability (which, by the way, even the evolutionists usually usually separate these two theories). The theory of evolution claims that from the first living cell onwards, complex creatures were created, all of which have a common origin. Each time more and more components were added, until the living creatures of today. What are these? There is not a single piece of evidence that complex systems are capable of being created gradually. The main claim of the evolutionists is that it takes millions years, but claims on the one hand and reality on the other. And why is this? Because in the bodies of living creatures there are "inseparable systems", that is, systems consisting of several parts that are dependent on each other and therefore could not be created in a gradual process. The circulatory system is like this - there is no point in blood vessels without the blood, there is no There is no point in blood without the blood vessels, and there is no point in both without a heart. The visual system is like this - there is no point in the eye without the optic nerve connecting to the brain, there is no point in both without a special processor in the brain that processes the input into an image.
And in fact... all body systems are like that - the nervous system, the lactation system, the digestive system, and so on. So it is possible, with great difficulty, to find some imaginary scenario for the creation of such systems. What an imaginary benefit, the chance of finding a part that is complementary to such a system is very low to zero, and why? Because each part is actually encoded by a gene (a sequence of nucleotides (genetic letters) that have a defined function). And for each such gene there may be an astronomical number of 300^20 combinations are possible (much higher than the number of atoms in the universe). Therefore, even if a trillion creatures were born every second on all the stars of the universe, we would not be enough to cover the trillions of trillions of possibilities even for one gene! Therefore, there is no chance of finding which part completes which system (hence we conclude that the genome was formed at once). Even if there are about 200^20 useful combinations (in dreams), out of all 300^20 it is still a zero percentage. Let's not forget that each gene has its own control systems, that is, it is not enough that some gene is regenerated, it needs to be regenerated at the same time a mechanism that directs it to a specific target area. All the genes in the body are present in each and every cell. A gene that creates urine, for example, is present in the whole body, but it is paralyzed and expressed only in the kidney cells. It is a smart mechanism that "knows" where to silence a certain gene and where not.
And after all these miracles that need to happen, it is still... *must* that every gene has a great survival advantage. Otherwise... natural selection will not identify it and its chances of disappearing are extremely high (due to the percentage of diploid extinction). And this is only the beginning. There are many problems - regarding the development of reproduction Sexuality, food, water, birth, symbiosis between animals, the uniqueness of man, consciousness, and more.
The *evidence* for evolution is also not evidence - not in bacterial resistance, not in genetic homology, not in comparative anatomy, not in a phlygonic tree, not in paleontology and more...
About that - in another story
point:
In response 36 I wrote Nadav and meant you.
I apologize from the bottom of my heart. I didn't mean to compare you. It was just confusion.
Nadav:
After all, I already said that there is no point in arguing with you.
What you call "beliefs" in the examples you gave does not come close to what you mean when you talk about belief in God.
as mentioned. Your belief has already been refuted hundreds of times but you continue to hold on to it.
You call those whose vision is anchored in reality and not in myopic delusion.
They messed up with you.
When someone believes that the rabbit ruminates, that a pie is equal to three, that lice are created from human sweat and mice from mold, and the like - I have nothing to do with him.
Strengthen and embrace all the lovers of "it".. and listen to your benevolent and good heart, in which God will always dwell.
All the rest are brain drains and not the heart of the place itself.
Noam/Michael and all short stories
The only eternal axiom is the concept of 'faith'.
Everyone believes in something, everyone believes that they are smart/beautiful/successful/ugly/stupid/coward and so on.
Belief in science is also a type of faith, except that it is fundamentally temporary. Theories are true until proven otherwise.
And so fundamentally they are temporary, just like the prophetic theory of God in the form of coffee, or God subject to scientific proof or some kind of entity, etc. = they are temporary and irrelevant to the discussion.
The entire article from beginning to end discusses a subject that he has no tools to investigate.
It is just like discussing whether the knowledge that it is morning is salty or sweet.
The obsession with putting our whole world and thoughts into predetermined 'slots' for a limited time and limited human content is pitiable.
Nadav:
My coffee meets this definition just like any other definition.
All I have to claim - and it will be just as well-founded as the other claims about God - is that the world could not exist without this coffee.
Nadav:
Faith does begin where reason ends and unfortunately there are those whose reason ends at the very beginning.
There is no room for an unfounded belief and there is even less room for trying to convince others of its correctness.
The funny thing is that the belief in the different religions - not only is not based, but it contradicts reality and again - see Arnevat's entry.
The sad thing is that based on unfounded beliefs such as this, people kill and are murdered.
point:
Many things fit this definition:
The strong force
the weak force
The material
more and more
I agree to live with this definition. The question is whether every religious person will also agree - and I don't think so.
Regarding the definition of God. The philosophical meaning of God is, the same thing that did not exist, the world could not exist.
Your coffee does not meet this definition...
Right. Since every grain is part of the universe...
My general argument is that it doesn't matter, religious or secular, both don't understand what they are talking about, and in many ways the world of the average secular is much dumber than the world of the average religious.
point:
There is a difference between "not knowing what the universe really is" and "not knowing if the universe exists".
If you want at all costs to give the word "God" meaning, then why not take my advice and define God as the coffee I mentioned in response 16 (which I have already drunk in the meantime).
By the way - it's also not really accurate to claim that we don't know what the universe really is. It is true that we do not know all of its properties, but this statement is also true for every grain of common gravel. It is not necessary to know all the properties of something in order to claim to know what it is.
Nadav:
I recommend that you bring concrete arguments, even if they are from the same article (if they rely on experiments or proofs - you can waive them and let us examine them ourselves).
But certainly not to wave in an article that it is not clear what arguments he brings that are relevant to the discussion.
The village fool:
You justify the nickname you chose.
Is the fact that nothing is known for sure known to you for sure?
There are things that are known for sure. For example - everything obtained in an experiment is known for sure.
Everything obtained through logic is also known with certainty.
Therefore it is possible to know for sure (through the rhetorical question I asked earlier) that your words are not true.
And as I said - it is possible - based on the experiment - to know that an all-powerful and all-knowing God who created the rabbit and then claimed that it raises rumen does not exist.
The experiment I'm talking about is of course the one of observing a rabbit and checking if it ruminates.
But it can at least be argued that they meant the universe. And there is no difference in the claims. Because we don't know yet, and probably can't know, what the universe really is.
To the village fool:
agree. I marked this question as open, among many others, and it is agreed that I should not give the answer any meaning on my life, as long as the answer is not found, that is, as long as it is not proven that there is a God - in my opinion, he does not exist.
point:
Let's get off this point.
After all, Einstein also did not believe in any God and the uses he made of the word here and there only sowed confusion. As soon as you talk about something that is not an entity, you are talking about what is simply not there (because the word "entity" is derived from the word "is")
A) Your words are indeed true. The intellect is limited, even in the scientific aspect.
Faith begins where the human mind can no longer reach.
Theoretically, a person who believes expands his views beyond human capabilities by his faith. A person who does not give free rein to his religious tendencies creates a mental limitation - something that is clearly inconsistent with the spirit of science and education.
b) It is quite ridiculous that the infidels constantly try to prove the non-existence of God.
He would only give free rein to the intellect as a person of faith does, and demand to explore and demand the intellect that is in everything (see the writings of R. Nachman of Breslav) he would discover a world so deep that there is no exploration, and perhaps as you wrote (by the way, this is from the Jewish sources) from not for her sake he came for her sake .
c) Regarding the right to vote, unfortunately people like you also influence me, "All Israel is bound to each other" Yes, we are all in the same boat, but there are those who unfortunately drill a hole in the bottom of it.
Continued,
Indeed, it is not accurate to use the word he to indicate personality. But on the other hand it is difficult to talk about the wisdom that Einstein felt in relation to "it"
Michael,
Dickens does agree with Einstein's same God. Einstein points out that the same God is unimaginable...that is, it is impossible to know exactly what the same God really is. Only he is not personal and he is not an entity..
Most of the commotion is about nothing.
What is "what does not exist - does not exist" anyway?
Surely soon they will say that the bacteria did not exist before they found them...
They might also say that ozone did not exist before they found it,
that the oxygen that man breathes did not exist before it was found,
that the ball was never round one moment before it was proved so and so on.
How can you know something for sure if there is no certainty?
We can talk about probability, we can make assumptions.
But in the absence of data there is no unequivocal proof.
It is also possible otherwise -
mark such questions as open,
As such there is no answer until there is, if at all.
Answering such questions must be unequivocal.
Not because it's convenient to think so, not because it's hard to believe so,
Not because it is not "logical" to think so and so on.
If all scientists behaved like this,
We would still manage some goats and sheep,
and sleep in tents and narrow was our world in the ant world.
Bye.
Nadav:
Your answer makes me nervous because it bothers me that there are people who have turned off their minds and yet they have the right to choose and they can influence my fate.
Something about the article itself:
I agree, of course, with the content of the article.
When I referred to the book before it was translated I tended to call it "The Delusion of God" because that was Dawkins' intention when he used the word Delusion.
It is easy to see from the translation of the entire book that an understanding of English was not lacking in the translation process and that what tipped the scales in determining the name was the commercial consideration.
Phrases like "There is a God!" or "He has no God" that live in our language and basing the name on a catchy phrase contributes to its spread.
As someone who sees God as an illusion and as someone who fears the evil that different religions affect us - I actually have a personal interest in maximum exposure of the book's content to the public.
Therefore, in the present case it can be argued that "from not to her name comes to her name" because if the name is "known" more people are exposed to the message in the book.
Dear Michael!
I see that my response really makes you nervous. Just so that you know that some kind of psychological approach indicates a high level of involvement in the matter in the subconscious, but that externalizing your physical weaknesses to attraction to lust makes you sin against your conscience. Or such and other fears like the rabbit thing you mentioned.
The truth of Judaism and belief in one God survives far beyond all unbelievers.
You too, as you signed your name, declare that you already belong to the past. (formerly Michael)
I highly recommend the Sage's article "Again, one day before your death, and how does a person know when the day of his death is?" But all his days will be in repentance"
Gad from the "Yoga of Love" website (it's a good thing that your moniker doesn't have a rather heavy stereotype), it's easy to understand from your response that you haven't read Dawkins' book.
Dawkins is not talking about proof (certainly not absolute as can be found in mathematics or logic, but about empirical phenomena that can be examined (and in general, only things that can be examined) that direct us on the |likely| and |improbable| bar.
There is no question of metaphysical proof here. What does not exist - does not exist.
Ido and point,
What is being said here is that the *claim* of God's existence is not scientific, and not that the *question* regarding God's existence is not in the realm of science. The question is, moreover, in the field of science, since it asks about existence, and such questions are answered by science - even if at one time or another science still does not have an unequivocal answer.
In relation to the existence of God, science actually has an answer that is very close to certainty (complete certainty is not attainable with respect to any empirical question), and it does not require "proof of non-existence": it is enough to put the assumption of God's existence against what we know about the laws of the universe, in order To see that there is a contradiction here, and in fact - a complicated collection of contradictions.
Regarding the claim that "God is undefined", of course it is not true: there are, of course, certain religious groups who claim this, but by this very claim, they exclude themselves from serious consideration (the first condition for having a serious discussion is, of course, defining the subject of the discussion) . The truth is that there are different definitions of God, but Dawkins does not choose one of them: as explicitly mentioned in the article above, he refers broadly to any supernatural being that is the creator of the world, and claims the impossibility of such a being's existence. One can even make a broader claim, and be atheists in relation to any supernatural entity whatsoever, whether or not it allegedly created the world. This is definitely a definition of God, and as such, it allows discussion of the question and the formation of an atheist position in relation to it.
Gad:
Science works on refutations and confirmations and no serious scientist tries to prove that God exists.
However, it is not true to say that there are no proofs in science because every time a theory is disproved by experiment and logic, it is, in fact, proven to be false.
This is what happened with the various theories offered to us by the religions.
You say "Let's define God like this" and I say there is no need to define another definition of God. The religions have defined different and especially different types of God and all their definitions have been proven to be definitions of a non-existent entity. The proposal to redefine God opens the door for me to define God as the coffee in the cup in front of me and give me the pleasure of saying the sentence "I destroyed God".
More specifically, the proposal to define God as the cause of all causes contributes nothing to our understanding of the world and is therefore unnecessary.
It is not possible with scientific tools to prove the existence of God. This is a fact. But it is also a fact that every scientific phenomenon cannot be proven (see Descartes' logics). A proof exists only on the mathematical or logical level (a proof that follows from its very definition). Any attempt to project the proof onto empirical reality is doomed to failure. If this is the case with the empirical, the physical, all the more the metaphysical cannot be proven. So is it acceptable to conclude that since they cannot be proven, the physical and the metaphysical do not exist? No. It only points to the limitations of proof and the limitations of science.
Let us define God as the cause of causes. This is a definition that science can relate to and make sense of. Now, we are left to find out what brought our universe to be the way it is - whether a first cause that is mechanical quanto emptiness, or a first cause that is someone intelligent with all abilities. These two primary causes are axiomatic beginnings for the existence of the world. Let us not argue about the axiom itself, but which axiom better explains the world as we experience it.
incidentally:
The word "strengthening" in the context Nadav was talking about is, of course, "weakening" to me.
Like morality, the religions also appropriated other terms that are seen as positive.
This, of course, is only a step in their plan to take over our lives completely.
Nadav:
Well done for getting stronger.
It shows that you don't let the facts confuse you.
By the way - do you believe that the rabbit ruminates? This is what your God said!
Rabbi Eliyahu Moilna once said: If I could understand God, then I would not believe in him. I do not desire a God that I can understand"
And yet this whole article that comes to prove from the scientific side that there is no God in the world, only strengthens us that the reality of divine providence is indeed alive and well and throbbing in our vicinity.
Any intelligent person who opens his eyes to what surrounds him, from the wonders of his body to the entire complexity of the universe, cannot help but understand that there is something supreme and sublime, far beyond human understanding!
Thank you for this article, I personally got a lot stronger in my faith.
Yehuda:
There is no necessary connection between the definition of morality and the definition of God.
The Greeks didn't even pretend to be moral.
The only connection between the definition of morality and the definition of God is the connection defined by the religions.
In this framework, Judaism explains to us, for example, that Sabbath breakers and homosexuals must be murdered, Islam explains to us that all idolaters must be murdered and Christians and Jews enslaved, etc.
In short - the "morality" attributed to God is the "morality" of the religions and not his and this is not at all surprising because it does not exist.
The religions appropriated morality as part of their goal to give control of the world to the leaders of the religious establishment.
Since there is no possibility of controlling an unruly crowd, they also introduced into that "morality" some laws that are truly moral. This may be a case in which it is actually correct to say that "from not for her sake comes for her sake".
When I say "truly moral" I mean that we feel they are moral as a result of the traits that evolution has instilled in us. It is a relative and not an absolute morality because I am talking about humans and not, for example, tigers for whom there is nothing immoral in killing the offspring of another tiger in order to get rid of the tiger.
I am talking, however, about the same morality that is shared by most people (most of them but not all because there are also people who feel differently - psychopaths for example).
When you, as a secularist, recognize some of the religious laws as moral, you do so on the basis of your personal morality. You have no other source that allows you to identify morality, because if you take Judaism as inspiration you will be forced to see what I mentioned above or the actions of Abraham who threw one of his wives into the desert together with her son and was right to murder his other son (just like the madwoman from Beit Shemesh did) as moral actions .
point:
read the book
Cookie:
I don't believe anyone.
I also find no room for an argument with you because with your statement you show that you have not devoted even one second to studying science or even learning what science is.
Therefore, as far as I am concerned, you are living in a world of hallucinations and since I have no influence over hallucinations I will not continue.
Ido:
When you quote my first sentence out of context I find myself thanking you for not just quoting the first word. Your continuation shows that you did not understand the context at all.
It matters who defined God because when he did he defined God. Obviously? So now there are definitions and there is no need to talk about undefined things.
The religions are also defined and therefore the question of whether or not there is a necessity for a religion to describe its influence on the world is pointless because the defined religions defined God and his influence on the world.
Regarding the strange claim about God that the very existence of the world depends on his existence - there is no religion that defines God as his entire influence on the world. Besides - such a God has no effect on anything and his existence also does not explain anything in the sense that his very existence requires an explanation even more than the thing he is trying to "explain".
I see the problem in a different way.
The concept of God contains in its definition absolute justice. Here I see the problem because in science, justice has no meaning. A chemical compound is not formed because of this kind of justice. Therefore, science and divinity are two things from different worlds and should not be compared.
good week
And there will be peace in the south
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Dawkins opposes the concept of a personal God... not a philosophical God
"The concept of "God" is a concept invented by religions"
What does it matter who invented it? The concept exists. Even if, as mentioned, it is quite vague, it cannot be said that it is completely empty of content and completely dependent on the context of religion.
"When God is defined - the question of his existence becomes a scientific question because his definition is also supposed to describe his effect on the world and this effect can be confirmed or refuted through experiment"
There is no necessity to assume that its definition should also describe its effect on the world, at least not its *measurable* effect on the world.
Extreme case: if you define divinity so that the very existence of the world depends on its existence, then the question of confirmation and refutation becomes absurd.
Cocoi is right
Forgive me but why believe one human being?
After all, Judaism has existed for thousands of years and there have been people of amazing genius in it (for example Rambam)
And you think they were stupid and didn't think about these claims??????
P.S. To write about Judaism being a missionary religion is not accurate to say the least...
This is the only religion (at least I haven't heard of others) that doesn't try to bring new people into the religion and not only that, but those who try to be accepted (convert) cause trouble and drive their brains crazy
So you can think a little before you write
Ido:
The concept of "God" is a concept invented by religions.
Some people who try to defend religion also use this trick of separating God from religion and then of course they are left with something undefined.
So no one argues with the claim that there is something indeterminate. There is no point in this because it is an undefined claim.
Dawkins struggles with the concept of the God of religions because what bothers him (and actually all of humanity - including religious people, only they are not aware of it) are religions.
The claim that the question of whether there is a God is not a scientific question is made by people for exactly the same insidious reason.
When God is defined - the question of his existence becomes a scientific question because his definition is also supposed to describe his effect on the world and this effect can be confirmed or refuted through experiment.
Dawkins does examine the theory that there is a God and presents a host of facts that disprove it. He does not present the theory that there is no God at all but expects you to understand that if the theory that there is a God has been disproved - then there is no God.
So wait, "the thesis that God exists is not a scientific question", but the opposite thesis is actually?
With all due respect to Dawkins and his ilk, they probably don't understand the meaning of the term "God". One can write thousands of volumes of indictments against religion, any religion, but not to make a separation between the concept of divinity (infinity, perfection, doesn't matter) and the human institutions of religion, this is negligence and a lack of integrity.
This concept, "God", is perhaps the least clear concept imaginable (if we ignore the simplistic and childish versions of it that Dawkins attacks), but that is not a good enough reason to state so firmly that it is empty of content. It goes without saying that this is also Not a fact on which its existence can be based.
The question of God's existence is not a scientific question, because the concept is unknowable by definition. If you define God as a man with a white beard who oversees the fulfillment of the mitzvot and manages a system of reward and punishment with a high hand, it is very easy to bring evidence that contradicts his existence, but such a discussion is not only childish, it is idiotic.