Haven't we been here before?
I nowhere near have the training of either side here and they say a little bit of learning is a dangerous thing.

Can you tell the difference between a sophist and a sincere 'philosopher/logistician' is there a difference when our cognitive processes can bias our decisions.

I see a similar debate going on between the creationists and mainstream science and the Global warming advocates vs the sceptics?

When one either side could conceivably cheery pick their premises what is the lay person to do? And what happens when as during the 1920’s and eugenics whole scientific disciplines do get caught up in social/institutional bias?

It get even more complicated individually for even for arguments sake Aslan and Boaz are under severe confirmation bias how could you point it out to them their internal logic says they are right.

I always thought that slavery in the Bible was always a problem for Christians to justify but Aslan and Boaz will easily sidestep it and say well slaves were treated better back then and will not see any contradiction in what they have just said. Is there a contradiction? BTW Aslan & Boaz you are invited to post at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=125033

I’m beginning to think that these sort of debates (and many others) are not rational/logical but non-rational partly psychological rationalizations cloaked in rational/logical language. So there is no contradictions just circular rationalizations.

Aslan talks about absolutes then justifies slavery in the bible but I would guess that quite a few on the other side value human life but not extend that value to a human zygote and see no contradictions because in their world view it is still coherent.

Anyway carry on.

Aslan,

CHINESE ASTRONOMY

Keenan’s article mainly relates to recording the solar eclipses. The Chinese were more interested in lunar eclipses. The Shang bones record events that are invisible to the modern naked eye but can be confirmed via Radio Astronomy. Of course, what I assert is baseless, if oracle bones and radio telescopes don’t exist. I happen to believe both do exist. If you don’t believe in oracle bones or radio telescopes, may I suggest you visit Nanking and Parkes. I think you will find some very convincing evidence.

The Chinese Court Astronomers guarded their instruments and techniques. Other astronomers made things made-up. Herein, Keenan remarks would be of no revelation to a Sinologist. He is reinventing the wheel.

East Asia History is published by ANU, which has an excellent Asian Studies Department. Nonetheless, this publication does not retrieve, when I tick the peer-reviewed box on my university’s database. Significant articles in peer-reviewed journals can sometimes be identified by the review process history posted above a formal abstract.

HITLER

Those in power determine the law. So, yes, genocide was legal under the NAZI regime.

Is genocide wrong? Yes, in my opinion: It was very wrong of Hitler to massacre the Jews and the Poles. Similarly, in my opinion, the genocide of the indigenous Tasmanians was wrong, as would the genocide of the Hittites. In my opinion, all these aforementioned acts are heinous. Under the systems in place today, Hitler, the Colonials and Yahveh would be in the dock and judge in The Hague.

Relatedly, Aslan, do you feel God was wrong had children been killed in Sodom? (Youngsters; the innocent offspring of prostitutes.)

YAHWEH

“He [Yahweh] first came within the Israelites’ ken as the jinn inhabiting a volcano in North-West Arabia.” Later, this tribal God was adopted the principalities of Ephraim and Judah.

Do you disagree with Toynbee

Aslan,

SCIENCE

Science being wrong all the time is what makes it so powerful. There is recent evidence matter might “leak” energy. Were the energy to leave the 4-D space-time continuum, my guess is that the 4.5 billion years might need a small readjustment. That would be progress.

My creed might be Sol is a third generation spectral class “G” star. Relatedly, the Earth appears to be 4.5 billion years old and matter between 12.5-13.5 billion years old. Aslan, presumably, you believe that the Earth is around 6,000 years old. The difference between us is I am not affixed in the face of new evidence. My propositions are tentative.

Aslan, under what conditions would you rip Mark out of the NT and replace it with Thomas? Scientists basically did this, when the Big Bang replaced the infinite universe.

Philo,

I would agree any divine entity would act within the confines of the laws of physics established. Herein, Aslan, I feel, does not appreciate our 3-D world is melded with time. If we change physicists, it has ramifications for causality. Play with causality and determinism comes under review and free will becomes doubtful. Were a divine entity to construct 4-D space-time to include Joshua’s prayer, Joshua has no free will.

Again, Philo, I agree with you regard to poetry. Various reviewers “indwell” (Polanyi) in a performance and make personal interpretations. Gestalts also display is quality.

Reviewing the above two paragraphs, I see at least three Joshua interpretations:

1. A miracle within God’s ordered universe (Philo)
2. A miracle with a Hebrew God playing with Physics like an Olympian God would with people (Aslan)
3. It was a stormy day (Oliver)

Maybe, our good friend, Kenny, might suggest 4., nothing happened

Oliver,

Re Chinese astronomy: Your proposition was that if Joshua's long really occurred, the Chinese would surely have recorded it, but since we don't have any record it must not have occurred.

I respond:
1. Joshua's long day occurred in a period of history before Chinese had seriously begun systematically recording astronomical observations. Yes, obsevations were made during this period but they are relatively few and far between.
2. As Keenan (and others) points out, when Shi Huang-di came to power, he had most of the records burned and those that were retained were subsequently destroyed in the civil war following his death.
3. If the Chinese did happen to record Joshua's long day, it is highly likely that the record was destroyed.

Thus, not only is you argument an argument from silence (which is a logical fallacy), the facts of history provide a highly plausible explanation for this silence.

In other words, your objection is toothless, and all your ramblings about Shang bones and radio astronomy are totally irrelevant.

Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp, Oliver?

Re East Asia History you said: "this publication does not retrieve, when I tick the peer-reviewed box on my university’s database."

It retrieves fine on my university's database.

You said: "Significant articles in peer-reviewed journals can sometimes be identified by the review process history posted above a formal abstract."

Nonsense! I can't think of one journal which publishes its review history. I know of one journal (a Christian science journal) which publishes the date the paper was received and the date it was revised but thats it. You are simply trying to diminish Keenan's credibility and research. Nice try.

Re Toynbee's idea of Yahweh - of course I don't agree with his fantasy!

You said: "Science being wrong all the time is what makes it so powerful"

My first response to this was to just burst out laughing. My second response is...No, this statement is just so silly and absurd I'll just let it speak for itself.

Oliver,

You said: "Is genocide wrong? Yes, in my opinion: It was very wrong of Hitler to massacre the Jews and the Poles. Similarly, in my opinion, the genocide of the indigenous Tasmanians was wrong, as would the genocide of the Hittites. In my opinion, all these aforementioned acts are heinous. Under the systems in place today, Hitler, the Colonials and Yahveh would be in the dock and judge in The Hague."

But on what basis can the Hague or, after the war, the Nuremberg trials, condemn these acts and prosecute the offenders? If its just your opinion, or the UN's, or the Hague's etc then its just an opinion. What right do you or the UN or the Hague have to impose your own morality on Hitler and co.? In Hitler's opinion, genocide is not wrong. Why should he submit to your or the Hague's view of morality?

If you say the locus of power (ie. Hitler was ultimately defeated in the war) then you are basically affirming "might makes right" ie. anything is 'right' provided you have the power to do it and resist any challenges.

You see Oliver, in your view, you have no basis to criticise another country's or culture's morality or laws. As soon as you do, you break your own rules and demonstrate that you really do not believe what you say you believe.

NeoHuman
thanx for the invite, I'll check it out mate.

SLAVERY. Neo, its not possible to discuss this issue without referring to a lot of history and to be truthful, it is also not possible to simply say that Aslan or myself simply 'sidestep' the issue.

We don't condone the concept of slavery which appears to be in your mind, but we recognize that in the ancient near east, there were many FORMS of slavery, we just use the one word for them all. Perhaps this is our biggest problem. There is a world of difference between a person captured from an invading army (who were not successful) and who is then enslaved as forced labor, and a man who willingly offers himself to a creditor to make up for a debt owed. Both were called 'slavery' but they are obviously not the same. Dare I say "even" you can see this ? :) at risk or your wrath, but its downright true.

Some forms of attachment to others for labor, (a better term) clearly had a social welfare goal in mind. You need to read up on this very comprehensively. Not ALL slavery was as manifested in the American south and other plantation colonies of the past.