Dear Waterboy,

Theology can be divorced from scientific reasoning for the reasons you’ve pointed out. But I don’t believe we can divorce theology from objective reasoning entirely if we really care about whether or not our beliefs are true.

Dear Crasby,

Reality is the state of the world as it really is, not what we want it to be. If a god exists, then he/she/it would be a part of our own reality (natural or supernatural). Anyone who invents their own alternate reality could be described as delusional.

Pericles
'It has been long established that it is tough to prove a negative. Simply giving it a fancy new name does not constitute original thought, nor does it add to anyone's understanding of logic or argument.'
No problem with most of that. The argument here is that is that the inability to prove the negative is used as proof of the positive. Make that final step and you have it. The important part is that it divorces us from reality.

'>>Do you understand that it is impossible to know what the side effects of a new technology until that technology is introduced?<<
I can indeed accept that, no problem.'

Now just go one step further. Can I claim that there will be no side effects on the basis that I cannot find any before the technology is introduced? Claiming the negative because we cannot prove the positive. The important part is that it divorces us from reality.

In your last post you attempted in several places to claim truth on the basis that I could not prove the opposite. That is out of touch with reality, hence my suggestion about your relationship with the fairies.

You tried to state my reasons and motivations. That really is out of touch with reality.
You cannot, and never will be able to do that.

It is impossible to model outcomes before the technology is introduced because it is impossible to know what to model before it exist.

The Hadron Collider. Will there be negative side effects? possibly. Will we ever wish we had never built it? possibly. Do we know if there will be side effects? NO.

Oliver
[28] And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
[29] For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

The word 'one' was not in the original Greek text. Read it without the 'one'. 'For he taught them as having authority'. It is a clear statement of 'people power'. Take out the Christian 'add-ons' and this is the real Jesus.

Daviy,

My recent posts in this thread refer to the religious interpretation, wherein, Jesus is taken by religionists, to enact a new covenant as "substitutionary ransom for sin". Here, he was said, to replace the old relationship with the new relationship. Also,it claimed, he asserted his authority to do so, as you rightfully state.

In aforementioned frame, the confabulation of events expands the revised domain of the godhead, to include non-Jews. Else put, the religionists claim, the Son is sent to “save the World”.

Of course, the writers of religious scriptures re-engineered historical events to suit their own non-historical purposes.

The historical Jesus is best seen from the perspective of a Jewish mendicant preaching to the Gentiles * (god fearers) in the first century and early second century: The time before the fall of the Second Temple and prior the Jews exile to Pella.

After the Pella exile,under the first Gentile bishop, Marcus (Mack), the god fearers (i.e., Judaized Gentiles) became proto-Christians. Their ruse to regain entry to the Holy Lands for Jewish worship, ultimately provided a seed from which Latin Christianity could develop.

Linguistically, if well educated, Jesus would have a knowledge Hebrew, Aramaic and the nuances of Attic Greek. Subsequent religious recordings in Koine Greek are likely to be tainted with their authors’ new agenda. By the time of Nicaea, Attic Greek, the rich court language of the Macedonians, would have been largely un-used.Instead, we have Vulgar Latin and Koine Greek.

Regards,

O.

* The historical role of the House of David under the wider administration of the Herodian dynasty (Theiring).

Still very much OT, I'm afraid, but irresistible.

>>The argument here is that is that the inability to prove the negative is used as proof of the positive. Make that final step and you have it.<<

I understand the concept. It is that "final step" that you failed to establish when you were putting the theory together. You simply make the assumption that it is actually the "inability to prove" that is used as proof. You provide no evidence for this being so.

The example you gave, and from which you named your theory, was the use of a nuclear weapon on Hiroshima without due care and attention to possible collateral damage. The step from "calculated risk" to "judging the negative to be true because we cannot prove the positive" is unsupported. And in my view, insupportable.

As is the reverse.

The example you put forward - that Iraq was invaded because "Saddam Hussein was thinking about producing weapons of mass destruction" - clearly does not make your case, since it is not factual.

>>It is impossible to model outcomes before the technology is introduced because it is impossible to know what to model before it exist.<<

You must be using the narrowest possible definition of "technology" for this to be true. Even Oppenheimer's team were able to work through equations, even without the help of powerful computers, that gave them an idea of what the results of their efforts would be. Did they know for certain? Of course not. They couldn't. But no-one at the time, or since, ever claimed that this was "judging the negative to be true". It was a calculated - and I mean that literally - risk.

As, of course, is the LHC.

>>The Hadron Collider. Will there be negative side effects? possibly. Will we ever wish we had never built it? possibly. Do we know if there will be side effects? NO.<<

If you applied your "theory", there would be no R&D. Ever. By definition. Because we can only ever use the information we have, not information that we don't have.

Fires have their uses. They clean out vermin, cleanse the land of useless vegetation, and make it possible for new life to flourish. They get rid of the dead wood, and all of a sudden where it was dangerous to ride, either a motorbike or a horse, the way is clear. The ash is a fertilizer, and the grass that grows back is extremely nutritious.

Let us hope the rats who have been governing Victoria, learn from the experience. It is time that the principles of Rylands V Fletcher were applied to the destructive saboteurs, who prevented the ordinary folk of Victoria from clearing around their homes, by fines and other hostile acts. The Principle of Rylands v Fletcher are that if a dangerous animal like a fire, escapes from your land, and burns out your neighbour, the damage must be paid for by the person from whose land the fire escaped.

The fires escaped from land controlled by the State of Victoria. The doctrine of State sovereignty, instead of the Sovereignty of Almighty God is the culprit. The State of Victoria assumed control of private land too, so by reference to S 64 Judiciary Act 1903, enacted to give effect to the Constitution, the State of Victoria is liable for all the damage caused by the disaster. KR is the federal leader, and he must stop the lawyers closing the doors of the Federal Court of Australia and let each and every Australian who suffered from the death and destruction brought about by the gross negligence of the leaders of Victoria, have a day in court if they want it.

Belief in Almighty God is central to justice. A fundamental concept at the very heart of English Law, that has been part of Australian law and Australian courts, since 1828, is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and every law that works towards corruption, has been illegal and void since 1297. A Judge or Magistrate is essentially a corrupt person, unless the option of a jury trial is offered. Jury trial is central to Christianity

Oliver
I lost interest in Theiring after 'Jesus the Man'. Often wild guesses masquerading as fact.
My preferred method of getting to know Jesus is to go to as close to original sources as possible and see what he had reportable said. Overly scholarly works leave me cold because they are often big on detail and short on essence.
The closest I could get in my research to original sources for Jesus was Matthew's Greek English interlinear New Testament. The Older version of KJV are not bad because of all the versions of the Bible it does at least put translators assumptions in italics.
The interesting thing for me was how the Christian version adds little bits in that on first glance change the text only minutely but actually change the whole meaning.
Whoever Jesus was he was not the Christian fabrication that is presented to us.
The problem I have with posts such as yours is that although there may well be academics amongst the participants lay members will not have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
I look forward to your reply, but could you please write it in English?