Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List


subscribe to our mailing list:



SECTIONS

Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes

Counter-Apologetics

Serious Notions with a Smile

Miscellaneous

Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site

Letters

[Create a New Thread] [Letters Index]

Title Author Date
Why Judaism? Michael Jan 17, 2004
very interesting site. but I can't help but to wonder: why are so many topics devoted to challenging Judaism in particular, but not other religions? just wondering.

Peace,

Michael
read replies (1)
write a reply
 

Title Author Date
Thermodynamics and information Meeker , Brent Jan 07, 2004
I enjoyed Lucia Hall's address. It was an excellent summary and call to arms. However it includes a small mistake. It is asserted that there is a 'no increase of information' principle related to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Information can be increased by random processes, as in quantum events. See Vic Stenger's book "Has Science Found God?" he has a whole chapter on it in his critique of Dembski.

write a reply
Related Article(s):
Religion and skepticism: can (and should!) skeptics challenge religion?

Title Author Date
My Unified Theory of Evolution James , Christian Dec 18, 2003
Dear Sir/Madame:

I have developed a new theoretical perspective of evolution and I would sincerely appreciate it if you could review it and provide me with any feedback at all. 'The Unified Theory of Evolution' views evolution as proactive and conscious. Please review my theory at www.veritasbrief.com in Part 2. Thank you.

write a reply
 

Title Author Date
Reply to A List of Some Problematic Issues Thomas, Dylan Dec 05, 2003
I just finished reading Zeligman's 48-page "A List of Some Problematic Issues Concerning Orthodox Jewish Belief."

He's obviously very intelligent and very deeply into what I as a Christian call the Old Testament, not to mention the Mishnah, Talmud and other halachic works related to it.

I can't fault his work. But I do have something of a "so what?" attitude. Learning of these errors, inconsistencies, etc., doesn't bother me or my faith, because I do not and never have accepted the idea that God dictated to Moses every word or anything remotely close to that. So I haven't been riding some delicate glass chariot in the sky to have shattered under me, leaving me to plunge down into the canyons of atheism or agnosticism.

For me, whatever else God may be, God is also mystery. Different people become inspired in various ways, and with their inspired imaginations they write within the cultural context of their times.

If the Torah writers (J, E, D, P & R) believed in the kinds of miracles described could happen and if their readers also believed, then who are we to scoff at them? Maybe by the sixth millennium CE people will look back at us and our spiritual writings (say, John Polkinghorne) and think we are as superstitious as we think J, E, D, P & R are.

I've recently read William James' VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE and agree with him almost 100 percent. Religion does not arise from rational sources, nor necessarily from irrational, but from non-rational or a-rational sources.

I personally have had religious experiences that lead me to believe I have encountered the God who is mystery. And I haven't lost my grip on reality.

I have read enough of relativity theory, quantum theory and evolutionary theory to accept them, and to condition my religious experience accordingly.

I really don't have a problem with this, my friends. I just don't see what Zeligman sees as "problematic issues."
Here's what I believe in regards to evolution:

1. God created evolution, both in its inception (abiogenesis) and in its ongoingness: random changes in alleles in a gene pool acted on by natural selection.

2. Consequently, God allows for randomicity to occur in nature, including the creation of new and novel DNA.

3. New insights by brilliant thinkers (I'm thinking of Stephen Gould now) will continue to appear. And new discoveries will be made, such as the observation of "dark energy" theoretically linked to the equally startling observation that the expansion of the universe is speeding up!

This last example is not biological evolution, I know, but to my mind everything is linked. For instance, the so-called anthropic coincidences are interlinked with biological evolution.

So why do I have a Creator God at all? Why do I worship? Because the fruits of my religion are love, justice, mercy, kindness, faith, hope, etc. This is all the justification I need.

My God is an evolutionist and does roll dice!

Therefore, love, mercy and justice to all,

Jude

write a reply
Related Article(s):
A List of Some Problematic Issues

Title Author Date
Is this one instance "proof" (VERY strong evidence) for God and Torah--I hope not!!!! Feldman, S. Nov 17, 2003
If there's a real god and a real bible, one would expect god to want us to think and study It's creation, rather than put up our feet on the kitchen table and drink a beer, watching sports. I think I found evidence, strong evidence, nearly proof. Shucks!

Regarding Kings I, 7:23, Zeligman states, "Even in plain geometry we find Chazal determining laws based on homiletics, and only afterwards trying to make the facts fit these laws. In Tractate Eiruvin 14a the Talmud says:
"Anything which has, in its circumference, 3 tefachs, has one tefach in diameter. How do we know this? Rabbi Jochanan said, it is written in the Scripture: 'And he [Solomon] made a molten sea, ten amahs from one brim to the other. It was round all about, and its height was five amahs. And a line of thirty amahs circled it' (I Kings 7:23)."
The Talmud rules that the ratio between a circle's circumference and its radius, known as pi, is 3. In fact, this number is irrational (impossible to represent as a finite common or decimal fraction), and taken to 10 decimal places, pi=3.1415926536."

I've discovered the following: So, Kings I says that the diameter = 10 cubits, circumfrence = 30 cubits. But pi = 3.14159264!!! The bible made a mistake! It should have given it a 31.4 cubit circumfrence. So how round does this yam have to be? Well, there's always an error in what we do. But wait! The hebrew word for "kav" (border) is supposed to be spelled "kuf" "vav", yet in the Bible it is spelled "kuf" "vav" "hay". What's going on here? Well, the bible is saying, in terms of the numerical value (AKA the gematria, which is explained at this webpage: http://www.inner.org/gematria/gemchart.htm) for "border", to essentially "take 106 parts (the numerical value of "kuf" "vav")and replace it with 111 parts (the numerical value of "kuf" "vav" "hay"." The correction factor is 111/106 (or, 1.0471698). Now, it says (in Kings) that pi = 3. But the deeper reading of the text is telling us to replace that value--to replace every 106 parts with 111--and if we do the multiplication (3*1.0471698) we get 3.1415094, the value of pi to 4 decimal places (an error of 9 parts in 10^-5)! It turns out that if you analyze the error in the numerator (the error in the bible's use of "kuf" "vav" and "hay", or 111), it turns out that this spelling yields the best approximation of pi.

Is this evidence that the bible is from god?
read replies (1)
write a reply
Related Article(s):
A List of Some Problematic Issues

Previous | | Next