Talk Reason Letters

Talk Reason Letters http://www.talkreason.org/Forum.cfm Talk Reason is designed to provide a forum for articles arguing against modern creationism in all of its forms. en-us http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Wed, 16 May 2012 19:48:28 EST TalkReason.org http://www.talkreason.org/img/feather_books.gif http://www.talkreason.org Against the free will defense The Problem with this argument is that we can make a reasonable case that God would have no problem reducing FW for a specified amount of time (sleeping), but that still gives the sleeper the ability to choose whatever actions he/she wants. However, stopping people from committing an evil act is a true interference of FW for the person that wants to commit it. In short, eradicating evil acts affects the range of actions that a person can do while sleeping merely affects the time one has to to them. http://www.talkreason.org/Forum.cfm?MESSAGEID=979 michael_lehrer@yahoo.com (Lehrer,Michael) Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST publication policy I don't think that I have ever come across so blatantly biased a publication policy as yours. So you want to completely ignore any contrary comments? And you view this as "reason"? The value of contrary comments is that they can serve to sharpen one's understanding. You have provided a forum in which like-minded people can reinforce one another's beliefs, but that's about it. Learning involves real debate. That can't happen here. Consider this simple fact: either the universe is the result of an accident or it is not (a "perfect disjunction"). The latter position is that of the ID enthusiasts and it is considered unscientific (for well-considered reasons). But theories in the former category (e.g., the scenario of the multiverse) are routinely criticized for being nonfalsifiable. That would make them unscientific. Either way we go, we have a serious problem. And you don't want to even look at it? Oh, BTW, I'm not a creationist. http://www.talkreason.org/Forum.cfm?MESSAGEID=977 mgchannon@live.com (Channon,Martin ) Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST Can we disprove Judaism Hi there. I grew up religious but now think there is a strong possibility that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are based on no more than mythologies, just like the Greek mythology, Norse mythology, and so on. The trouble is, I am not 100% sure of this. Or even 99.9999% sure. I have a feeling that with a good understanding of science, and an in-depth understanding of the Bible (more specifically, the Torah in its original Hebrew, as well as authoritative Talmudic commentary on it) we can DISPROVE that the events described there, which give authority to the entire laws and pronunciations that we are expected to abide by, never happened. If they never happened, I see no reason to go ahead and invent other religions as we'd clearly know they are invented. This would discredit pretty much all religions based on Judaism as well, since they rely on it being true. The only concern I have is that atheists might be wrong about the Torah, and the authority-granting events really did happen as described (red sea splitting, Torah being given on mount Sinai, etc). I am having a very hard time finding contradictions between a) something in the Torah that all mainstream Jewish interpretations hold to be true (this excludes literal interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2, making the job harder) and b) facts established to 99.9% or better certainty, using some kind of research. Whether it use history, physics, biology or something else. At the same time, I have to allow for the possibility of miracles to have happened. That is, events that would normally not happen in our everyday world, and which our current science could not explain. For example, I cannot ask "how did all the animals fit into the ark, how did they survive the voyage" because the answer would be "miraculously". However, even miracles cannot explain some contradictions. For example, if I could prove that birds for sure evolved after land animals, then no miracle can explain the ORDER being wrong in Genesis 1. But then, not everyone takes Genesis 1 literally. The other problem is language. For example, I could point out that the hare (or rabbit or bunny) does not chew its own cud. But then an apologist could come back and say that this referred to an animal that is not the hare, or no longer exists. I would need a thorough research to PROVE this is really the hare that was referred to. This leaves very little. Assuming all Jews believe the flood story, can we show with 99.9% certainty that some civilizations persisted before and after the flood? How do we do this? Carbon 14 dating has had hiccups in the past. Is there ONE CLEAR DISPROOF of the Torah? If so, can someone point me to it? Thank you. Sincerely, Gregory Magarshak http://www.talkreason.org/Forum.cfm?MESSAGEID=983 gregory@gregory.net (Magarshak,Gregory ) Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:00:00 EST