...so read Irreducible Mind if you want to see that evidence...
You could also read your Bible. Jesus in particular gives us some strategic insight into the world beyond our material realm. The uncanny accuracy of biblical prophecies is evidence of God's insight into the future. Jesus said:
John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
Jesus claimed to be God in human form. He claimed to have come to earth from another dimension he called heaven. He proved his deity conquering the physical limitation of death.
You are right, there is a higher transcendent realm, above our physical existence. However, the materialistic oriented Western mind will not even entertain the thought of a spiritual dimension in the universe.
For me the debate would be settled by merely building a computer can be programmed in English, German, Chinese or any other human language. By programming, I do not mean something trivial like "hello world", but writing an operating system or even only a word processor, the same way that someone today writes a novel or poem.
....let alone all five senses to create something that can perceive the world....
When will somebody create a robot which will travel down the street on a standard bicycle, not holding onto the handlebars? The robot will also have to avoid all obstacles and traffic. Then such a robot has to go into a grocery store, buy some eggs and chewing gum. Then it has to bring the eggs home, all the while chewing some of the gum. After all, most 10 year old kids can do that rather well.
...So, 9 years from now, the computers of the day will be 64 times more powerful than today's....
Does that mean that Windows 7 and all available software for today is 64 times more useful or better, however you want to define that, than what was available nine years ago?
Computers have to be programmed, and so far at least, all meaningful programs originate in human minds. No computer can write, for example, a word processor or a program like Photoshop, all on its own, without human help. I really have my doubts that day will ever come, at least not in our lifetime.
....simulations of the human brain accurate down to the individual neuron could easily achieve this...
This depends on the underlying assumptions you make. If you assume that the brain and its chemistries and the mind are one and the same, you might be right. It looks like however, that the state of the art has a long way to go.
However, if you assume (believe) the mind and consciousness of a human being are part of an immaterial, higher dimension, other than the physical, then nobody will EVER simulate a human mind in a physical computer. I believe the human personality and consciousness can and do exist completely apart and beyond the body and its brain. The mind and soul (old-fashioned word) now live in a physical body in the same way that our physical bodies live in houses. This is something that Jesus Christ believed and taught.
...a different type of intelligence... How many different types of intelligence are there? What is intelligence in the first place? Has someone who can solve differential equations greater intelligence than a native who can survive in the African jungle without being eaten, poisoning himself or starving? Can the intelligence even be measured? Are the applicable techniques that measure intelligence without reference to background or education? How can we have artificial intelligence if we don't really know what natural intelligence is or is supposed to be?
....I would say no, because time varies.... I would agree with you, but the difference could be more substantial than we imagined. The motion of the earth around the sun is governed by gravity, which depends on mass and distance as governed by the constant G. The motion of atoms is governed by the electric force and the Planck's constant h, which itself is distance and time-based, inversely proportional to the speed of light, 300,000,000 meters per second. The speed of light c, is governed by the virtual particles in space, as evidenced by the zero point energy. It is therefore possible, of which there are indications, that the nature of space itself determines time. As the universe expanded, space itself changed, as did the so-called constants upon which atomic frequencies depend.
The red shift, rather than representing time and distance, represents stretched light vibrations, because the speed of light was incredibly faster when the universe was small and hot. Therefore the atomic clock is only accurate now, short-term, but is useless for measuring long ages of time into the past, unless we can determine exactly how it changed since then.
...We used to pay for the entirety of the Federal Government's budget (including the military!) solely on import/export taxes....
That was before Marxist Communist ideas of wealth redistribution came into our government. Before then, all government expenditures were actually for GOVERNING. Now we not only redistribute forcibly collected taxes to the poor, but we give it to the rich bankers and corporations.
...All the encoder and decoder royalties are unchanged (still high).....
How much does an H264 encoder/decoder add to the cost of a computer? If an iTablet costing $500 has such a decoder, how much does that add to the price?
...Our relationship with the Universe is like this though.... which however assumes that the universe is eternally self existent i.e. God. We know from science and observation that this is not so. The universe had a beginning where all things started, including time.
Rather than the film analogy, I like the parade analogy. We humans are like the observers on the street corner. We see the parade units coming toward us down the block, round the corner and disappeared from sight. However God, in a higher dimension, is like the news crew in the Goodyear blimp. God sees a parade of time, all of it, before the units even form and after they disband.
If humans truly understood time, we would be accurately able to predict the future. By this I mean not just in vague terms, but specific things, such as predicting next 10 lottery numbers or exactly what would be printed on next week's Wall Street Journal stock pages. Apparently, we are not allowed to know the nature of time, even though we can measure time more accurately than any of the physical quantity.
In this context, the disciples of Jesus are asking him for the time of his return.
Acs 1:7 And He said to them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in His own authority.
The deeper question might be: Does anybody know what time is? Supposedly, we can now measure time even more accurately than before, but I still have not heard anybody tell me what the nature of time is. We experience it every day, but what is it really? Einstein pondered this and came up with a theory trying to explain time, space and gravity. We experience all three of these every day, but does anybody actually know what they are? Is the time as clocked by the motion of the earth the same as clock by a vibrating atom?
....The drivers license analogy is being used to shift some of the blame from the OS to its users.....
The analogy holds true, because most accidents by far are caused by faulty drivers, not by faulty cars. This harebrained idea will not prevent Internet crime, any more than drivers licenses have prevented car accidents.
Where do you get that idea? As a juror, you are only supposed to think about what is presented in court, not information you can gather on your own from any source. There are time-tested rules of evidence, by which it is determined what evidence may be admitted and what is excluded. In the end, you have to choose whom to believe. Do you believe the evidence presented by the prosecution or the defense?
Very often, no law is better than a bad law. Most of the laws, passed by Congress recently have been bad. Earmarks and pork barrel appropriations for example. Is raising the federal government debt ceiling a good thing? I have my doubts about that. Sometimes, gridlock in government is good. No action is better than bad action. A gridlocked government is also less likely to increase taxes on its citizens.
I always thought the mind expresses itself through the brain. How do you mean that?
(....Death is still likely to be incredibly painful and scary....) You're certainly right about that. Besides Jesus, what other religious founder promises you life and proved it by coming to life himself?
(....I have confidence and trust on my ability to reason....) I do also reason every day, but I also know, that reason has limits. There are things in this universe that are beyond science and reason.
(....Faith is to believe without sufficient evidence or reason...) The existence of the universe and life is sufficient reason for me to have faith, as well as millions of others. The distribution and reach of the Bible, as well as its life-changing power, as the word of God, is another good reason. What would be sufficient reason for you to believe what Jesus said and did?
(...Why the Bible and not the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, or the Tao Te Ching?...) There are many reasons, some of which I already gave you. The other books, like most human documents, were written by one person. The Bible, though penned by many, has one author. The burden of proof, as to why the Bible has endured is not on me, because I have told you of a supernatural origin. You reject that, so you have to come up with a natural explanation.
(...And Rama, for that matter...) Except Jesus lived again, physically, in a new supernatural body, yet visible, able to interact with people here on earth. The apostle Paul, in one of his letters writes this:
1Corinthians 15:6 Afterward He was seen by over five hundred brothers at once, of whom the greater part remain until this present day, but also some fell asleep.
There is no way around it, either he is right, or you are. To believe in his enduring message is more logical and reasonable than to believe you.
(....I will be properly briefed about the rules of evidence...) Indeed you would be and one of the things they would tell you first off, is to consider only evidence admitted to the court. To enforce that, they sometimes sequester juries.
(....That is an incredibly narrow-minded view...) You are indeed right about that. But there is a fact you cannot get around. Jesus' grave is empty. The people heard and saw him, walked 7 miles with him, ate with him and watched him eat with them. His enemies, those who had him crucified as well as the Roman government would have paraded his dead body around Jerusalem to show everybody that this resurrection rumor was false. The women could not have moved the 2 ton stone blocking the entrance to the grave, even if there had been no Roman guard. You have to deny the resurrection by faith, not by the reasoning you're so proud of.
(....No, it's only the big, important, life-altering truths that you've given up learning.....) What other life altering truth is greater and more important than the overcoming of death? What other truth is comparable to that? Why should I give up the most important life altering truth that was ever visited upon humanity? What truth is more important than life itself, eternal life? All other truths, are like a small hill compared to the Everest of this truth of life eternal. Is your life not important to you? Why can't I learn lesser truths, just because I hold the resurrection of Jesus Christ higher than any other?
(....A quick Google turns up this critique....) [...We have a 300+ year gap between the first entire Gospel manuscript and the time at which it was supposed to have been written....]
That is manifestly false. At least three of Gospels were written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The Gospel of John is the only one that may have been written after that, although there are some scholars who think that it was also written before the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. If these gospels were truly written as claimed here, then the historical authors would have surely mentioned
....then we still have to talk about whether they were sane.....
That depends upon your definition of sane. You have elevated logic, the ability of your mind as the final arbiter of all truth. Is it possible that there are some things in this world that are bigger than your mind? Is it possible that there's some things you have to simply believe, rather than try and figure out?
(....A deity has no such restriction....) That is true, that is why God promises that there will be a fair judgment for every single person that has ever lived. The reason that you think that killing of what you term innocent women and children is so terrible, is because your logical view of death is limited to the here and now. God is still going to judge the people that drowned in the flood, were incinerated in Sodom and Gomorrah and killed at his command. You look at death as the end, the ultimate punishment. God looks at death differently.
Everybody that has not accepted the forgiveness God offers in Jesus Christ, will be fairly judged on that last day. If you have told even a single lie, it will be brought up and you will have to explain yourself. For those who have accepted what Jesus Christ has done for them, the judgment has already taken place. Jesus Christ took the punishment I deserve. For this reason, my wicked deeds will not be mentioned at all.
(....You have your faith, and I don't....) In that sense, I suppose that is what it boils down to. However it is not that you don't have faith, but your faith is in the ability of your mind to reason. Faith begins where reason stops. God tells us in his word:
Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
(....the Garden of Eden was in America, and that godliness is correlated with skin tone? What do you say to such people?...) As in science and engineering, there has to be a standard. For me, the standard is the Bible, as it has been transmitted to us over the ages. The Bible stands high above other books. How do you explain that the Bible has endured it for centuries, as the most widely distributed book, if it is not the word of God, supernaturally protected? None of the books presently on New York Times' bestseller list, will still have a readership of multiplied millions even only 50 years from now. No one will be avidly studying and discussing any of these, but millions studying the Bible every day. Why?
There are no human writings even remotely close to the Bible. Some of science and technology books are outdated before their ink is dry. Therefore, any philosophy or so-called revelation, that is not consistent with the Bible and a biblical worldview, is by definition wrong.
(...So is Muhammed, then....) Jesus is the only one who was physically resurrected. All the other religious gurus and Prophets are dead and buried. You can't, and neither can anybody else refute the resurrection. Many have tried with all sorts of weird theories. Jesus is also the only person that never sinned. He is unique. There has never been anyone like him. He is the same yesterday today and forever.
(.... I just happen to disagree.....) It is too bad that you disagree with the rules of evidence that have been established over centuries, but that is of course you're right. I just hope that nobody ever accused of a serious crime gets you on their jury. You could have your logic overrule the evidence presented in court.
(....you very likely haven't seriously considered any other explanation...) I only have to look at one thing that all non-Christian religions have in common. All their founders or leaders are dead. Why should I listen to someone who does not have the solution to the most vexing problem of humanity? Jesus alone solve the problem of death. Even if you deny the truth of the resurrection, it still is true that none of the others even make that claim.
....So we've also got a disembodied voice, which puts them back, roughly, on the same level as Paul....
The question you never answered is whether these witnesses wrote down the truth. Did they all actually hear a voice from heaven? I believe they did and you believe they didn't. I believe the gospel witnesses are truthful and you don't. If you have ever read at least the New Testament, you would know that Luke also wrote the book of Acts as well as his gospel. He writes this at the beginning of the book of Acts.
(....Yet he commanded the wholesale slaughter of the Canaanites.... God looks at sinners who refuse mercy in a similar way as surgeon looks at gangrene. If you would study history, you would learn that the Canaanites had terrible idolatrous practices, such as sacrificing their babies on the red-hot iron statue of Baal. When sin gets bad enough, God deals with it.
(....Even within the pages of the Bible, he frequently contradicts himself....) Maybe you can come up with one or two instances.
(....You have attempted to establish that they are true....) No, I assume, I believe they are true, just as I would believe a witness sworn to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, in a court of law. You have to come up with good reasons for your skepticism. You have to refute the witnesses. Just because you have never experienced someone rising from the dead, does not mean it could not have happened to Jesus, just as it is witnessed. Why do you not want to accept the procedure for establishing truth, that has worked reasonably well in courts of law for centuries?
(....Millions of Muslims assert that they are false....) Study life of Jesus and the life of Muhammad. For one thing, Muhammad is dead, so is Buddha and the rest. Jesus is alive. Christianity hangs on the truth of the resurrection. Many have tried to refute the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. He conquered death for all of us. Many have tried unsuccessfully, to prove that the resurrection of Jesus Christ never took place. You give it a try.
(....You've clearly gotten the rules of law mixed up....) You can ask almost any trial lawyer about this. Witnesses are sworn in court to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Witnesses are assumed to be truthful for this reason. Since you are skeptical or opposed to the witness of the Gospels, you have to come up with good reasons for your skepticism. So far you have not.
(.....Why not search for an argument which is actually sound?....) I don't have to come up with any arguments, because I simply assume, believe, that the witnesses are telling the truth. Jesus DID rise from the dead. You have to tell me why you do not want to believe this.
(....I have occasionally asked God for some sort of a sign....) What sort of a sign? Ask God for a sign indeed, but also tell him that you will dedicate the rest of your life to him and mean it, when he does. Meanwhile, before he does, why don't you read the four Gospels through for yourself, instead of relying on secondhand knowledge? Study the life of Jesus to see for yourself what he was like. Assume for the moment that everything he said and did is absolutely true. Forgo a few movies or television shows or even --gasp-- slashdot.
(....I suspect it was first a human who convinced you of your faith....) Yes it was. However he was given information from God about me that only I and God knew. This is how I came to believe that this person was speaking truth to me.
(....Do you believe it to be true or not?....) In the Gospels we are talking about eyewitnesses to the events. They actually walked with, talked with Jesus and the events around him. Was this also recorded of Homer? I have not studied this, so I don't know.
(.....Given the Gospel authors do not name themselves...) However many scholars studying church history their whole life, are mostly agreed on the given authorship of the Gospels.
(...However, we aren't dealing with eyewitnesses....) Witnesses don't have to be ali
....Armin, How do you feel about the Chinese government influencing US politics through some US corporate subsidiary?....
As long as their ads prominently and openly states that the source of funds, why not? People are not stupid. If they were plainly told who was behind the ad, they would certainly take that into account. At least I would. In the end, ads can only persuade, but not control the outcome. If the source of the money behind the ad is clearly and prominently identified, it should be OK.
Would you vote for a candidate whose campaign was clearly financed by the Chinese or other foreign government? I wouldn't, would you? The SCOTUS only prevents the outright prohibition of corporate financing. This does not mean there can't be regulations about disclosure and other rules.
...The gumball machine does not have constitutional rights, dammit!.... Ha ha, I would certainly agree with that. However a corporation is not a piece of property, but an assemblage of people with common goals. The analogy is faulty in this regard. The question really is whether groups of people have the same rights as a group as they have as individuals.
Would you have a problem, if one multi-millionaire gumball machines owner spent $10,000 on a full-page ad trying to persuade people to vote for a candidate who was favorably disposed toward gumballs? What if 100 people got together, who love gumballs, but spent $100 each toward such an ad? What, if any, is the difference here? If that group of people calls themselves a corporation, would they suddenly not be allowed to purchase the ad?
In my opinion, the SCOTUS upheld the right of free speech for everybody, whether speaking individually or as groups of individuals who pool their resources.
(....that fictional person, according to this doctrine, has rights unto itself. That's what I have a problem with...)
I can see that, but then how do a number of people get together to speak as a group? How for example, would a group of people get together to pay for a full-page political ad in the New York Times? If you would not outright prohibit such a thing, what would be a mechanism for this? How can a group of people pool their resources and speak with one voice?
....they have only his word that he's the Son of God....
This clearly shows that you have never read the four Gospels. There were at least two occasions, where God personally testified from heaven to three or more witnesses, that Jesus is the son of God. You can read it here: Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5
(...nowhere within any of the Gospels does the Gospel author name himself...) People did not make a big deal of themselves back then. The Gospel of Luke for example was written to a guy named Theophilus. Some scholars believe, with good reason, that this Gospel was used in the defense of the apostle Paul before the Caesar.
(...But the more important question is, do you believe her?...) No, of course not, because God never contradicts himself. He said in his Word, the 10 Commandments, "thou shalt not commit murder".
(...That is because I am not trying to establish something....) Yes you are, you're trying to establish that the Gospels are false, just made-up stories instead of factual events that happened in history. I and millions of Christians assert that these stories are true history. Historians and courts of law assume truth. You dispute this truth, so you have to come up with good evidence why.
(... Is your goal really to convince me that you are right about the legal system, or is it to convince me that you're right about the existence of God?...) Neither. My goal is to persuade you to diligently pursue the truth of this matter, because your eternal destiny hangs in the balance. I would like very much to see you with me in eternity, both of us rejoicing before God, even though we would likely never meet here on earth, although I would welcome that also. My basic assumption is, which I believe is correct, is that you are interested in truth.
You could try something like this in your quest for truth: "Dear God I am not even sure at this point whether you exist. However I am willing to read the four Gospels to find out once and for all, whether the message is true. If I am persuaded by you, I give myself to you unconditionally."
(...you have a lot of work to do...) Neither I or any other human being can convince you of the truth of God in the Bible. No other human being can get you to want to obey the will of God. However, God by the agency of the Holy Spirit, He can and will do this, if you ask them in all honesty and humility.
(...Do you assume the Illiad is true?...) There may be elements of truth, but the question I would ask is this: is homer or whoever wrote this poem an eyewitness to all this? Was he actually there? Did he even talk to eyewitnesses?
(...Why is it that if someone today said "I am the son of God"....) If such a person could control the weather, multiply bread, control wild animals, demons, heal terrible diseases, raise the dead and live a perfect sin free life, I would believe. If provided that finally, if a person made such a claim, here he would have to die at a public execution and then come to life again after a few days.
Anyone who could NOT do all of that could be safely ignored, but the world has not been able to ignore Jesus Christ.
(...What is divine about condoning...) God is a realist who realizes that this world is thoroughly messed up by sin. All of that horrible long list you mentioned is the result of the cancer of sin on earth. In God's time, in God's way, it will be dealt with.
(...So am I corrupt, are my deeds vile?...) No more than I am, but I have received forgiveness, which you so far have rejected. It is not the corruption and vileness of people or their evil, that keeps people away from God, but their refusal to believe God, admit their sins and receive total forgiveness.
(....So am I to take that as a "No", or as a "Yes, in Heaven"? I did not qualify "live forever" with any sort of requirement that it be "here on earth."....)
It is God's desire, that humans should be comfortable and happy in his presence. After man sinned, he has been running away from God. All m
....corporations are literally the property of their shareholders.... No, you have the wrong again. The ASSETS of the corporation are property, not the corporation itself. The shareholders don't own the corporation, but they have a SHARE of the property and profits of the Corporation. Corporations can own other corporations which in turn can own any others.
(....Can they vote? Can they bear arms? Why not?....)
For the longest time women did not have the right to vote. Neither did blacks. They were given that right later. Society that makes laws enabling corporations can allow or deny certain rights that are not HUMAN rights. When our forefathers formed a government on this continent, they were keenly aware that all human governments are proxies for the government of God. Our modern society has forgotten that. Our forefathers were aware that human beings were given certain rights by their Creator. The Creator never made corporations. The question is whether God given rights enshrined in the Constitution apply only to individual people or apply equally to groups of people as a whole. Evidently, the SCOTUS decided that the right of free expression accorded to individuals also applies to groups of individuals, such as corporations or unions. I agree with them on that.
Corporations can do and hire armed guards. Is that what you mean by bear arms?
(...And exactly what types of collectives can we now welcome among our citizenry?...) Corporations, unions, and other affinity groups of individuals all have certain legal limitations and obligations formulated by our society. It is a basic human right to form groups, but society has a right and obligation to see to it that these groups do not produce harm for the entire society. Any group or individual that resorts to criminal or terrorist means to try to impose their view on everybody must be stopped and made ineffective. A group like the Klu Klux Klan for example, may try by peaceful means to persuade others, but not by force or intimidation.
The SCOTUS decision does not prevent government from regulating group speech and other behavior, but it does not allow government to prohibit such speech completely. One regulation, if it does not exist already, would be that each group must acknowledge that it is behind the funding of a given message. They could also be required to clearly identify the ultimate source of all funds used to pay for the propagation of the message. This court decision is not the end of the world.
You have that wrong. Corporations are simply groups of people who have a common goal, usually to make money. Property can be owned by individuals or groups of individuals. People have certain rights, regardless whether individual or as a group. One of these rights is to own property.
Slashdot Mirror
...so read Irreducible Mind if you want to see that evidence...
You could also read your Bible. Jesus in particular gives us some strategic insight into the world beyond our material realm. The uncanny accuracy of biblical prophecies is evidence of God's insight into the future. Jesus said:
John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
Jesus claimed to be God in human form. He claimed to have come to earth from another dimension he called heaven. He proved his deity conquering the physical limitation of death.
You are right, there is a higher transcendent realm, above our physical existence. However, the materialistic oriented Western mind will not even entertain the thought of a spiritual dimension in the universe.
...For us, the debate will be settled ...
For me the debate would be settled by merely building a computer can be programmed in English, German, Chinese or any other human language. By programming, I do not mean something trivial like "hello world", but writing an operating system or even only a word processor, the same way that someone today writes a novel or poem.
....let alone all five senses to create something that can perceive the world....
When will somebody create a robot which will travel down the street on a standard bicycle, not holding onto the handlebars? The robot will also have to avoid all obstacles and traffic. Then such a robot has to go into a grocery store, buy some eggs and chewing gum. Then it has to bring the eggs home, all the while chewing some of the gum. After all, most 10 year old kids can do that rather well.
...So, 9 years from now, the computers of the day will be 64 times more powerful than today's....
Does that mean that Windows 7 and all available software for today is 64 times more useful or better, however you want to define that, than what was available nine years ago?
Computers have to be programmed, and so far at least, all meaningful programs originate in human minds. No computer can write, for example, a word processor or a program like Photoshop, all on its own, without human help. I really have my doubts that day will ever come, at least not in our lifetime.
....simulations of the human brain accurate down to the individual neuron could easily achieve this...
This depends on the underlying assumptions you make. If you assume that the brain and its chemistries and the mind are one and the same, you might be right. It looks like however, that the state of the art has a long way to go.
However, if you assume (believe) the mind and consciousness of a human being are part of an immaterial, higher dimension, other than the physical, then nobody will EVER simulate a human mind in a physical computer. I believe the human personality and consciousness can and do exist completely apart and beyond the body and its brain. The mind and soul (old-fashioned word) now live in a physical body in the same way that our physical bodies live in houses. This is something that Jesus Christ believed and taught.
...a different type of intelligence...
How many different types of intelligence are there? What is intelligence in the first place? Has someone who can solve differential equations greater intelligence than a native who can survive in the African jungle without being eaten, poisoning himself or starving? Can the intelligence even be measured? Are the applicable techniques that measure intelligence without reference to background or education? How can we have artificial intelligence if we don't really know what natural intelligence is or is supposed to be?
....I would say no, because time varies....
I would agree with you, but the difference could be more substantial than we imagined. The motion of the earth around the sun is governed by gravity, which depends on mass and distance as governed by the constant G. The motion of atoms is governed by the electric force and the Planck's constant h, which itself is distance and time-based, inversely proportional to the speed of light, 300,000,000 meters per second. The speed of light c, is governed by the virtual particles in space, as evidenced by the zero point energy. It is therefore possible, of which there are indications, that the nature of space itself determines time. As the universe expanded, space itself changed, as did the so-called constants upon which atomic frequencies depend.
The red shift, rather than representing time and distance, represents stretched light vibrations, because the speed of light was incredibly faster when the universe was small and hot. Therefore the atomic clock is only accurate now, short-term, but is useless for measuring long ages of time into the past, unless we can determine exactly how it changed since then.
...We used to pay for the entirety of the Federal Government's budget (including the military!) solely on import/export taxes....
That was before Marxist Communist ideas of wealth redistribution came into our government. Before then, all government expenditures were actually for GOVERNING. Now we not only redistribute forcibly collected taxes to the poor, but we give it to the rich bankers and corporations.
...All the encoder and decoder royalties are unchanged (still high).....
How much does an H264 encoder/decoder add to the cost of a computer? If an iTablet costing $500 has such a decoder, how much does that add to the price?
...cannot be distributed in countries that recognize MPEG LA members' patents....
Except that we can all hope, that the Supreme Court will invalidate or at least severely limit all software patents.
...Our relationship with the Universe is like this though....
which however assumes that the universe is eternally self existent i.e. God. We know from science and observation that this is not so. The universe had a beginning where all things started, including time.
Rather than the film analogy, I like the parade analogy. We humans are like the observers on the street corner. We see the parade units coming toward us down the block, round the corner and disappeared from sight. However God, in a higher dimension, is like the news crew in the Goodyear blimp. God sees a parade of time, all of it, before the units even form and after they disband.
If humans truly understood time, we would be accurately able to predict the future. By this I mean not just in vague terms, but specific things, such as predicting next 10 lottery numbers or exactly what would be printed on next week's Wall Street Journal stock pages. Apparently, we are not allowed to know the nature of time, even though we can measure time more accurately than any of the physical quantity.
In this context, the disciples of Jesus are asking him for the time of his return.
Acs 1:7 And He said to them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in His own authority.
....Does anybody really know what time it is?....
The deeper question might be: Does anybody know what time is? Supposedly, we can now measure time even more accurately than before, but I still have not heard anybody tell me what the nature of time is. We experience it every day, but what is it really? Einstein pondered this and came up with a theory trying to explain time, space and gravity. We experience all three of these every day, but does anybody actually know what they are? Is the time as clocked by the motion of the earth the same as clock by a vibrating atom?
....The drivers license analogy is being used to shift some of the blame from the OS to its users.....
The analogy holds true, because most accidents by far are caused by faulty drivers, not by faulty cars. This harebrained idea will not prevent Internet crime, any more than drivers licenses have prevented car accidents.
....allowed to think for themselves....
Where do you get that idea? As a juror, you are only supposed to think about what is presented in court, not information you can gather on your own from any source. There are time-tested rules of evidence, by which it is determined what evidence may be admitted and what is excluded. In the end, you have to choose whom to believe. Do you believe the evidence presented by the prosecution or the defense?
...and an ineffective government is bad.....
Very often, no law is better than a bad law. Most of the laws, passed by Congress recently have been bad. Earmarks and pork barrel appropriations for example. Is raising the federal government debt ceiling a good thing? I have my doubts about that. Sometimes, gridlock in government is good. No action is better than bad action. A gridlocked government is also less likely to increase taxes on its citizens.
....They drop out of Reed ...
and found Apple, now a $50Billion enterprise
.... Logic is also external to the mind....
I always thought the mind expresses itself through the brain. How do you mean that?
(....Death is still likely to be incredibly painful and scary....)
You're certainly right about that. Besides Jesus, what other religious founder promises you life and proved it by coming to life himself?
(....I have confidence and trust on my ability to reason....)
I do also reason every day, but I also know, that reason has limits. There are things in this universe that are beyond science and reason.
(....Faith is to believe without sufficient evidence or reason...)
The existence of the universe and life is sufficient reason for me to have faith, as well as millions of others. The distribution and reach of the Bible, as well as its life-changing power, as the word of God, is another good reason. What would be sufficient reason for you to believe what Jesus said and did?
(...Why the Bible and not the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, or the Tao Te Ching?...)
There are many reasons, some of which I already gave you. The other books, like most human documents, were written by one person. The Bible, though penned by many, has one author. The burden of proof, as to why the Bible has endured is not on me, because I have told you of a supernatural origin. You reject that, so you have to come up with a natural explanation.
(...And Rama, for that matter...)
Except Jesus lived again, physically, in a new supernatural body, yet visible, able to interact with people here on earth. The apostle Paul, in one of his letters writes this:
1Corinthians 15:6 Afterward He was seen by over five hundred brothers at once, of whom the greater part remain until this present day, but also some fell asleep.
There is no way around it, either he is right, or you are. To believe in his enduring message is more logical and reasonable than to believe you.
(....I will be properly briefed about the rules of evidence...)
Indeed you would be and one of the things they would tell you first off, is to consider only evidence admitted to the court. To enforce that, they sometimes sequester juries.
(....That is an incredibly narrow-minded view...)
You are indeed right about that. But there is a fact you cannot get around. Jesus' grave is empty. The people heard and saw him, walked 7 miles with him, ate with him and watched him eat with them. His enemies, those who had him crucified as well as the Roman government would have paraded his dead body around Jerusalem to show everybody that this resurrection rumor was false. The women could not have moved the 2 ton stone blocking the entrance to the grave, even if there had been no Roman guard. You have to deny the resurrection by faith, not by the reasoning you're so proud of.
(....No, it's only the big, important, life-altering truths that you've given up learning.....)
What other life altering truth is greater and more important than the overcoming of death? What other truth is comparable to that? Why should I give up the most important life altering truth that was ever visited upon humanity? What truth is more important than life itself, eternal life? All other truths, are like a small hill compared to the Everest of this truth of life eternal. Is your life not important to you? Why can't I learn lesser truths, just because I hold the resurrection of Jesus Christ higher than any other?
(....A quick Google turns up this critique ....)
[...We have a 300+ year gap between the first entire Gospel manuscript and the time at which it was supposed to have been written....]
That is manifestly false. At least three of Gospels were written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The Gospel of John is the only one that may have been written after that, although there are some scholars who think that it was also written before the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. If these gospels were truly written as claimed here, then the historical authors would have surely mentioned
....then we still have to talk about whether they were sane.....
That depends upon your definition of sane. You have elevated logic, the ability of your mind as the final arbiter of all truth. Is it possible that there are some things in this world that are bigger than your mind? Is it possible that there's some things you have to simply believe, rather than try and figure out?
(....A deity has no such restriction....)
That is true, that is why God promises that there will be a fair judgment for every single person that has ever lived. The reason that you think that killing of what you term innocent women and children is so terrible, is because your logical view of death is limited to the here and now. God is still going to judge the people that drowned in the flood, were incinerated in Sodom and Gomorrah and killed at his command. You look at death as the end, the ultimate punishment. God looks at death differently.
Everybody that has not accepted the forgiveness God offers in Jesus Christ, will be fairly judged on that last day. If you have told even a single lie, it will be brought up and you will have to explain yourself. For those who have accepted what Jesus Christ has done for them, the judgment has already taken place. Jesus Christ took the punishment I deserve. For this reason, my wicked deeds will not be mentioned at all.
(....You have your faith, and I don't....)
In that sense, I suppose that is what it boils down to. However it is not that you don't have faith, but your faith is in the ability of your mind to reason. Faith begins where reason stops. God tells us in his word:
Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
(....the Garden of Eden was in America, and that godliness is correlated with skin tone? What do you say to such people?...)
As in science and engineering, there has to be a standard. For me, the standard is the Bible, as it has been transmitted to us over the ages. The Bible stands high above other books. How do you explain that the Bible has endured it for centuries, as the most widely distributed book, if it is not the word of God, supernaturally protected? None of the books presently on New York Times' bestseller list, will still have a readership of multiplied millions even only 50 years from now. No one will be avidly studying and discussing any of these, but millions studying the Bible every day. Why?
There are no human writings even remotely close to the Bible. Some of science and technology books are outdated before their ink is dry. Therefore, any philosophy or so-called revelation, that is not consistent with the Bible and a biblical worldview, is by definition wrong.
(...So is Muhammed, then....)
Jesus is the only one who was physically resurrected. All the other religious gurus and Prophets are dead and buried. You can't, and neither can anybody else refute the resurrection. Many have tried with all sorts of weird theories. Jesus is also the only person that never sinned. He is unique. There has never been anyone like him. He is the same yesterday today and forever.
(.... I just happen to disagree.....)
It is too bad that you disagree with the rules of evidence that have been established over centuries, but that is of course you're right. I just hope that nobody ever accused of a serious crime gets you on their jury. You could have your logic overrule the evidence presented in court.
(....you very likely haven't seriously considered any other explanation...)
I only have to look at one thing that all non-Christian religions have in common. All their founders or leaders are dead. Why should I listen to someone who does not have the solution to the most vexing problem of humanity? Jesus alone solve the problem of death. Even if you deny the truth of the resurrection, it still is true that none of the others even make that claim.
(...You are thus not on a quest to discover tr
....So we've also got a disembodied voice, which puts them back, roughly, on the same level as Paul....
The question you never answered is whether these witnesses wrote down the truth. Did they all actually hear a voice from heaven? I believe they did and you believe they didn't. I believe the gospel witnesses are truthful and you don't. If you have ever read at least the New Testament, you would know that Luke also wrote the book of Acts as well as his gospel. He writes this at the beginning of the book of Acts.
(....Yet he commanded the wholesale slaughter of the Canaanites....
God looks at sinners who refuse mercy in a similar way as surgeon looks at gangrene. If you would study history, you would learn that the Canaanites had terrible idolatrous practices, such as sacrificing their babies on the red-hot iron statue of Baal. When sin gets bad enough, God deals with it.
(....Even within the pages of the Bible, he frequently contradicts himself....)
Maybe you can come up with one or two instances.
(....You have attempted to establish that they are true....)
No, I assume, I believe they are true, just as I would believe a witness sworn to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, in a court of law. You have to come up with good reasons for your skepticism. You have to refute the witnesses. Just because you have never experienced someone rising from the dead, does not mean it could not have happened to Jesus, just as it is witnessed. Why do you not want to accept the procedure for establishing truth, that has worked reasonably well in courts of law for centuries?
(....Millions of Muslims assert that they are false....)
Study life of Jesus and the life of Muhammad. For one thing, Muhammad is dead, so is Buddha and the rest. Jesus is alive. Christianity hangs on the truth of the resurrection. Many have tried to refute the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. He conquered death for all of us. Many have tried unsuccessfully, to prove that the resurrection of Jesus Christ never took place. You give it a try.
(....You've clearly gotten the rules of law mixed up....)
You can ask almost any trial lawyer about this. Witnesses are sworn in court to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Witnesses are assumed to be truthful for this reason. Since you are skeptical or opposed to the witness of the Gospels, you have to come up with good reasons for your skepticism. So far you have not.
(.....Why not search for an argument which is actually sound?....)
I don't have to come up with any arguments, because I simply assume, believe, that the witnesses are telling the truth. Jesus DID rise from the dead. You have to tell me why you do not want to believe this.
(....I have occasionally asked God for some sort of a sign....)
What sort of a sign? Ask God for a sign indeed, but also tell him that you will dedicate the rest of your life to him and mean it, when he does. Meanwhile, before he does, why don't you read the four Gospels through for yourself, instead of relying on secondhand knowledge? Study the life of Jesus to see for yourself what he was like. Assume for the moment that everything he said and did is absolutely true. Forgo a few movies or television shows or even --gasp-- slashdot.
(....I suspect it was first a human who convinced you of your faith....)
Yes it was. However he was given information from God about me that only I and God knew. This is how I came to believe that this person was speaking truth to me.
(....Do you believe it to be true or not?....)
In the Gospels we are talking about eyewitnesses to the events. They actually walked with, talked with Jesus and the events around him. Was this also recorded of Homer? I have not studied this, so I don't know.
(.....Given the Gospel authors do not name themselves...)
However many scholars studying church history their whole life, are mostly agreed on the given authorship of the Gospels.
(...However, we aren't dealing with eyewitnesses....)
Witnesses don't have to be ali
....Armin, How do you feel about the Chinese government influencing US politics through some US corporate subsidiary?....
As long as their ads prominently and openly states that the source of funds, why not? People are not stupid. If they were plainly told who was behind the ad, they would certainly take that into account. At least I would. In the end, ads can only persuade, but not control the outcome. If the source of the money behind the ad is clearly and prominently identified, it should be OK.
Would you vote for a candidate whose campaign was clearly financed by the Chinese or other foreign government? I wouldn't, would you? The SCOTUS only prevents the outright prohibition of corporate financing. This does not mean there can't be regulations about disclosure and other rules.
...The gumball machine does not have constitutional rights, dammit!....
Ha ha, I would certainly agree with that. However a corporation is not a piece of property, but an assemblage of people with common goals. The analogy is faulty in this regard. The question really is whether groups of people have the same rights as a group as they have as individuals.
Would you have a problem, if one multi-millionaire gumball machines owner spent $10,000 on a full-page ad trying to persuade people to vote for a candidate who was favorably disposed toward gumballs? What if 100 people got together, who love gumballs, but spent $100 each toward such an ad? What, if any, is the difference here? If that group of people calls themselves a corporation, would they suddenly not be allowed to purchase the ad?
In my opinion, the SCOTUS upheld the right of free speech for everybody, whether speaking individually or as groups of individuals who pool their resources.
(....that fictional person, according to this doctrine, has rights unto itself. That's what I have a problem with...)
I can see that, but then how do a number of people get together to speak as a group? How for example, would a group of people get together to pay for a full-page political ad in the New York Times? If you would not outright prohibit such a thing, what would be a mechanism for this? How can a group of people pool their resources and speak with one voice?
....they have only his word that he's the Son of God....
This clearly shows that you have never read the four Gospels. There were at least two occasions, where God personally testified from heaven to three or more witnesses, that Jesus is the son of God. You can read it here: Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5
(...nowhere within any of the Gospels does the Gospel author name himself...)
People did not make a big deal of themselves back then. The Gospel of Luke for example was written to a guy named Theophilus. Some scholars believe, with good reason, that this Gospel was used in the defense of the apostle Paul before the Caesar.
(...But the more important question is, do you believe her?...)
No, of course not, because God never contradicts himself. He said in his Word, the 10 Commandments, "thou shalt not commit murder".
(...That is because I am not trying to establish something....)
Yes you are, you're trying to establish that the Gospels are false, just made-up stories instead of factual events that happened in history. I and millions of Christians assert that these stories are true history. Historians and courts of law assume truth. You dispute this truth, so you have to come up with good evidence why.
(... Is your goal really to convince me that you are right about the legal system, or is it to convince me that you're right about the existence of God?...)
Neither. My goal is to persuade you to diligently pursue the truth of this matter, because your eternal destiny hangs in the balance. I would like very much to see you with me in eternity, both of us rejoicing before God, even though we would likely never meet here on earth, although I would welcome that also. My basic assumption is, which I believe is correct, is that you are interested in truth.
You could try something like this in your quest for truth: "Dear God I am not even sure at this point whether you exist. However I am willing to read the four Gospels to find out once and for all, whether the message is true. If I am persuaded by you, I give myself to you unconditionally."
(...you have a lot of work to do...)
Neither I or any other human being can convince you of the truth of God in the Bible. No other human being can get you to want to obey the will of God. However, God by the agency of the Holy Spirit, He can and will do this, if you ask them in all honesty and humility.
(...Do you assume the Illiad is true?...)
There may be elements of truth, but the question I would ask is this: is homer or whoever wrote this poem an eyewitness to all this? Was he actually there? Did he even talk to eyewitnesses?
(...Why is it that if someone today said "I am the son of God"....)
If such a person could control the weather, multiply bread, control wild animals, demons, heal terrible diseases, raise the dead and live a perfect sin free life, I would believe. If provided that finally, if a person made such a claim, here he would have to die at a public execution and then come to life again after a few days.
Anyone who could NOT do all of that could be safely ignored, but the world has not been able to ignore Jesus Christ.
(...What is divine about condoning...)
God is a realist who realizes that this world is thoroughly messed up by sin. All of that horrible long list you mentioned is the result of the cancer of sin on earth. In God's time, in God's way, it will be dealt with.
(...So am I corrupt, are my deeds vile?...)
No more than I am, but I have received forgiveness, which you so far have rejected. It is not the corruption and vileness of people or their evil, that keeps people away from God, but their refusal to believe God, admit their sins and receive total forgiveness.
(....So am I to take that as a "No", or as a "Yes, in Heaven"? I did not qualify "live forever" with any sort of requirement that it be "here on earth."....)
It is God's desire, that humans should be comfortable and happy in his presence. After man sinned, he has been running away from God. All m
....corporations are literally the property of their shareholders....
No, you have the wrong again. The ASSETS of the corporation are property, not the corporation itself. The shareholders don't own the corporation, but they have a SHARE of the property and profits of the Corporation. Corporations can own other corporations which in turn can own any others.
(....Can they vote? Can they bear arms? Why not?....)
For the longest time women did not have the right to vote. Neither did blacks. They were given that right later. Society that makes laws enabling corporations can allow or deny certain rights that are not HUMAN rights. When our forefathers formed a government on this continent, they were keenly aware that all human governments are proxies for the government of God. Our modern society has forgotten that. Our forefathers were aware that human beings were given certain rights by their Creator. The Creator never made corporations. The question is whether God given rights enshrined in the Constitution apply only to individual people or apply equally to groups of people as a whole. Evidently, the SCOTUS decided that the right of free expression accorded to individuals also applies to groups of individuals, such as corporations or unions. I agree with them on that.
Corporations can do and hire armed guards. Is that what you mean by bear arms?
(...And exactly what types of collectives can we now welcome among our citizenry?...)
Corporations, unions, and other affinity groups of individuals all have certain legal limitations and obligations formulated by our society. It is a basic human right to form groups, but society has a right and obligation to see to it that these groups do not produce harm for the entire society. Any group or individual that resorts to criminal or terrorist means to try to impose their view on everybody must be stopped and made ineffective. A group like the Klu Klux Klan for example, may try by peaceful means to persuade others, but not by force or intimidation.
The SCOTUS decision does not prevent government from regulating group speech and other behavior, but it does not allow government to prohibit such speech completely. One regulation, if it does not exist already, would be that each group must acknowledge that it is behind the funding of a given message. They could also be required to clearly identify the ultimate source of all funds used to pay for the propagation of the message. This court decision is not the end of the world.
....Corporations are property....
You have that wrong. Corporations are simply groups of people who have a common goal, usually to make money. Property can be owned by individuals or groups of individuals. People have certain rights, regardless whether individual or as a group. One of these rights is to own property.