On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:52:45 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 2:32:21 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
>
> > That Gosse's theory is not falsifiable says nothing one way or the other about
> > whether creationism is falsifiable. Which it is not.
> >
> > Propose any contradiction to creationism you like, and the reply of a
> > creationist will be "god did it". Untestable, unfalsifiable.
> There is a difference between a theory that is not falsifiable, and a theory that
> is believed by people who are impervious to logic and reason.

That would be anyone who believes in a scientific theory of
creationism after having seen the evidence.

You opened this thread with the implicit assertion that creationism is a
theory.

If we take the "scientific creationists" at their word, then their theory would
be falsifiable. But as it has, endlessly, been shown to be wrong and they
yet cling to it, it was only a scientific theory in name. When, at least in
public, they say "god did it", they attempt to cloak that.

If on the other hand we deem, as I would, that creationism is not a theory
but rather a religious belief, the question of whether or not it can be falsified
is moot.

I have to admire George MacReady Price's commitment to young earth creationism.
He was, indeed impervious to logic and reason on this topic, but selfless. He worked
hard to push the dogma, and several times declined lucrative appointments
at Christian colleges as it would get in the way of his campaign.

The poor guy was always thrilled when they lured some scientist, usually a physicist
or chemist, into the fold. These were religious people, and at first prepared to believe
that those damned atheists were trying to pull one over. But one by one they
abandoned Price's beliefs, first the young-earth component, then creationism
itself.

As an old man he saw his life's work taken by Morris and Whitcomb for their
"The Genesis Flood", but he did not complain, quite the contrary. Getting the
message out was more important than getting credit for a lifetime of work.
Such dedication truly deserved a better cause.

William Hyde

On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 01:00:08 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 2:38:06 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
> > I think it would create difficulty if a Christian tried
> > to use that argument and then was told that
> > a consequence of that proposition is that Jesus
> > never lived, since the time in which he lived
> > never happened.
> >
> > It goes for Abraham as well.
> Of course, though, theologians had already considered
> it, and one theological position which developed in
> consequence was the one later made popular by the
> movie "The Matrix".
>
> If one holds that Jesus was no less real for walking
> the Earth when it was still in the Mind of God, then there
> is no reason for the last-Thursday sort of creation to
> ever happen. The world could _still_ be a thought within
> the Mind of God, rather than being made of actual
> substance with an (somewhat, in so far as is even possible)
> independent existence apart from God.

Hmm. Doctrine widely seems to be that Jesus already existed
as a god before he was born in the human way, but it's also
held to be quite important that he actually lived, and specifically
that he actually died.

Not to mention whether God actually created the world, or
is only pretending that the world is real. That's back to God
telling the truth again. And also there's the so-called "problem
of evil", and of sin, if what everything actually is is God having
thoughts. Including you.

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 6:52:26 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:

> You opened this thread with the implicit assertion that creationism is a
> theory.
>
> If we take the "scientific creationists" at their word, then their theory would
> be falsifiable. But as it has, endlessly, been shown to be wrong and they
> yet cling to it, it was only a scientific theory in name. When, at least in
> public, they say "god did it", they attempt to cloak that.
>
> If on the other hand we deem, as I would, that creationism is not a theory
> but rather a religious belief, the question of whether or not it can be falsified
> is moot.

Creationism is not a _scientific_ theory, since it was not arrived at
by a process of reasoning that can be described as scientific.

However, it is still a theory - or, at least, a hypothesis - about the
origin of living things in the real world. That does not conflict
with it _also_ being a religious belief. (Although normally the
religious belief is called _Creation_ and _Creationism_ refers to
sets of pseudo-scientific rationalizations set up to demonstrate
that the religious belief corresponds to the facts.)

When religious dogma makes statements about the real world,
those statements are still open to challenge.

John Savard

In article <p6psditf83ngm7k7vert3ahophlskd9sav@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 03:32:54 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 02:52:59 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
<SNIP of discussion of Creationism variants?

> >Also ObSF: "World of Tiers" and something early
> >from Michael Moorcock, I think, portray strange
> >versions of Earth in which the universe outside
> >the solar system is only a projection. IIRC when
> >a space probe gets close to the edge of the system,
> >it looks fuzzy and blurry?
>
> Wasn't there also one where, when a deep space probe got far enough
> away from the Sun, there was a loud "ping" and the crystal shell
> surrounding our Solar System cracked and vanished? And the crystal
> shells turned to only be breakable from the inside?

This is the "The Crystal Spheres" by David Brin (originally published in
Analog in 1984 - reprinted in the collection _The River of Time_ and
elsewhere). I view it as one of Brin's proposed explanations of the
Fermi Paradox.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 6:45:14 AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> I've certainly heard 'God created fossils and put them in the rocks as a test of faith' in the past decades
> from Creationists. Of course, not all YECs see it the same way.

Back when fossils first started to be discovered, this was a common position.

Even if it still survives, though, today the more common position is that the fossils
are real, they just represent creatures that co-existed with humans. Hence, they
note that the Bible makes references to dragons - and while dragons are considered
mythical, dinosaurs, which are real, resemble them, and they cite the Paluxy
river bed which is purported to show human footprints beside those of dinosaurs.

John Savard

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 6:03:24 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 6:45:14 AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I've certainly heard 'God created fossils and put them in the rocks as a test of faith' in the past decades
> > from Creationists. Of course, not all YECs see it the same way.
> Back when fossils first started to be discovered, this was a common position.
>
> Even if it still survives, though, today the more common position is that the fossils
> are real, they just represent creatures that co-existed with humans. Hence, they
> note that the Bible makes references to dragons - and while dragons are considered
> mythical, dinosaurs, which are real, resemble them, and they cite the Paluxy
> river bed which is purported to show human footprints beside those of dinosaurs.

They're still pushing the 'there are no transitional fossils' nonsense:

https://www.icr.org/fossils-stasis/

"In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving
a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have
discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed."

pt

On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 03:03:21 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 6:45:14?AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I've certainly heard 'God created fossils and put them in the rocks as a test of faith' in the past decades
>> from Creationists. Of course, not all YECs see it the same way.
>
>Back when fossils first started to be discovered, this was a common position.
>
>Even if it still survives, though, today the more common position is that the fossils
>are real, they just represent creatures that co-existed with humans. Hence, they
>note that the Bible makes references to dragons - and while dragons are considered
>mythical, dinosaurs, which are real, resemble them, and they cite the Paluxy
>river bed which is purported to show human footprints beside those of dinosaurs.

I wasn't aware that dinosaurs breathed fire.

I'm still not, and I'm sure you aren't either.

But apparently some YEC are.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:09:20 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>In article <p6psditf83ngm7k7vert3ahophlskd9sav@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 03:32:54 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 02:52:59 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
><SNIP of discussion of Creationism variants?
>
>> >Also ObSF: "World of Tiers" and something early
>> >from Michael Moorcock, I think, portray strange
>> >versions of Earth in which the universe outside
>> >the solar system is only a projection. IIRC when
>> >a space probe gets close to the edge of the system,
>> >it looks fuzzy and blurry?
>>
>> Wasn't there also one where, when a deep space probe got far enough
>> away from the Sun, there was a loud "ping" and the crystal shell
>> surrounding our Solar System cracked and vanished? And the crystal
>> shells turned to only be breakable from the inside?
>
>This is the "The Crystal Spheres" by David Brin (originally published in
>Analog in 1984 - reprinted in the collection _The River of Time_ and
>elsewhere). I view it as one of Brin's proposed explanations of the
>Fermi Paradox.

Thanks for identifying it.

A few years back, the inability to detect Dark Matter caused some to
surmise that we couldn't find it because there simply wasn't any in
our neighborhood. But did anyone consider the possibility that Dark
Matter and life are incompatible? That would reduce the number of
alien species considerably.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 19:22:58 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <9aosdi50hqlm3ri8sn191uuhes3eb5u2o7@4ax.com>,
>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>But you are correct that this is a problem with runaway creationism:
>>sooner or later it becomes apparent that the world could have created
>>2 seconds ago and it would make no difference at all. Such is the
>>result of trying to put bounds on God.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>Last Thursdayism. A critque that applies to a great many
>creationist arguments.

I am not surprised.

There is at least one other example. A view of the Bible that
sufficiently stresses it's authority stemming entirely from God would
be valid if the Bible originated yesterday (which, as it happens, was
Thursday) and all reality adjusted to accomodate it's have been around
much much longer.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:38:02 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 19:18:52 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 18:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 12:52:39?PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 4:37:34?AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >
>> >> > And in _this_ connection, it should be noted that Creationists _do_
>> >> > emphatically reject the theory advanced by Philip Gosse in his
>> >> > book _Omphalos_, as Martin Gardner has recorded, and so it is
>> >> > not *quite* true that Creationism is not falsifiable.
>> >
>> >> "The sun sets in the west, and so it is not *quite* true that iron is an element".
>> >
>> >I take it you're not that familiar with what Philip Gosse's book _Omphalos_
>> >is about, or you would not have seen my statement as quite such an absurd
>> >_non sequitur_.
>> >
>> >Philip Gosse explained that there were dinosaur fossils in deep strata of the
>> >Earth for the same reason that Adam had a navel. (Omphalos is the Greek
>> >word for navel.) The Earth needed those fossils because it wouldn't work right
>> >if it didn't have within it all the results of an organic growth and development.
>> A while back, an obscure reference in a book from my grandfather's
>> library led me to a man who theorized that Adam got his naval because,
>> when he fell and the world become subject to sin, the naval became a
>> part of man.
>>
>> Frankly, I have never understood the problem with God forming Adam
>> from the dust with a naval. Who can say what artistic reasons may have
>> been involved?
>>
>> OTOH, this guy's theory could be extended to all of reality -- that
>> /everything/ changed from how the world was originally created to how
>> it is now when Adam fell. Science, of course, would then be able to
>> tell us a great deal about the world as it is now, but nothing at all
>> about how it was before. Indeed, to science, there would be no before.
>> >So, while God created the Earth six thousand years ago, just as the Bible says,
>> >He created a complete Earth, not one missing the consequences of a natural
>> >development preceding its creation.
>
>Gerald E. Aardsma - look, that's got to be an anagram -
>seemed to be arguing that the earth was created
>with a "virtual history" that didn't happen and that was
>represented in fossils, and that when Adam sinned,
>the world became sinful, and that included the
>"virtual history" and included alterations of the actual fossils
>that were underneath Adam's feet. So when a scientist
>finds God's fossilised creatures committing sins at the
>moment of their death, that's why. /Does/ anyone think
>this isn't gibberish?

As St Paul noted, the Gospel is "nonsense to the Greek". Gibberish is
expected.

>> Put this way, it avoids the obvious problem: protraying God as a liar
>> -- which would, of course, be blasphemous. Well, unless the idea was
>> to /deceive/ scientists by lying to them, of course.
>
>There seems to be a very long history, not only
>in Christianity, of religious scholars arguing against
>it, that a world with the "appearance of age", some of
>the supporters of which prefer to use your word,
>"complete", that such a world would also be a lie,
>a forgery. And they're not in favour of representing
>God as a deceiver.

If you are referring to the idea that the world was created with
fossils to be "complete", those are not /my/ words at all..

The idea I was referring to I then extended so that, at the Fall, the
world God created /changed/ into the world we inhabit. Everything
Science tells us about it is based on things that really existed and
really happened. Science is bounded by this enslaved-to-sin world, but
it is very useful in understanding and using it.

>I'm muddled on what of this is from Gosse's _Omphalos_
>and nowhere else, and what is from ancient rabbis and
>others. If they weren't talking about fossils, then it was
>things like plants being created fully formed, trees with
>fruit already on them. Terraforming scientists, however,
>would be happy in most cases to grow their plants from
>seeds, but then, in the first week after creation, what would
>Adam eat? But... God could make the plants grow quickly?
>This is a creationist equivalent of "inflation". :-)

Ancient rabbis would hardly have been talking about fossils.
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fossil> has this:

First Known Use
Adjective
1665, in the meaning defined at sense 1
Noun
1736, in the meaning defined at sense 1

sense 1 of the adjective being:
preserved from a past geologic age
with that of the noun being
a remnant, impression, or trace of an organism of past geologic ages
that has been preserved in the earth's crust

The ancient rabbis were /far/ earlier than that!

>I think it /was/ Gosse who insisted that Adam was created
>already digesting in his stomach a meal that he had not
>actually eaten. This really seems unnecessary.
>
>The bible, unfortunately for an idle speculator, states
>that the nostrils are where God blew the air into Adam -
>that isn't what the navel is for.

Nor does it say that that is what the naval is for.

Breathing is what the /nose/ is for.

>> >Had creationists accepted his idea, then Creationism would, indeed, have
>> >ceased to be falsifiable. The world could have been created yesterday,
>> >with us being created complete with the memories of our lives preceding
>> >that date.
>> You have actually found a situation in which /The Matrix/ is the best
>> example of a computer-generated reality: congratulations! (Usually I
>> find /The Thirteenth Floor/ or even /ExistenZ/ to be better.)
>>
>> As you may recall, the program in /The Matrix/ reproduces a period
>> conveniently similar to that in which the film was made (for ease in
>> getting props and locations) and with start- and end-points, so, in
>> that case, it could indeed have been created yesterday with a full
>> history behind it.
>>
>> But you are correct that this is a problem with runaway creationism:
>> sooner or later it becomes apparent that the world could have created
>> 2 seconds ago and it would make no difference at all. Such is the
>> result of trying to put bounds on God.
>
>I think it would create difficulty if a Christian tried
>to use that argument and then was told that
>a consequence of that proposition is that Jesus
>never lived, since the time in which he lived
>never happened.
>
>It goes for Abraham as well.

When I said that it would make no difference at all, I was thinking of
the prior idea that, at the Fall, the world /changed/ and became our
fallen world in full reality. And, since "world" in this context means
"universe", everything back to the Big Bang itself would exist in full
reality, albeit created only 2 seconds ago.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 19:17:56 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 01:00:08 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 2:38:06?PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>
>> > I think it would create difficulty if a Christian tried
>> > to use that argument and then was told that
>> > a consequence of that proposition is that Jesus
>> > never lived, since the time in which he lived
>> > never happened.
>> >
>> > It goes for Abraham as well.
>> Of course, though, theologians had already considered
>> it, and one theological position which developed in
>> consequence was the one later made popular by the
>> movie "The Matrix".
>>
>> If one holds that Jesus was no less real for walking
>> the Earth when it was still in the Mind of God, then there
>> is no reason for the last-Thursday sort of creation to
>> ever happen. The world could _still_ be a thought within
>> the Mind of God, rather than being made of actual
>> substance with an (somewhat, in so far as is even possible)
>> independent existence apart from God.
>
>Hmm. Doctrine widely seems to be that Jesus already existed
>as a god before he was born in the human way, but it's also
>held to be quite important that he actually lived, and specifically
>that he actually died.
>
>Not to mention whether God actually created the world, or
>is only pretending that the world is real. That's back to God
>telling the truth again. And also there's the so-called "problem
>of evil", and of sin, if what everything actually is is God having
>thoughts. Including you.

This looks to me a lot like a reference to Bishop Berkeley
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley>.

One of his works is in the set /The Great Books of the Western World/
and, in reading it, it occurred to me that he could just as well be
describing the world as a computer program as anything else. Of
course, in the 17th/18th Century, the very phrase "computer program"
was, if not unkown, endowed with a completely different meaning from
what it has today.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 5:37:31 PM UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 19:17:56 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 01:00:08 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 2:38:06?PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think it would create difficulty if a Christian tried
> >> > to use that argument and then was told that
> >> > a consequence of that proposition is that Jesus
> >> > never lived, since the time in which he lived
> >> > never happened.
> >> >
> >> > It goes for Abraham as well.
> >> Of course, though, theologians had already considered
> >> it, and one theological position which developed in
> >> consequence was the one later made popular by the
> >> movie "The Matrix".
> >>
> >> If one holds that Jesus was no less real for walking
> >> the Earth when it was still in the Mind of God, then there
> >> is no reason for the last-Thursday sort of creation to
> >> ever happen. The world could _still_ be a thought within
> >> the Mind of God, rather than being made of actual
> >> substance with an (somewhat, in so far as is even possible)
> >> independent existence apart from God.
> >
> >Hmm. Doctrine widely seems to be that Jesus already existed
> >as a god before he was born in the human way, but it's also
> >held to be quite important that he actually lived, and specifically
> >that he actually died.
> >
> >Not to mention whether God actually created the world, or
> >is only pretending that the world is real. That's back to God
> >telling the truth again. And also there's the so-called "problem
> >of evil", and of sin, if what everything actually is is God having
> >thoughts. Including you.
> This looks to me a lot like a reference to Bishop Berkeley
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley>.
>
> One of his works is in the set /The Great Books of the Western World/
> and, in reading it, it occurred to me that he could just as well be
> describing the world as a computer program as anything else. Of
> course, in the 17th/18th Century, the very phrase "computer program"
> was, if not unkown, endowed with a completely different meaning from
> what it has today.
> --
> "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
> Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
> Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
I would be interested in pointers to any vaguely Christian tradition claiming that the world was an illusion, as I am not aware of any such (I am going to claim that Berkeley was an isolated philospher, and not the founder or follower of a tradition). The Jewish tradition seems to be relentlessly material. Acts records that even the idea of life after death was not universally accepted at the time of the events it describes. Gnosticism probably represents the high water mark of the influence of Greek intellectuals, but it is insistent that the world is real; one of the specifically Gnostic beliefs is that the material world is evil, and created by a being lesser than God.

A web search tells me that I can trace the idea of the world as a dream or a thought in the mind of God at least as far back as Indian religions (and so further back than Lord Dunsany!) but a nice modern variation of this is the simulation hypothesis. It seems to me that we should treat a robot that replicated exactly every aspect of human thought just as well as we should treat a normal human. It is a small step from this to deciding that a human being simulated exactly within a computer simulation should also be given the same consideration as a normal human, in which case their pains deserve the same consideration as ours, and the problem of evil is not solved.

Viewed through the eyes of an ethics review board assessing the morality of an experiment which causes suffering to its experimental subjects, they might pose the question of whether the same information could be recovered by some method other than detailed simulation. This is a question in theoretical computer science. Possibly relevant topics are things like Valiant-Vazirani approximate counting and whether P=NP. Unfortunately, this means that we do not know whether there is such an alternative or not - all we get is another reason to care whether P=NP.

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 9:46:44 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 03:03:21 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >Even if it still survives, though, today the more common position is that the fossils
> >are real, they just represent creatures that co-existed with humans. Hence, they
> >note that the Bible makes references to dragons - and while dragons are considered
> >mythical, dinosaurs, which are real, resemble them, and they cite the Paluxy
> >river bed which is purported to show human footprints beside those of dinosaurs.

> I wasn't aware that dinosaurs breathed fire.
>
> I'm still not, and I'm sure you aren't either.
>
> But apparently some YEC are.

I figure they just believe that the claim that dragons breathe fire
is mythical, even if otherwise dragons are real (but are dinosaurs).

After all, a Hebrew word meaning "giant reptile" or "dinosaur"
would have been translated to "dragon" by the authors of the KJV,
because that would have been the closest word they had available.

Of course, that would seem to imply that, like the Greeks, the ancient
Hebrews had words for lots of things...

John Savard

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 8:43:13 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 9:46:44 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 03:03:21 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> > <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > >Even if it still survives, though, today the more common position is that the fossils
> > >are real, they just represent creatures that co-existed with humans. Hence, they
> > >note that the Bible makes references to dragons - and while dragons are considered
> > >mythical, dinosaurs, which are real, resemble them, and they cite the Paluxy
> > >river bed which is purported to show human footprints beside those of dinosaurs.
>
> > I wasn't aware that dinosaurs breathed fire.
> >
> > I'm still not, and I'm sure you aren't either.
> >
> > But apparently some YEC are.

> I figure they just believe that the claim that dragons breathe fire
> is mythical, even if otherwise dragons are real (but are dinosaurs).
>
> After all, a Hebrew word meaning "giant reptile" or "dinosaur"
> would have been translated to "dragon" by the authors of the KJV,
> because that would have been the closest word they had available.
>
> Of course, that would seem to imply that, like the Greeks, the ancient
> Hebrews had words for lots of things...

The word in question in Hebrew is _tanniyn_, I have learned. And indeed,
it refers to a giant reptile, with no suggestion that it would breathe fire..
It can also be translated as "sea serpent" or "snake".

John Savard

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:18:25 AM UTC+10, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:38:02 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm muddled on what of this is from Gosse's _Omphalos_
> >and nowhere else, and what is from ancient rabbis and
> >others. If they weren't talking about fossils, then it was
> >things like plants being created fully formed, trees with
> >fruit already on them. Terraforming scientists, however,
> >would be happy in most cases to grow their plants from
> >seeds, but then, in the first week after creation, what would
> >Adam eat? But... God could make the plants grow quickly?
> >This is a creationist equivalent of "inflation". :-)
> Ancient rabbis would hardly have been talking about fossils.
> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fossil> has this:
>
> First Known Use
> Adjective
> 1665, in the meaning defined at sense 1
> Noun
> 1736, in the meaning defined at sense 1
>
Well rabbi as a title dates back to the 1st century CE at the earliest

Xenophanes of Colophon recognised that some fossils were the remains of shellfish in the 6th century BCE, so it's possible that early rabbis (and pre-rabbi jews) were discussing fossils even if they were using a modern name, certainly there are fossils of creatures that are virtually indistinguishable from modern creatures so it's not impossible that the jews had recognised that some of them were from the remains of once living creatures

On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 22:45:03 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 8:43:13?PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 9:46:44?AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>> > On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 03:03:21 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> > <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > >Even if it still survives, though, today the more common position is that the fossils
>> > >are real, they just represent creatures that co-existed with humans. Hence, they
>> > >note that the Bible makes references to dragons - and while dragons are considered
>> > >mythical, dinosaurs, which are real, resemble them, and they cite the Paluxy
>> > >river bed which is purported to show human footprints beside those of dinosaurs.
>>
>> > I wasn't aware that dinosaurs breathed fire.
>> >
>> > I'm still not, and I'm sure you aren't either.
>> >
>> > But apparently some YEC are.
>
>> I figure they just believe that the claim that dragons breathe fire
>> is mythical, even if otherwise dragons are real (but are dinosaurs).
>>
>> After all, a Hebrew word meaning "giant reptile" or "dinosaur"
>> would have been translated to "dragon" by the authors of the KJV,
>> because that would have been the closest word they had available.
>>
>> Of course, that would seem to imply that, like the Greeks, the ancient
>> Hebrews had words for lots of things...
>
>The word in question in Hebrew is _tanniyn_, I have learned. And indeed,
>it refers to a giant reptile, with no suggestion that it would breathe fire.
>It can also be translated as "sea serpent" or "snake".

Any idea where it appears?

Job has descriptions of two beasties that sound awfully mythological
-- until you realize that they are describing a crocodile and a
hippopotamus. Which, in Palestine, probable /were/ fabulous beasties,
as opposed to, say, lions which could be seen every day.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 10:52:34 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
<mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:

>On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 5:37:31?PM UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 19:17:56 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, 18 August 2023 at 01:00:08 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 2:38:06?PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I think it would create difficulty if a Christian tried
>> >> > to use that argument and then was told that
>> >> > a consequence of that proposition is that Jesus
>> >> > never lived, since the time in which he lived
>> >> > never happened.
>> >> >
>> >> > It goes for Abraham as well.
>> >> Of course, though, theologians had already considered
>> >> it, and one theological position which developed in
>> >> consequence was the one later made popular by the
>> >> movie "The Matrix".
>> >>
>> >> If one holds that Jesus was no less real for walking
>> >> the Earth when it was still in the Mind of God, then there
>> >> is no reason for the last-Thursday sort of creation to
>> >> ever happen. The world could _still_ be a thought within
>> >> the Mind of God, rather than being made of actual
>> >> substance with an (somewhat, in so far as is even possible)
>> >> independent existence apart from God.
>> >
>> >Hmm. Doctrine widely seems to be that Jesus already existed
>> >as a god before he was born in the human way, but it's also
>> >held to be quite important that he actually lived, and specifically
>> >that he actually died.
>> >
>> >Not to mention whether God actually created the world, or
>> >is only pretending that the world is real. That's back to God
>> >telling the truth again. And also there's the so-called "problem
>> >of evil", and of sin, if what everything actually is is God having
>> >thoughts. Including you.
>> This looks to me a lot like a reference to Bishop Berkeley
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley>.
>>
>> One of his works is in the set /The Great Books of the Western World/
>> and, in reading it, it occurred to me that he could just as well be
>> describing the world as a computer program as anything else. Of
>> course, in the 17th/18th Century, the very phrase "computer program"
>> was, if not unkown, endowed with a completely different meaning from
>> what it has today.
>> --
>> "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
>> Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
>> Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
>I would be interested in pointers to any vaguely Christian tradition claiming that the world was an illusion, as I am not aware of any such (I am going to claim that Berkeley was an isolated philospher, and not the founder or follower of a tradition). The Jewish tradition seems to be relentlessly material. Acts records that even the idea of life after death was not universally accepted at the time of the events it describes. Gnosticism probably represents the high water mark of the influence of Greek intellectuals, but it is insistent that the world is real; one of the specifically Gnostic beliefs is that the material world is evil, and created by a being lesser than God.

In order:
-- Christian Science? I suppose that depends on the details, of which
I am blissfully unaware
-- Does Spinoza count as part of "the Jewish tradition"? If so, he
/might/ be relevant here, but (with my usual luck) probably not
-- If you are thinking of the Sadducees, it was the /Resurrection/
they objected to; they may have held to the old belief in Sheol, where
the soul of the dead continued to exist but didn't do much if
anything.
-- Gnosticism as such was considered a perversion of Platonism by
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus>; Ennead II.9 is sometimes
published by itself as "Against the Gnostics". Christian Gnosticism
[1] was considered a heresy by the Church. The intrinsic evil of
matter, IIRC, goes all the way back to Plato. It is not specifically
Gnostic.

As to the "high water mark", the article cited notes that Plotinus'
/The Six Enneads/ had a major influence on Western thought for the
next millenium or so -- long after Gnosticism was so totally
suppressed that, until the Nag Hammadi books were discovered, it
wasn't even clear what the Gnostics actually believed.

[1] /Nag Hammadi Library In English/ notes that one of the books
included is an example of /Jewish/ Gnosticism. Until this happened,
Jewish Gnosticism was thought to be inconceivable.

>A web search tells me that I can trace the idea of the world as a dream or a thought in the mind of God at least as far back as Indian religions (and so further back than Lord Dunsany!) but a nice modern variation of this is the simulation hypothesis. It seems to me that we should treat a robot that replicated exactly every aspect of human thought just as well as we should treat a normal human. It is a small step from this to deciding that a human being simulated exactly within a computer simulation should also be given the same consideration as a normal human, in which case their pains deserve the same consideration as ours, and the problem of evil is not solved.
>
>Viewed through the eyes of an ethics review board assessing the morality of an experiment which causes suffering to its experimental subjects, they might pose the question of whether the same information could be recovered by some method other than detailed simulation. This is a question in theoretical computer science. Possibly relevant topics are things like Valiant-Vazirani approximate counting and whether P=NP. Unfortunately, this means that we do not know whether there is such an alternative or not - all we get is another reason to care whether P=NP.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"