The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)

Stephen:Please clarify a few things for me. You say, "(they were told by God, for example, that the earth was created some 15 billion years ago--they were told this, according to Satinover's report, twice, 2000 years ago, and 1000 years ago.)"Are you referring to the Kabbalistic notion that the first so many verses of the original Hebrew text of Genesis contains a numeric code that establishes the intitiation of the creation of the universe at about 14.8 billion years ago?Does this "Satinover Report" give "15 billion years ago" as the date of creation of Earth or of the entire universe? Does Satinover discuss the apparent conflict between the approximate 13 or so billion year calculated age of the universe and the approximate 4.5 or so billion year age for Earth? (My figures are by best memory estimates as I don't have time right now to look up this info.)Does Santinover's interpretation of the "code" jibe with the traditional Kabbalists' interpretation?Where can I access "Santinover's report" on line.Peace.

Stephen:I think it is very important to take into consideration the intricate explanations of creation by Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides) [EDIT: The person to whom I should be refering regarding this issue is Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (Nachmanides) or "Ramban" rather than Maimonides (Rambam)]when examinining this theory of the 42-word Name found in Torah. For example, how could Maimonides [EDIT: Again, I mistakenly refer to Maimonides (Rambam) here, when it was Nachmanides (Ramban) to whose Kabbalistic interpretation of the structure of the universe I am refering] be so divinely informed as to the 15 billion year age of the universe by HaShem, and then be so wrongly informed regarding the structure of the same universe? These are the kind of things that cause one to question "divine information." This whole Satinova thing is based squarely on the work of Maimonides [EDIT: Nachmanides] and subsequent Kabbalistic theories.More detailed argument will have to wait. I, like you, have a lot of my reference material either in storage or at the office; and I have some end-of-the-year bookkeeping that must be submitted by the 31st. I do look forward to continued discussion of the various "divine" calculations of the age of the universe, whether in this thread of another.Peace.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-28-2003][This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-29-2003]

Stephen:Please note the edits of Post #10. I incorrectly referred to Maimonides (Rambam) when I should have been referring to his contemporary, Nachmanides (Ramban).I still maintain the basic premise that we should question how Nachmanides could have been so divinely inspired with regard to the 15.6 billion year age of the universe when his intricate description of its structure is so far off base. Did he not use the same Source for information regarding both the age and the structure of the universe? (For Rabbi Moses ben Nachman's (Ramban's) structure of the universe see: Error 404 | Emory University | Atlanta GA from which one can see that Ramban takes a very Kabbalistic view of creation and structure.)Nachmanides further asserts that one can determine the age of the universe if one properly knows how to use the 42-letter Name, which some Kabbalists believe is composed of the first 42 letters of Torah, in the original Hebrew alphabetic characters of course.Somehow or another, Nachmanides and other Kabbalists factor the 42-letter Name to have a value of 42,000 Divine Years. First of all, Stephen, I question this because I am not privy to the method by which the "42,000 Divine Years" is deduced from 42 Hebraic letters. I thought each letter of the Hebrew alphabet was assigned a numeric value, and not necessarily "1,000." Or, is there some hidden equation by which the Kabbalist arrived at the 42,000 product?But, for the moment, let us accept the 42,000 factor and multiply it times 365,250 of our years (1,000 years "God-years" for each "man-day" per Psalms 90:4 -- a document whose historic relationship with Torah remains a question), and VOILA! 15.3 billion years is assigned as the Kabbalistic age of the universe circa de Adam.Now, it astounds folks that in Nachmanides (1194 CE - 1270 CE) could calculate an age for the universe that so closely matches it currently accepted age calculated by modern cosmologists. Nachmanides ideas regarding the universe expanding rapidly from a mustard seed sized pinpoint of light into a primordal whorl of non-corporal substance that eventually took on the tangible aspects of matter further intrigues modern people because it sounds like an enlightened, Medieval Big Bang theory.Stephen, I ask the following questions:1) Why if Nachmanides and other Kabbalists are able, with divinely provided mathmatic information, to calculate the age of the universe are they not able to provide an equally valid, non-Terracentric structure of the universe?2) Does the coincidental same or similar dating of the age of the universe by the 42-letter Name factor and by the speed of light calculations of modern cosmologists automatically validate the Genesis creation story? Does it validate some or all of the other literalist renditions of natural science? Is it more than a coincidence?3) If the coincidental dating validates any part of Judeo-Christian theology or Creationist science, then would the accurate dating of the Earth's age, the universe's age, or a universal apocalypes by say the Mayan calendar, just for an example, likewise validate Mayan religious practices and beliefs? Same question relative to any other non-Judeo/Christian religion.4) If a meditating supplicant of some other god were to hear a voice say, "Listen to the Clock of your Corporal Temple and count its measure ...an hour to a man is like 10,000 days to God," does that mean that 70 beats per minute times 60 minutes times 3,652,500 equals 15,340,500,000 validates another path?5) Does grace erase all error?[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-29-2003]

Sorry, administrators, but this was bait I could not resist.Andya says, "I believe rhinos have more ecological impact than birds."Abshalom says, "Andya, do you mean that all the rhinos in the world today have more ecological impact than all the birds in the world today?"On a smaller scale, Andya, when is the last time you saw a rhino perched on the back of a bird dutifully picking the bird clean of ticks and other harmful parasites?

Message #83 informs the reader, "No tigers in Kansas. But lots of crazy people, whose behavior is most easily explained by demons."'But lots of crazy people' << Uh huh'Crazy people whose behavior is most easily explained by demons' << Again, too simplistic and escapist.'No tigers in Kansas' << Not yet, or not yet loose and on the prowl. But considering your theory of 'evil angels' who drag meteors into the path of Earth ... maybe you should consider buying that charm, Stephen.Holmes, does that charm happen to cause tigers to run in circles around palm trees until they render to butter?Peace.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-17-2004]

Re: Winning Occam's razor debateScrew Occam's Razor, and screw anyone's putting winning a prize over relieving the suffering of someone with a brain disease. We ain't talking the Oscars here.If anyone has seen someone suffering from schizo-affective disorder, bipolar disorder, etc., and I'm sure many of you have, shame on anyone who would give the sufferers or their family false hope via promises of relief through hocus pocus.And shame on anyone who thinks that their own reward for winning an argument is greater than the reward for delivering relief to the sufferer.Keep peace in mind.Edit: This message is not directed at Sidelined. I just happened to punch the reply button at the bottom of that post to deliver this message which is directed at anyone who advocates hocus pocus cures for serious medical conditions.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-18-2004]

RaSBey:I think you've hit on something solid here (Message 124): "Most species co-exist in their ecosystems with predatory or parasitic, or symbiotic living beings that they cannot sense ..."Yet, I disagree that the predatory or parasitic beings cannot be sensed by the host. Just this morning, I noticed a distinctly sulfurous odor immediately prior to a release of what I can only describe as a veritable malestrom of fire and brimstone.As you might say: "This is evidence that such biologic relationships are plausible ..."You go on to advise us, "The Bible says that demons are a part of the human ecosystem."Indeed they are, RaSBey, as was clearly demonstrated to me this morning. After the tempest of fire and brimstone, the intensely sulfurous odor only became more overwhelming and nearly unbearable!You further advise, "The Bible also says that certain prayers will cause good angels to drive away bad angels, or demons. Then, the problems caused by these demons will cease."While your advice may be well-founded and work its magic for you and other folks, I found a quick flush produced equally good results while expending a lot less mental effort.Nonetheless, thank you, RaSBey, for your well-intended advice and your continued compassionate crusade against this vast, unrighteous-winged conspiracy.A'shalom A'shoofly[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-21-2004]

Some phrases taken (out of the context) from Message 107:"... it was suspected and hypothesized that, if germs were the problem, hand-washing would cure it.""... hand washing is a religious duty to orthodox Jews, and a sound health practise to scientists studying microbes and disease."First of all, hand washing in and of itself will not cure the problem by eradicating the germs carried by contaminated hands into a surgery. Where is the proof that water alone can kill staphylococci?Other factors, such as the purity of the water used for handwashing, and the use of antibacterial soap, alcohol, ammonia, chlorine, etc., have much more to do with it than the simple act of dousing the hands with water.Secondly, the simple fact that traditional and largely ceremonial practices prescribed for Jews and Muslems before eating, and in association with other bodily functions, may indicate a desire for hygiene, do not necessarily guarantee a high level of hygienic effectiveness attributed to the practices.For example, I would think wiping defecation from one's anus using only a rock or a lump of dirt and then washing one's hands with well water or sand might be more likely to result in the contamination of both hands, whether from the rock, the dirt, the water, or a combination. The example is given to demonstrate that even well-intended attempts at hygiene are certainly fallible.Another example: What fungicidal properties are inherent to water and dove blood sprinkled onto mildewed household surfaces using a hyssop broom head tied to a cedar handle using a red ribbon?But really, both Leviticus 14 and Numbers 19 indicate that it is not specifically the washing with water or the content of the wash water that effects the "cleanliness," but rather the waiting for seven days or some other specific time that effects the cleanliness, and the sprinkling with water is only ceremonial.In other words, if you actually live for seven days past the initial contamination from touching a corpse or some other dreaded shagetz, you have earned the blessed right to be sprinkled with the magic water that institutes ceremonial cleanliness.It seems to me that the discussion back around Message 107, and in particular with regard to Stephen's suppositions associated with the "history of handwashing" exhihit a wealth of speculation and a shortage of scientific documentation. Did I miss a reference or something?Peace.

"God gives us farts to show us demons leaving," is Stephen Ben Yeshua's take on it.But I have only "seen" farts on two occasions:(1) While standing in a very long line on an extremely cold night waiting for the ticket vendor window to open, I heard a long, low rumble of gaseous emission and looked toward the sound to see a vaporous cloud trailing away from a pair of tight jeans. The devil, you say?(2) While sitting on a very uncomfortable bean bag chair in an extremely poorly decorated college-era domicile, I heard the click of a bic followed by the rattle of a sphincter muscle and looked toward the sounds just in time to see a blow torch flame shooting away from the ass-end of a pair of tight jeans. A Duke Blue Demon, you say?So that's it for me as far as visual contact with demons I guess.Peace.

It's that horny, heart-shaped aura around your head. Damn, that would make anyone back off!