Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is fine. In fact, this is infinitely better than ignoring my query, which a lot of people have done so far. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

So essentially, you believe what you believe because that is what you were taught to believe. That might work for you, but not for me. I could go into a long schpiel about how wrong that is, but it would definitely fail to convince you of anything, so I won't at this juncture. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That, and I must leave now for hours of riveting classes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would only modify that slightly: I believe what I was taught to believe, verified by personal experience. Think of it this way, I doubt that you invented the scientific method, rather someone taught it to you. It has served you well (as it has served me well, it is not an alien concept to me, either) and so you trust it for future use.

I have trusted in the Lord, and He has proven Himself faithful to me, so I continue to trust Him.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You haven't done so directly - however, many of the statements you make presuppose a total denial of the possibility of some of the attributes of God, thus indirectly saying He doesn't exist. For example:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Saying real prophesy is impossible is to deny the possibility of One who knows past, present, and future and who is able to communicate with mortals, some of the attributes attributed to God. Further, that quote is a logical fallacy in the context it appeared in - the debate at that point was over whether or not there was legitimate prophecy in the Bible, and the apparent reasoning in that passage lies in the assumption that prophecy cannot truly exist, yet you use this to support your claim that the specific prophecy in question was false. While I couldn't quote the Latin name for the fallacy, it is one.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Near as I can tell, the prophecy chain started because people used it as support for the Bible being correct, which would be an attempt to answer that very question.

As for my response -
I am a Christian, partly because that is what I grew up with, and partly because everything in the Bible that can be concretly tested and has been has come up in support of the Bible. For example, on the modern Mt. Ararat, buried in a glacer or two, there is a large wooden barge-like structure broken into three major pieces, of extreme age, which witnesses who have been inside say is filled with rows upon rows of what appear to be animal stalls. If you read of the flood in Genesis, specifically, the end of the flood, where Noah's Ark came to rest, you will find that it says the Ark came to rest in the Mountains of Ararat. Now, technically, this does not proove that the Bible happened. However, technically, nothing can be proven about the past. At best, evidence is "consistent with" or "inconsistent with" a particular tale of events. I find the bulk of the evidence to be consistent with the Biblical Version of events, and inconsistent with the most commonly postulated alternative, the tale of evolution. Mind you, this is a long post, so by the time I am done with it this post is likely to be outdated. C'est la vie.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

I'm not even going to TRY to follow this entire discussion, however one Last comment..

"No, it "has to be wrong" because logical reasoning tells you that real prophesy is impossible. You simply can not see into the future. You can make guesses, but you can not see what will undoubtedly happen. As the name supposedly prophesized appears accurate, something fishy had to have taken place for it to appear accurate (that, or Isaiah was a really good guesser, but it is very improbable that he would have been able to guess the name Cyrus)."

Circular reasoning Fyron. Nothing but; this doesn't respond to my argument at all.

I'm going to point out again that the sound BARRIER was named that for a reason, originally. It was proven wrong more quickly than some assumptions, but logical doesn't always equal correct. Especially if you don't have all the data. And if you're dealing with a godlike force, you DON'T have all the data, because almost by definition a god would be able to break the rules of reality.

So the only way to prove it wasn't predicted is to prove it was written afterwards.

Phoenix-D

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

It's a bit sad that you ignored my Last post, Fyron, because I would really like to know what you have to say about my point there.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">IIRC the Ilias and the Odyssey are both "written" by Homer who was surely no prophet and never claimed to be one. He was a poet. There was no prophecy in the Ilis or the Odyssey whatsoever, it was already history. In large parts it is a very good description of various parts of the mediteran a story about how fruitless and destructive war is. The Ilias and the Odyssey are no religious text. True, the Greek Gods have an appearance but they only serve the story, the story is not about them.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is some scientific evidence that Jesus has really lived and had some influence around the year 30 of our time. He is mentioned in several different texts, some of them not religious but official roman Messages from Palestine to Rome. As all persons in history without their own coins you have to believe that a source text is valid about the circumstances and persons it reports about. How do we know that Lucius Cotta fought in the Roman-Gallic war? Well, Ceasar tells us so (Liber quintus, 37, (4)) and either we believe in this source or we don't. Just the same for the historical Jesus.
That said, the spiritual Jesus is a matter of believe and again sources. Either you believe it and trust the sources or you don’t. There is no other proof until we invent a time machine.

Many other claims from the bible we cannot prove and some are, as it seems, just wrong and fictions. To say that every part of the bible is true will most certainly fail the test but this is at least not my point.
Maybe we both, Fyron, were talking along different lines. But I got the impression that you rejected the possibility that at least parts of the bible could be right even if we cannot proof it scientifically. And that is IMHO just as false as to say that every part of the bible is true.
There are sources that talked/wrote about Jesus in old books (old Testament) and we have sources that claim that just what was told to happen in these books came through in their time (new Testament). Either you believe in these sources or you don’t. You will never get any harder proof. How could that even be possible? What proof would make you believe a source and what doesn’t? Do you believe in Cesar when he tells us about Lucius Cotta or don’t you? Why?

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Fyron:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Cultures have been extracting moral value out of everything that they can, including myths. Myths are not inherently moral though. They are pre-scientific explanations for the world. Find a dictionary. Look it up.

Your insistance that all myths are moral is a tool to 'prove' that the moral basis of religions, in this case specifically the bible, are myths and so can be easily dismissed. You cannot prove a point by using false definitions. I know that you have not used these exact words but this is the actual implication of your statements.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I fail to see the purpose of saying such a thing. All religious mythology was written by religious people. Care to enumerate? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The point of saying such a thing is that historical documentation, if based on religion, is not necessarily myth. While the bible does contain myths (garden of eden, etc.) saying that "Bible = mythology", as you not so eloquently stated, is dismissive and shows your ignorance of the books actual contents.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">...and within the realms of ancient comprehension and acceptance. What is your point? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My point is that people having visions and attributing a fortuitous storm to the power of god are events that we can accept within our modern paradigm and do not require belief in the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural may be required to justify to results but not to accept that they happened.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is that ever the pot calling the kettle black.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You seem to be quoting a post that I made in the Alien Contact thread. How amusing. Trust me, I know far more about this than you do. This seems to point to your tendancy to argue from points of authority that you don't really understand. As with any document you must know the context of the time in which it was written. Once youn understand how they were saying things you can understand what they are saying. Then you can literally interpret what is said. Its quite like learning the slang of a close dialect. Once that is done you will find many interesting bits. For example, much of the bible is filled with barbs directed at the ruling oppressors of the day.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And I would greatly appreciate it if you started reading your own Posts so that you understand what people are responding to. I even bolded some of the parts of your quote so that you could see exactly what I was refering to. Well, I guess you can lead a horse to water...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Where on earth did you dig up this minor rant? Please read my previous Posts and tell me where any of this applies. And who says that I an even christian? I have extensively studied christianity, hinduism, and buddhism and have lesser knowledge of many others. This, if anything, has broadened my understanding and appreciation for all religions. My argument is not that the bible is true while other religious texts are false (where you got this mistaken idea I do not know), but that your attempt to claim that all texts with religious roots (or do you just have something against the bible?) are myth is a false (and cheap) way for you to prove your point (whatever that may be). The term mythology has everything to do with falsehood. The word myth is filled with connotations of falsehood (here is the myth and here is the truth) and you are trying to play that up. I am trying isolate historical religious works from ancient fiction, since you seem to be claiming that they are one and the same.

Throwing the Odyssey into the same Category as the bible, koran, or rig veda is unwarranted as well. The Odyssey was never considered to be a religious work. It was an epic performed by bards (composed by The Bard) and in theatres. It contains religious figures, yes, but is not a religious text. That would be like saying that Marlowe's Faust is a religious text. You are trying to make new categories so that you points can be justified.

If there is an error of arrogance it does not seem to be mine.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

I am tired of my Posts being wildly misconstrued and also of words being placed in my mouth that I never said (nor typed). So, I am no longer going to respond to any Posts about religion. I will continue participating in the few discussions about non-religious matters in this thread though, as they are actually interesting.

Mephisto:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe we should implement that in classes at College... those Celts were on to something... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif j/k

The Celts did have an egalitarian society for most of their history in which the women and men were fairly equal though. In fact, women were allowed to be chiefs and kings, and I recall that property was inherited through the mother's side, not the father's.

The Celts also did not enslave anyone, unlike the Romans.

Mephisto:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">BM:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Greek, Roman, the point is still there, even if the technical details are slightly off. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Barbarian still did not mean savage.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

How disappointing.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

MY GREAT GREAT.....GREAT Grandparents were once the rulers of Ireland.... 300 BC or 300 AD. I cannot remember exactly...As the documentation is not here but back in ireland

It is as far back as we can trace our family tree on my mothers side...

WOW eh

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Statements like "Trust me, I know far more about this than you do. " seems pretty arrogant to me.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Since Fyron has left it lying on the ground, I suppose I will pick up the secular humanist banner and carry it for this discussion. Since it's late (almost midnight local time) I'll try to keep these brief.

1) In our modern scientific culture "myth" has a negative connotation of falsehood and superstition - thus the reluctance to associate myth with the Bible. I think Fyron has a a good point about this, though, and I don't think he was trying to be gratuitously dismissive. "Mythos," as defined by my copy of The American Heritage Dictionary, is "The pattern of basic values and historical experiences of a people." I don't think that has negative connotations at all, and I do think it can apply to both Homer and the Bible (especially the Old Testament).

2) I think the Bible can be quite a useful historical document (if used correctly and not taken literally on all accounts), especially when corroborated with other sources. The information on the Hebrews and Philistines, for example (Saul, David, etc.) can be very useful in sorting out the history of the Ancient Near East. The Babylonian Captivity is another clearly historical event, as is Cyrus the Great's restoration of the Hebrews to Israel. I recognize, though, that using it as a historical tool is a completely different endeavor than using it for personal salvation (if one believes that is possible).

3) I think the question of reading the Bible literally has actually been quite a problem for theologians and scientists for quite some time. It certainly created tension between Galileo (arguing for a metaphorical reading) and his Jesuit enemies (arguing for a literal reading "the sun moves through the sky") - eventually resulting in his trial. On the other hand, such highly admired theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine have urged caution in reading the Bible literally. For example, St. Augustine wrote, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: I will send to you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon. For He willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians" De actis cum Felice Manicheo Or Saint Thomas Aquinas, "First, hold the truth of scripture without wavering. Second, since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon if it proved with certainty to be false: lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers and obstacles be placed to their believing."

I have to say that in my own personal experience, St. Thomas is correct. A literal interpretation of the Bible - especially Genesis - is a HUGE obstacle to belief. If my choices are between Genesis (as it's literally written) and the Big Bang and evolution, I'll go with the Big Bang and evolution. Only a metaphorical reading of Genesis could work for me. In other words, the Big Bang was the method used by a divine being to create a universe that follows physical laws, the Garden of Eden is a morality tale, and the history of Hebrews is for background. When it comes down to it, I just cannot dismiss millions of years of historical evidence (dinosaurs, fossils, paleolithic human settlements).

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Hey guys: Don't bother with the Mythology thing. I have had this argument with Fyron already, you can't win.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">By this statement then, I can assume that the left behind series of books, the movie bless the child, and any other book/play/movie involving any religious figures/ideas is therefore a religios text?

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Wow, how much can happen in 18 hours... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Bible can hardly be categorized as religious mythological works. The Bible is hardly a collection of stories, either (anyone expecting a storybook and opening to Leviticus or Isaiah or Ephesians will be greatly disappointed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). The Old Testament, in part, is an account of the world's beginnings, the selection of Abraham and his descendants, and the events surrounding that nation. It also sets forth the tenets of the Jewish religion. It also predicts the coming of the Messiah, one who would fulfill the Jewish law and open the way to God for all men through His priesthood. The books of the Minor Prophets, in great majority, are calls to the Jews to repent and return to the spirit of their religion instead of the law (much like the discussion of modern Christianity). The "story" portions of the OT are more properly history than mythology. One might as well refer to one's History of Civ textbook as mythology (at least the early portions). The New Testament begins with four accounts of the life of Jesus, written from four different perspectives for four different Groups of people. It continues with a description of the spread of Christianity and the shift of the church's center from Jerusalem to Antioch. It also introduces the author of the majority of the New Testament, Paul. The next 21 books are strictly doctrinal. They were written to deal with problems, to answer questions, and to exhort believers to stay true to the fundamentals of their faith. The Last book, Revelation, goes back to prophecy.

Very little of the Bible is in any way analogous to myth. The Iliad and the Oddysey were myth--those telling and listening to the stories knew they never happened. The overwhelming majority of Greek religion was superficial--sacrifices to the gods were done to appease temple priests or the superstitious few. Any show of religion was political, not religious in nature. The accounts in the Bible are historical, not mythical--they have been accepted as such by Christians and Jews for about four thousand years; they are viewed as a vital part of faith; and both faiths were overwhelmingly accepted by their cultures, not just by a superstitious minority.

[Edit] Oh, and let's get this straight. It's Jonah and the great fish, not Jonah and the whale. *mutters something about details under his breath* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ March 12, 2003, 15:02: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Interesting points Krsqk. Here are a few counterpoints for discussion purposes.

Mostly, I think our disagreement comes from an undervaluing of mythology, which in my opinion is critical for the survival of any culture (American mythologies: the melting pot, manifest destiny, equality, etc.). Mythology, in my opinion, has an undeserved bad reputation in our modern, scientific culture - mostly because of its association with superstition (which is what the Enlightenment philosphes called religion). All cultures have stories to tell themselves (ie mythologies) or they wouldn't be unified cultures. In other words, I'm arguing that mythologies are critical to any culture; they are fundamental building blocks of the whole cultural belief system. So, in my opinion, there is no shame in comparing the Bible to mythology, it does, after all lay down the fundamental value system of Christian culture, and that is the basic function of a mythos.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Good point, and in a metaphorical sense I think "Western Civ" is a secular mythology. It tells us stories about our beginnings that reinforce our value system, morals, and world view.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, here is the crux of our disagreement. I would argue that Greek religion, in it's time and place, was every bit as accepted as Judeo-Christian religion. It was neither superficial, nor superstitious (unless one believes, like the philosophes, that all religion is superstition). As Thucydides pointed out in The Peloponnesian War, Greeks interpreted Sparta's victory as a sign of approval from the Gods. How is that superficial? It is essentially the same as saying that David defeated Goliath because he was favored by God.

Since Greek religion did not have a Bible, per se, Homer's accounts fulfilled some of the same functions. Like the Bible, Homer provides history: Troy was real (I've visited it myself - a nice spot really), and historians think that some of the wars he related were true (Mycenaean civilization fit his descriptions very well). His accounts very clearly describe the heroic warrior ethos (arete) and general religious mythology that any Greek person (regardless of polis affiliation) would instantly recognize. As a tool for cultural diffusion and language standard, Homer worked in a similar manner as the King James Bible.

So, I don't think one should dismiss Greek religion, or Homer, as superficial superstition. Yes, the Bible has other elements to it (Homer never claimed to be the voice of the Gods), but I don't see that the Bible is in any way defamed in a comparision with Greek mythoi, any more that it is defamed by a comparison with the Norse mythoi, Islamic mythoi, Hindu mythoi, or Buddhist mythoi.

Edit: I can't spell...

[ March 12, 2003, 17:46: Message edited by: Chronon ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In this area I steer a middle course. The Big Bang theory really doesn't explain creation, since there must have been something in order for it to explode. It is entirely conceivable that part of the act of creation was a "Big Bang", but there must have been something that existed prior to it, whether an intelligence or not.

I don't believe that the Bible attempted to explain all of the details of the physics of creation to nomadic tribesmen and shepherds with no frame of reference to understand it (perhaps we don't even have sufficient knowledge to completely understand it today), and the six days of creation seem more of a mnemonic device for remembering order than anything else. The important message that Genesis was trying to convey was that creation was an act of God.

I heard an interesting speculation by a physicist who believes in the veracity of the Bible. In Genesis 1:2 there is a description of the Spirit of God hovering over the waters. The word in Hebrew for hovering conveys the idea of fluttering like a butterfly. The image of this verse then is the picture of God stirring up the "sea" of matter that He used to form the universe.

An interesting picture, if nothing else.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Science its just another religion. You need a lot of faith to believe that the age of a rock can be found.
I'm all for Technology, but Science, as in the theory of the big bang and the theory of evolution, looks to me like modern day religions.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Statements like "Trust me, I know far more about this than you do. " seems pretty arrogant to me.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not when it's true. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif No, seriously, that may have come off as a wee bit snotty. It was not intended as such. It just gets my hackles up when someone calls me an arrogant, ignorant hillbilly (and tries to quote one of my own Posts to do it). Perhaps my response could have been a bit more moderate. Bah, so be it. What's done is done.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Any time the sh*t hits the fan people look to god (or the gods). Its much easier to blame things on the big man's disfavour that to admit that you screwed up. This is as true today as it was then. There were a lot of people asking why god let 9/11 happen and George W. invokes god in every one of his speeches. This does not mean that north american cultures pay anything more than lip service to any divinity. It is quite normal to hold religion in contempt and still invoke god when you are in trouble.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Homer may have been a recruiting tool for the greek way of life but that doesn't put it in the same Category as a religious text. That's like saying that the movie Top Gun is an effective instructional tool for learning how to fly a fighter jet. Tis not, but it was a very effective recruitment tool. Using aspects of a religion as a literary tool is not the same thing as being the defining force behind said religion.

Also, the bible itself isn't much of a recruiting tool. Have you ever tried to actually read it? Few have. Most people maintain their faith in spite of the bible, not because of it.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because these other mythoi (possibly excluding norse, I don't know enough about it to be sure) are derived from their religious texts. This makes it, theoretically, possible to go back to the text and seperate the myth from the historical accounts. This cannot be done with the Odyssey or with Beowulf because they are purely literary constructs whose religious content is there only as the backdrop for a story. Citing the accuracy of this background only proves that the author wanted the story to be beleivable (which is also why you don't see anyone on 'the west wing' sporting a three foot lizard tail).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My copy of Websters has this for 'myth':
1. "a traditional or legendary story, esp. one that involves gods and heroes and explains a cultural practice or natural phenomenon.
2. "a fictitious person, story, etc."
3. "an unproven or false belief."
The first definition can easily apply to parts of the bible. The book has numerous myths, parables, etc., all of which fit well within this meaning. The problem is applying this def. to the entire book (especially in light of the other two definitions). Much of the bible is basically a socio-political record of the jews (looking at the old testament here, where much of the debate seems to be based), and not of much mythological interest. Another problem is that the latter two definitions of myth are the more commonly accepted ones and so heavily weight any argument in which they are used.

In short, we would make far more progress in this debate if we found a term to use other than 'myth'. Its meaning is far too biased to be useful.

[ March 12, 2003, 20:17: Message edited by: QuarianRex ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There s truth to this but there are major differences. The main one is that religion is an argument from authority. The only way to accept it is through faith. Science, on the other hand, is an argument from evidence. Once you see that A+B consistently equals C you can accept it as truth. From this foundation you can move on to big bangs and such. It may not be completely accurate but at least you have a reason to believe it.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

[quote]Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:

Quote:

The Big Bang theory really doesn't explain creation, since there must have been something in order for it to explode. It is entirely conceivable that part of the act of creation was a "Big Bang", but there must have been something that existed prior to it, whether an intelligence or not.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Unless time was also created by the Big Bang. Then there would be no "before".

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In more ways than you know - when the various dating schemes are all tried on the same rock, they have a very strong tendency to disagree with each other by multiple orders of magnitude.

The 'date' that is most often used for the 'age' of the rock in question is based on the so called 'index fossils' found either in the rock itself or in the same geologic strata. However, the scientists then turn around and use the 'evidence' of the age of the rock to 'support' the theory of evolution, which is circular reasoning, as they used the theory of evolution to date the rock.

Even when the scientists go by one of the other dating schemes - perhaps potassium-argon dating - they will normally run the test numerous times on the same sample, and get widely disparate results, with many of the values returning zero (to within a few thousand years, anyway). However, the testers simply claim that the zero results don't make any sense, and throw them out, levying chages of contaimination on the sample. However, the only reason they 'know' the sample was contaminated is because the result doesn't agree with evolutionary theory, which again is an example of circular reasoning when the rock is then used to support the theory of evolution. The dates aren't experimentally determined, they are selected.

Further, when samples are taken of rocks that formed at a known time (via historical records, such as rocks form the lava dome at Mt. St. Helens) the dates of those samples sent back to the dating laboratory are generally in excess of the known date by several orders of magnitude.

Of course, by the time I finish this post, it will already be obsolete. C'est la vie.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Jack, that was a great post, I encourage you to continuing posting in this thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .
I just don't like how scientists blame religious people of being "religious" when they are nothing more than another religion.
If just science were neutral the way technology is......

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

[quote]Originally posted by spoon:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:

Quote:

The Big Bang theory really doesn't explain creation, since there must have been something in order for it to explode. It is entirely conceivable that part of the act of creation was a "Big Bang", but there must have been something that existed prior to it, whether an intelligence or not.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Unless time was also created by the Big Bang. Then there would be no "before".</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Given the relativistic nature of time, I would not disagree with you. Still, the Big Bang does not address the origins of itself. Even if time originated in the Big Bang (a distinct possibility), something had to start the process.

A side question: for a photon travelling at the speed of light, does time pass at all? I know that time "slows down" as you approach the speed of light, but I am not sure what happens to time at the speed of light.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, better not. Don't want to be at the receiving end. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You might be right about equality. But the Celts did have slaves, a quick link is here:
http://perso.club-internet.fr/yesss/...Celt/celts.htm

If your argument is more on the line that the did not enslave as much people as the Romans: Well, the Romans didn't enslave everyone else either. In most cases only those who resisted them. Many Gallic tribes were not enslaves (make this almost all). They took hostages but that was not slavery.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They did not. In fact, they copied his works preferentially because of their divine implications, i.e., that everything in the universe is striving for its perfect state, etc...

If we are talking about the European dark ages ~500-1400 then war/invasion/disease were all primary causes of technological stagnation, not the church! The church didn't really start to take control until the 1200s etc, and that was after the Europeans were able to manage a bit of stability. The church in 1500-1600s is more what you guys are referring to - but even to some degree, it was the thinkers who were stuck on Aristotle and not open to new possibilities that kept new thinkers from making a bigger splash then they did...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ahh, yes I remembered wrongly .
It was Archimede's works they erased and used to write again on.
Most notably the Principles that now exist only as a palimpsest.
And it was propably around 1300 if I remember correctly. (Can't bother to do a search tonight, G'night)

(Edit Spellling)

[ March 12, 2003, 21:42: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Technically, evolution isn't proper science, as it doesn't follow the scientific method:
1) Observe something
2) Hypothisize about what could cause it
3) Test Hypothesis via experiment
4) Check results against Hypothesis
5) Refine Hypothesis to better match results
6) back to 3, repeat indefinately

Evolution and cosmology can't follow this - one cannot test events that happened in the past, and any time scale on the order of thousands of years can't be done due to scientist death, and certainly could not be repeated. Evolutionary theory and modern cosmology use time scales on the order of millions of years. Thus they are not truely scientists. Likewise, even assuming the big bang actually happened, it was a one-shot deal, and cannot be repeated.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Actually, Science is the Art of Repeatable Results. Since the results are repeatable they are open to use or abuse by anyone.

The scientific method is used to determine what is repeatable and help in turn predict what should be repeatable. Observation, theory, and experimentation all have their place in this pursuit.

Evolution is a theory. It is useful for explaining observation and maybe even predicting results.

Generally, a theory is wrong if it fails once. Often a theory is incomplete and does not encompass all variables. That's how we learn about other factors that also produce repeatable results.

Ex. Evolution theory may not account for third party intervention (Divine or Human) or even the nuclear core of the Earth increasing it's radiation. OR DOES IT???? Bwahahahaahaaaa.

Often in applied science an exacting degree of perfection is not needed. Sure mass increases with the speed of light, but I'm not going to lose a few pounds by sitting on the couch.

Some of the sciences are not true sciences. I think science got such a good name that every related subject wanted to cash in on it.
Take psychology, PLEASE! Ok now, it can benifit from the scientific method and statistics, but in application it is heavily affected by the whims and perceptions of the subject and observer.

***
Religion depends on prayers and the whims of deities and/or demons (not repeatable).

What kind of deity would give us a universe with repeatable results that we can use/abuse? Maybe the same one who would give you a free will, watch your actions, and sit in judgement of your choices.
***

Accepting religion is like declaring this exsistance a simulation. Accepting science is like learning the simulation.

[ March 12, 2003, 23:50: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

*bites*

Jack:
I'm going to be slightly rude. Can I apologise in advance?

Your 'scientific method' is a litle too naive for my liking.

The important steps are that to stand up a theory must make predictions of the universe that can be tested and checked by others. How you a arrive at a theory is not really important - some theories are created in a moment of inspiration, others after years of careful observation.

It doesn't require that you perform an experiment that repeats the big bang to theorise that it took place, only that you explain what observations you would expect to be able to make in a universe created by a big bang.

Friedmann used Einstein's general relativity to argue the universe must be expanding to avoid gravity condensing it into a point. Einstein thought this was a complete fallacy, and thought his cosmological constant (a property of space that causes it to repel - i.e. a sort of anti-gravity) was right. Then Hubble made observations that showed the universe was expanding...

...the natural extrapolation is that if the universe is expanding it must be smaller the further you go back in the past.

Many scientists have tried to come up with alternatives to the big bang - for example, some have postulated a fractal universe. None have had any success so far.

I recommend Joao Magueijo's Faster Than The Speed Of Light for anyone who wants to read up on some modern big-bang physics.

I'm not going to touch evolution again with a 60ft barge-pole http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Addendum: give me a powerful enough telescope and I can look at parts of the universe as they were several billion years ago. Why experiment when you can observe the real thing?

[ March 12, 2003, 23:55: Message edited by: Wanderer ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is wrong. The ages of rocks are calculated from the half-lives of and relative levels of Carbon, Uranium, and a few other substances in the rocks. This has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution, and is in no way circular reasoning.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, better not. Don't want to be at the receiving end. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well... all of my lectures have at least half of the enrolled students gone each day. Maybe just sacrifice those that consistently fail to show up? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif j/k ofc

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">First off, that links to a page discussing the Irish Celts, and as such, is not representative of Celts in general. With that being said, I had never heard anything about Celts owning slaves. I guess they did not own very many of them. Not that the Romans owned huge amounts; they did have a higher proportion of slaves than the Celts would have had though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Romans did not enslave everyone; that was not my point. Like the Greeks, their slaves were mostly prisoners of war, those that could not pay off their debts, and people sold into slavery as children by their parents so that they could pay off their debts (though I think the Last one was not very common). And, of course, it was not racial slavery, but economic slavery. They did not enslave whole races of people.

[ March 13, 2003, 01:37: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Absolutely, I won't argue with you on that point, QuarianRex. Now...what term to use? I'm afraid my thesaurus gives me even more terms with connotations of falsehood: lore, fable, legend, and fantasy. Any ideas?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Technically speaking, you are absolutely right Fyron, but if you substitute ethnic for racial, then the Romans did enslave whole Groups of people. At the end of the Third Punic War (146 BCE), for example, the Romans destroyed the city of Carthage, and sold all 55,000 remaining Carthaginians into slavery.

The Romans had many slaves from their many conquests, and much of their economy depended on the work of slaves. The large agricultural estates in Sicily, for example, and the silver mines, were all worked by slaves. Their roads, aquaducts, and public buildings were built on the backs of slave labor, and then there were the gladiator slaves who died for entertainment.

On the whole, even though they were taken in battle, the Romans treated their slaves poorly. Here's a quote from my Western Civ textbook, "Roman slaves were scarcely considered people at all but instruments of production like cattle. Notwithstanding the fact that some of them were cultivated foreigners taken as prisoners of war, the standard policy of their owners was to get as much work out of them as possible during their prime until they died of exhaustion..." Considering the ubiquity of slavery throughout the Ancient Period, this is one area where the Middle Ages (very few slaves) weren't so dark.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The problem here is that mythology does not denote falsehood, and does not actually connote it either; that is a misconception perpetuated by a Christian-dominated culture that has butchered the term so that it can be used by those that do not have a strong grasp on the intricacies of the English language to deride all non-Christian myths, while leaving Christian myths alone (accompanined by not using the term myth to describe Christian myths). Being a myth has no bearing on the effect/meaning of a story.

... just so there is no confusion, this is an argument about language, not about anything really religious. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 13, 2003, 08:16: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Re-read my earlier post that the quote was based on. Labeling something as a myth does alter its meaning. Regardless of where the meaning of the term was 'tainted' (the church being the most likely culprit) the fact remains that it does have negative connotations of falsehood.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

QuarianRex and Fyron, I think you both make good points on this one. Pinning down terminology is a very messy business because it's so flexible, and so "user" driven.

QuarianRex has a point, because unfortunately (in my view) mythology does have connotations of untruth, or half-truth, in our society. One of the meanings listed in my dictionary for mythological is "fabulous, imaginary," and one of the listings for myth is "one of the fictions or half-truths forming a part of the ideology of a society." I do not know the origin of these negative connotations, but I have seen them applied to Christian mythology (by scientists - especially on evolution/creation) just as often as I have seen them applied to Homer. That, I think, is why QuarianRex had such a negative reaction to your categorization of the Bible as mythology.

On the other hand, my dictionary also has the following definition for mythos: "1. Myth. 2. Mythology. 3. The pattern of basic values and historical experiences of a people, characteristically transmitted through the arts." This defintion has no negative connotations, (for me anyway) and seems pretty close to the mark when it comes to the Bible and other religious texts (I'll set aside the issue of Homer, for now), and it serves as the basis for my previous argument.

So, you're right Fyron, we are talking about language. But I think it could be resolved, especially if you clarify your position. Do you mean to say that Christian religion is myth in the fabulous, half-truth sense, or are you making more of a cultural point that Christianity and the Christian mythos should be given equal value in our society with other religions and their mythoi? If the latter is the case, I would wholeheartedly agree. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

PS Cool new avatar QuarianRex (although I did like the historical one) - is that a particular character from fantasy or SF?

[ March 13, 2003, 15:25: Message edited by: Chronon ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My point was that Christian mythos are no more or less valuable to Christians than the mythos of other cultures are to that culture.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

You're also forgetting a fundamental difference between science and religion.

Science accepts its own flaws and limits.
A theory is the current best explanation, and can be disproved or enhanced by new research, observation, mathematics examinations, and experimentation.
Most laws have several conditions and parameters within which are valid.
For example Newtonian mechanics cannot be applied to sub-atomic particles or near-light "relativistic" speeds, but are still applicable to most "normal" mechanics that rule our everyday world.

On the other hand religion (not only christianity) is based on texts written about two thousand years ago, and not subject to change.
Limitations are only defined by the "faith" and judgement of the reader.

The most fanatic believers will blindly accept all scriptures as the literal absolute truth, and deny anything that contradicts them.
Others will be more liberal, even if they believe the scriptures are truth, they will know that the scriptures were written as a guide for the people of their time, and considering how they saw the universe, that many of its teachings are timeless truths but some are not applicable to the modern world.
Science is not opposed to religion, but complements it.

As a matter of fact, many renowned scientists do believe in god and actively practice a religion.

ISTR some of the scientists researching about the Big Bang saying something like "We're not trying to deny that god created the universe, we're trying to determine how He did it."

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

"Science accepts its own flaws and limits."

Before anyone jumps on this I'd like to point out the scientists are human too, and this is in the ideal world. Of course, not everyone does this easily. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Still, one of the IMO most important attributes for a scientists is being able to admit that you've been proved wrong.

Phoenix-D

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You would have to ask David Gervais (or maybe I will). I yanked it off of the avatar emporium. I liked the old one to, it reminded me of a monk or somesuch, but this one was calling to me.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No argument here. The problem I had was in refering to the entirety of a religious text (of any religion) as myth, as opposed to pointing out the mythical elements of a text. I was never arguing for the dominance of the christian viewpoint. I was arguing against the implied triviality of religious texts.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Having now double checked at my school's library, I find "most" is a sever exaggeration - however, it is used. Earth in Upheaval by Immanuel Velikovsky on page 215 says "Coal is found in layers that are ascribed to various ages mainly on the basis of fissils found in them" and in Dating the Past Fredrick E Zeuner says "Many forms of life existed for comparitively short persiod only and therefore afford valuable data for the correlation of strata in distant places" on page 307.

Oh, and Fyron, when you contradict someone outright, it is common courtesy to include a source.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

"Dating the Past Fredrick E Zeuner says "Many forms of life existed for comparitively short persiod only and therefore afford valuable data for the correlation of strata in distant places" on page 307."

Simple method where this sort of thing can work.

You've found X fossil in several rock formations. They all date to approximately the same age. Now you find another X fossil in another rock formation. You can't date these rocks directly, because they don't have enough of the proper elements (dating based on nuclear decay doesn't work if there's nothing to decay). So you can say that the rocks are -probably- about the same age as the other rocks holding X fossil.

Immanuel Velikovsky- what I've heard of him was been..somewhat less than favorable. The words junk science comes to mind.

Phoenix-D

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

DAMN!!! I am not needed on this thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

QR:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This would be another example of people putting words in my mouth. My Posts did not imply any such triviality.

Jack:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I never said that there were not scientists that get things wrong. But- esp. in the modern day- the vast majority of scientists do not do what you said they do, they date things in the most correct and accurate manner available to us.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My contradiction needed no sources, actually. I could have spent time finding them, but they would not have contributed anything to my post in this case that my own words did not contribute. Extra verification would have been overkill, as it is a basic fact, not an obtuse one.

[ March 13, 2003, 23:45: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

From what I understand of radioisotope dating, it rarely comes out with the correct date on samples of known age. We assume it works on samples of unknown age. There are dozens of examples of horrendously inaccurate dates published in scientific journals. Even parts from the Mt. St. Helens ordeal have been dated in the low millions.

Without question, regardless of the original denotation and connotation, myth has a negative meaning now. It is indelibly linked with "fairy tale" in the minds of English speakers. Maybe we should develop a new word here and try to get it into the OED. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The thing about that is a few million years of innaccuracy don't matter for dating things that are hundreds of millions of years old. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Radioisotope dating is not supposed to be relatively accurate for "newer" objects, only for "older" ones. It is never meant as an absolute indicator. People that use it as such are indeed using it incorrectly.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Only to people that think that the dictionary definition is the absolute authority. Dictionary definitions often do not address complex terms very well, and also tend to use (sometimes wrong) connotations as denotations. They also often completely miss some uses of more complex terms (most often literary terms- such as mythology).

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please bear in mind that any communication relies on both the sender and receiver to work. You may not have intented triviality when you used the term mythology, but we have seen here that it has those connotations for many readers.

So, I really don't think anyone is putting words in your mouth; they were simply interpreted differently than you intended. Please try not to take it personally; I think about 90% of all communication has this problem. In my pessimistic moments (like when I'm listening to the latest news on Iraq for example) I wonder if it is possible for us to truly communicate with one another, or if we're all just wasting our breath. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

The problem is that some of these "interpretations" are wildly different from what the Posts actually say, even with accurate connotations taken into account.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My point was more specifically about our mythology discussion, where it was more about an interpretation than a misreading. But, I won't deny that sometimes Posts are misread as well.

I guess what I was trying to say (perhaps not directly enough) is that if you really want to convince someone of your point of view, taking the reader to task is usually counter-productive. Why not simply rephrase you argument, and try again?

[ March 14, 2003, 16:37: Message edited by: Chronon ]

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Back on the science versus the church theme...

I'm curious how many of you believe there is a fundamental conflict between religion and science. I personally do not believe this is necessarily true, but I did at one time(mostly because of the creation/evolution/big bang controversy). So, what do you think?

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not at all. Given the amount of religiously devout scientists now and throughout history (many of whom have been listed in this thread) I don't think you can argue that the two are mutually exclusive in any way.

IMHO the spiritual side of humans (including "God") is derived from human consciousness- it comes from within individuals. it is as individual as each person is, so I find the idea of an external institution (ie a church/ religion/ holy book) handing out "ready-made" spirituality to the masses laughable.
Despite this I think religion can still lead to spiritual awareness, but only as a tool for encouraging self-improvement, self-understanding and mental discipline. Maybe this is how religion was originally intended. However it's use through the ages as a tool for manipulating the masses has reduced its usefulness in this respect, and imo for most people religion actually blocks their spiritual development, because they believe they have nothing to contribute to it- they are told that someone else has already figured it all out and written it down in a book for them.

To wrap this up, I'm not really sure what I believe- it's easier to say what I don't believe (see footnote)- but I do believe this:
In time, scientists studying all those tiny sub-atomic thingummies and time/space and wierd forces and energies will eventually find themselves coming to conclusions about consciousness that have been known to spiritualists and so on for thousands of years.

Footnote. For the record, I do NOT believe in any of the following:
-Any god or pantheon.
-ghosts, angels or leprechauns.
-re-incarnation and remote viewing,
-Crystal healing & astrology
-Roswell aliens.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Krsqk -
You are exactly right - a date of 1 million for a Mt. St. Helens rock historically known to have been formed two decades ago would still be "correct" if the listed marig of error was 1 million years or more, as that would include the proper age of a little over two decades - but they don't come back that way. Instead, the results often come back more along the lines of one milion years +/- one hundred thousand years, a decidedly false result.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fyron -
Krsqk was referring to correct, you were referring to accurate, which are two very different things. Correct would refer to the entire range of values - one million years +/- one million years is correct if the real age is 20 years, but it isn't very accurate. However, like I told Krsk, that isn't the returned result in the majority of cases. For objects of known age that get tested, the testing method is usually demonstrated false. Yet you seem to hold that the method holds for large ages? Fine - based on what evidence? If it doesn't work on objects of known age, clearly the method hasn't been properly calibrated. If it cannot work on objects of known age, clearly the method cannot be checked at all for accuracy. How then can you hold to it?

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Scopes Monkey trial was a contrived controversial case. It was done to bring fame and fortune on the hosting community.

It shall be honored in the TROLL CAVE of FLAME.

Re: [OT] Plato\'s Pub and Philosophical Society
 

Jack:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You can not use radio-isotope dating on objects that are only 20 years old. It was never designed to be used on such "young" objects, so stating that is completely irrelevant to the testing system. The eruption of Mount Saint Helens is not a valid test.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Radio-isotope dating is not meant to work on "young" objects. There are always inaccuracies in the levels of isotopes in any object. When there has been a very long time since the object was buried, these inaccuracies tend to average out, so you get relatively more accurate results. But, you can not accurately use any radio-isotope dating on objects that are less than a few thousand years old (this threshhold changes depending on what the half-life of the particular element is). That is not how the testing is designed to work. An example of this is that if an object is exposed to fire, it gets a lot more Carbon-14 in it, so it throws off the calculated age based off of Carbon-14 dating. This is part of the reason why Carbon-14 is not a good isotope to use. Another reason would be that its half-life is only a few thousand years, so it can not be used to test the age of objects that are millions of years old. This is why elements like Uranium are used for older objects; Uranium isotopes ahve very long half-lives. But, Uranium can not be used for dating of objects that are less than a few hundred thousand years old, because of the inherent inaccuracies of radio-isotope dating. This is why legitimate scientists do not use it to date "young" objects. There are some other elements that can be used for objects of different possible ages, but I do not remember what they are at the moment.

Keep in mind, I do not know the exact half-lives and such, so don't bother pointing out that I am off on the values a bit. Take my post in relative terms, and there will not be a problem.

Chronon:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, there can be misinterpretations. But in this case, it was a misreading, not a misinterpretation.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I tried that, actually. Whenever I tried it, the same people misconstrued my words again to make them mean what they wanted me to say, instead of what I had actually said.