It follows the assumption that if God hid messages in the bible to tell us about the future then the future must already be set.

Cliff: Sorry about the address for McKay's rabbis in War and Peace paper, it doesn't have a www prefix. It is:

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/index.html

Keith: You can also access an abridged version of the Witzum et al paper there, or at the Official Torah Codes site,

http://www.cybermail.net/~codes/index.htm

Agreed, it would be better if the paper were published, but it takes almost a year to get things published these days (I think the Witzum paper took three years!) You can email McKay directly and ask him about the paper. It is a fun site for those who are skeptical about the codes, as I am. It is clear that there are a number of statisticians who believe that the way the data was set up and its interpretation may be flawed, so I would say the codes don't have the scientific authority of say, the law of gravity or the theory of evolution.

keith, it is not pre-destination that god knows the future - it is that he is there! freewill is still ours. but we are like the child watching the circus parade through the knothole in a fence, we only see whats passing before our eyes, and remember what went before. god is on top of the fence and he sees what went, whats here, and whats coming ! he doesn't tell every animal in the parade what to do , but he can see it.

cathy davis: he doesn't tell every animal in the parade what to do , but he can see it.

This interpretation of future-telling is what makes it contradictory to free will. If God sees it coming, can we change what he sees?

Noel : I didn't mean to imply that we're a bunch of trained animals , nor do I believe God sees us that way . I think WE are more important to Him than anything else , so although He CAN interfere-- He won't ....... unless He's asked . He allows us to play out our hand , and sometimes warns us when we're fixing to bust . In the book of Jonah , God gives them a warning and when they heeded it , it says ' GOD CHANGED HIS MIND' . Nothing smacks of pre-destination in that !!

I don't really have a problem with "different shells of experiance"1 wherein God can see all without our future being predestined, but that changes if God tells us what our future is now doesn't it?

I do take umbrage at the fairly common interpretation that we (humans) are more important to God than anything else. I think that this position is hopelessly mired in a kind of racial egotism.

It does not reduce us in any way to be seen in the same light of concern as a tree of a lichen. My conception of God is that of such a being as is capable of having infinite love for everything.

1 What I mean by this is that God exists at a physical level that fully encompasses our universe, so our conventions of time, space and cuasuality are not binding upon God.

Now it just boils down to whether or not you believe the Bible and that God wrote it through the hands of men . I do , so I believe that God loves all creatures-- but He gave humans dominion over all other creations (GENISIS 1:27-28) . It may sound egotistical , but I see it as natural fact . All levels of life have a pecking order , some that are stronger , smarter , more violent , faster , etc. May not be fair , but its a fact. If you don't except that and refuse the role , sooner or later you'll have to give up eating and drinking on the basis that plants are a lifeform , and water contains billions of living micro-organisms that have a right to live as much as we do............as for God setting the future , have you ever watched someone place a glass of water on an edge , KNOW that its going to fall and warn them to ' Watch-out , it's going to fall !' You just predicted the future , but you didn't MAKE it happen.

Keith Fosberg: I do take umbrage at the fairly common interpretation that we (humans) are more important to God than anything else. I think that this position is hopelessly mired in a kind of racial egotism.

My sentiments exactly. Or rather, if God does exist, either He would view it this way, or none of His puny creations would matter much to Him.

Keith Fosberg: What I mean by this is that God exists at a physical level that fully encompasses our universe, so our conventions of time, space and cuasuality are not binding upon God.

Would you go so far as to say that God is the universe?

cathy davis: All levels of life have a pecking order , some that are stronger , smarter , more violent , faster , etc.

But it's highly anthropocentric to say that humans are at the top of this pecking order. The fact is: nothing is at the top, nothing is at the bottom. We live in an ecosystem where everything counts. If some things count more than others, then humans count the least, algae and other small creatures count for most of everything.

We've seen time and again that humans and Earth are not special in any way. We don't exist outside the system, but rather, within it. Earth is the center of the universe judging from our eyes only.

Once again , the point of view is based on whether or not you believe in the Bible , as the word of God . I do , so I would not dream of editing Him . I think I would become suicidal if I didn't KNOW that our Creator was involved in all my concerns and thoughts . God takes care of all living things......but we're the only ones with free will and choice . I think that makes us slightly different from algae.

Noel Yap - 05:04pm Oct 3, 1997 ET (#640 of 641)

cathy davis: I would not dream of editing Him .

Just as you should not read Shakespeare using modern English, you should not read the Bible using modern English.

cathy davis: we're the only ones with free will and choice .

How do you know?

cathy davis: I think that makes us slightly different from algae.

The idea that humans are separate from and above their environment is one of the things that have lead to the abuse and destruction of the environment. Eastern (feminine) religions teach more of harmony and balance with nature; Western (masculine) religions preach control of nature. Note that, though some may object, I classify Science as a masculine religion.

From the point of view of holism, god is the universe, and, since we are part of the universe, we are part of god. You can now easily say that god knows all while still allowing free will to humans, animals, and other living creatures.

I have read the past one hundred or so posts with great interest. Iam a reasonably well read and educated Mensan but must admit being humbled by the abstruse and esoteric nature of the discourse,one of the most civil exchanges I have witnessed considering the potential volatility of the topic.I found Tom to be the more persuasive by dint of his strict and consistent adherence to the scientific method, his command of facts, his clarity of thought, and his incisive polemical style.Noel is an example of substantial intellect whose reason is clouded by mysticism and a puzzling indifference to the dangers that institutionalized superstition and anti-intellectualism pose to civilization.Cliff,I think your heart is leading your head if you believe the Bible code is anything but a function of pure randomness. I'm convinced it will become the cryptological equivalent of the cold fusion debacle.Thanks to all of you for the intellectual stimulation and the entertainment.

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Noel,

I would think applying Occam's Razor would imply there is no free will. Determinism doesn't suggest an external entity, only the laws of physics. Free will itself is the extra. I understand what you are saying. Perhaps I should have said that teleology suggests an external entity. Free will may be an extra... but it very likely results from determinism. We are just a conglomeration of matter and energy which effects matter and energy within the laws of physics. There is nothing glaringly supernatural about our free will.

Tom Anderson: Let's say that for the next thousand or so years, the lighter tints are successively selected out because they usually feed on dark flowers. The Industrial Revolution didn't span thousands of years. No it didn't; so, if there were no black ones already, the species would probably become extinct. It is just luck on their part that there were, probably from some other natural condition. Such is the case with the extinction of the dinosaurs, they couldn't handle a rapid change because there was nothing in their genome which could effectively adapt quickly enough. However, most events in nature are not rapid, and creatures do have time to adapt over many generations.

Eventually, because of lack of evidence (although evolution has a lot going for it), it boils down to belief in one or both. No it doesn't, every single biological organism is a testimony to evolution. There is no further proof needed that evolution occurs. We know how, what, when, where, and why. It is like saying it boils down to a belief in whether electrons are hitting the phosphors in your monitor or your image appears by magic!

Have you ever noticed that none of our theories are always correct. No, because that is not true. The fact that your computer works is a perfect example.

Another case in point is that calendars have always been created by religions. I don't see your point at all.

<con

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

<...cont>

Tom Anderson: I thought that was the point of this message board. No, some already assume the truth of the Bible Code. To them, it is evidence of God and a way to proselate. The header clearly asks: "Is this code real?" So, that is the goal we have.

Also, what is "proselation"?

This is exactly my point. Predictions are not 100%. No, that was not your point. You clearly made it your point that the authors of the Bible (and of the Bible Code) could have predicted what would occur in the millenia to come.

Tom Anderson: Because you post non-truths as truth. I can only assume that you believe what you write when you don't say otherwise. You then assume the positive, something your reliable knowledge system tells you not to do. Again you stretch things to mean things they do not. I assume that you believe what you write because the point of your making an argument is to influence the thoughts of others to be more in accord with your own. The other option would be to assume that you are extremely bored and just write something to produce an argument. What other reason could you possibly have to profess something false as true?

Case in point: JDF until recent years.

Please explain.

<cont...>

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

<...cont>

Tom Anderson: My rights are being trampled by the religious... Then I could also claim that... Then we are in agreement: Religion, smoking, bad drivers, and radiation are bad things.

We should be able to teach them [evolution and creation] and have them decide which to believe. Yeah, right, and I suppose we should give them broccoli and chocolate and let them decide. Or let's give kids the choice between smoking pot and going to math class. Let's give them the choice between good grammar and bad grammer, work or slacking off, going to bed or watching Letterman! You don't teach children bad habits and expect them to be better off for it.

I am also not a propent for forcing atheism in schools. Sorry, but that is what this country is founded on. No religion may be forced upon any individual. Therefore, religion cannot be taught in public schools. The absence of religion is atheism.

So then belief in God could help people also. No, the belief in well-being of self could help people, not God. A belief in God is far more damaging than good.

Tom Anderson: I never said they don't need proof. However, with the case of love and many other abstract concepts, the only proof necessary is that they are experienced -- love effects nothing but your mind and can work on the external environment only through a person, it is not physical. Belief in God is the same. To a degree... Yes, God is real in so much as people can imagine him, but not a single religion on earth limits God to the imagination. Miracles are physical.

<cont...>

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

<...cont>

The Red Spot of Jupiter, Technical Analysis, economic conditions leading to war. You are still ignoring the fact that this type of prediction is entirely different from the Bible Code type of prediction. And, as you yourself said, "predictions are not 100%". Yes, prediction is possible to a degree, but that lends nothing to this discussion. The Bible Code suggests an omniscience which could precisely pinpoint any event in time.

How so? I know they are different, but for the intents of proving/disproving the Bell Inequalities, why wouldn't they both be usable? How do you intend to change the spin or polarity? And how exactly are they related to each other?

It is (to my understanding) metaphysical. It is something I believe. Then you dismiss science.

Sacrifice -- not animals or virgins -- is still useful in our society. Without it, noone would save up money to send their as-of-yet-unborn children to school or any other countless things that need a little sacrifice. So, depending on what you had meant, I would either agree or disagree. Yes, I was referring to animals and virgins (and first born sons). Otherwise, what would be the point?

Any source that expands the mind is worth looking into. Note that to "expand the mind" a text does not have to be full of truths, it merely needs to stimulate thought so that the reader can decide or search for himself what is true. I disagree. Anything which clouds the truth is bad. Persuasion is an easy thing to achieve, and religions (and infomercials) depend on that. It is easy to believe things you really want to believe (like that sprayon hair actually looks natural).

Royce,

You have a "gravity detecter?" Can I see it? You know what I mean don't you; a gravity detecter that can detect the gravitational force of two masses acting upon each other midway between the two masses a zillion miles apart? Yeah, it's called a scale. F=MA(G)

<cont..

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

<...cont>

Cliff,

I was referring to the Aspect experiments. (although I may have referred to them as EPR experiments, following John Gribbin, in his book). I continue to understand that most physicists believe the (Aspect) experiments are valid.

Not only do many not accept his results (please, try to repeat the experiment), but of those who do, not many accept his conclusions. The best conclusion to make is that the psi function does not entirely describe reality. Or you could go with Bohm's six-dimensional configuration space.

I continue to think that there is a difference between saying that the Bible code, as described in the Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg paper, has no predictive value and saying the code does not exist.

It does not exist for the very reason it has no predictive value. The predictive value is what makes it a code, otherwise it is just a game of Scrabble.

Furthermore, I think that comparing the Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg finding with random cloud patterns is evasive, and not to the point.

Very well; from now on, I will cling to the Scrabble analogy (I like it better anyway).

<cont...>

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

<...cont>

The purpose of the paper was to show, based on valid, standard statistical science, that the equidistant letter sequences in the book of Genesis are not random.

It proves no such thing.

Here is an experiment: let's choose a sequence of random letters. In the English language, each letter has a chance of 1/26 (3.9%) of appearing next, if taken completely randomly. Due to the way in which language is used, however, some characters appear more often than others. Guesstimating that "F" has a 4% chance, "R" has an 8% chance, "E" has a 20% chance, and "D" has a 2% chance, then finding "FRED" in a sequence of letters from a text of only four letters is 0.04*0.08*0.20*0.02=0.000028=0.0028%. However, the chance of finding it in a text of 500,000 letters is 0.000028*125000=3.5=350%; that means that you are guaranteed to find "FRED" at least several times (probabilistically).

This is using English; as I understand it, the meaning of a Hebrew letter sequence is much more subjective, therefore there is a greater chance that a meaningful word will appear. In addition, I understand that letters represent numbers as well, therefore dates are guaranteed to appear profusely throughout a text.

The statistics calculated in the Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg paper do not fall into that category, however.

Sure it does.

What, necessarily, does the existence of non-random equidistant letter sequences in the Book of Genesis have to do with a pre-determined universe? Well, since those sequences supposedly relate events in the far future, the universe must be pre-determined.

<cont...>

Philip, I am sorry if you find my discourse less than convincing and not quite up to par with the likes of Tom and Noel. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you that they have the superior intellects. But you can not imagine the fun it has been for me to try to keep up with these giants. In addition, you have to understand that I was the latecomer. In order to participate in a substantial way, from the beginning, I decided that I had to stake out a position at least somewhat different than those of the two then existing major participants. I don’t know if the genesis code will hold up, nor do I really care, but it has been fun trying to make the case.

While I agree with most of what you said, I am sorry you said it, particularly with respect to Tom. Such compliments will only encourage him. With respect to Noel, I agree that he appears to have a substantial interest in mysticism, but I am not convinced that his reason is clouded by it substantially.

With respect to "dangers that institutionalized superstition and anti-intellectualism pose to civilization," and Noel’s supposed indifference to it, I would request clarification on your meaning. If you are referring to organized religion, I am not sure I agree that the church poses a significant danger to civilization. Please clarify.

Cliff

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

<...cont>

Cathy,

it is not pre-destination that god knows the future - it is that he is there! freewill is still ours. That is absolutely contradictory. Free will and knowledge of future are mutually exclusive.

God gives them a warning and when they heeded it... If they have the choice to heed it or not heed it, then God does not know which they will do.

Keith,

God exists at a physical level that fully encompasses our universe, so our conventions of time, space and cuasuality are not binding upon God. Then God cannot act upon time or space. God can see all without our future being predestined That is impossible. If God knows future, then future cannot change without God's previous foreknowledge being wrong, and then he didn't know the future.

My conception of God is that of such a being as is capable of having infinite love for everything. Then why does the Bible portray him as being so incredibly hateful?

Cathy,

have you ever watched someone place a glass of water on an edge , KNOW that its going to fall and warn them to ' Watch-out , it's going to fall !' You just predicted the future , but you didn't MAKE it happen. No, you predicted that it would happen based on your previous experience of things sitting on edges. You could have been wrong, but were not. But this is only because the range of the system is so small at a matter of a split-second of time. This type of prediction is not what is being suggested by the Bible Code. The code requires absolute omniscience throughout time to any arbitrary precision.

<cont...>

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

<...cont>

Noel,

Would you go so far as to say that God is the universe? That being the case, then there is no God. You have just merged entities, thereby cancelling the first one.

Cathy,

but we're the only ones with free will and choice. Give me a break! All animals have free will and choice as much as we do.

Noel,

Note that, though some may object, I classify Science as a masculine religion. First, science is not a religion. Once again, religion has to do with the worship of a deity... science is a method of finding truth. In no way are these related. Second, you define masculine as "preaching control". Science does not preach anything, nor is it controlling. People can use science to create technology that allows them to control, but you are stretching it way too far to say that science controls.

From the point of view of holism, god is the universe, and, since we are part of the universe, we are part of god. You can now easily say that god knows all while still allowing free will to humans, animals, and other living creatures. No, you can't. God knows nothing since the universe knows nothing. If there is no free will, then the future is pre-determined, but we can know nothing since knowledge is the result of free will. If there is no free will, then the future is not pre-determined and we still cannot know it. So, we can never know the future.

<cont...>

Tom Anderson - 01:33am Oct 5, 1997 ET (#651 of 652)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

<...cont>

Philip,

I have read the past one hundred or so posts with great interest. I am a reasonably well read and educated Mensan but must admit being humbled by the abstruse and esoteric nature of the discourse, one of the most civil exchanges I have witnessed considering the potential volatility of the topic. I found Tom to be the more persuasive by dint of his strict and consistent adherence to the scientific method, his command of facts, his clarity of thought, and his incisive polemical style. Noel is an example of substantial intellect whose reason is clouded by mysticism and a puzzling indifference to the dangers that institutionalized superstition and anti-intellectualism pose to civilization. Cliff, I think your heart is leading your head if you believe the Bible code is anything but a function of pure randomness. I'm convinced it will become the cryptological equivalent of the cold fusion debacle. Thanks to all of you for the intellectual stimulation and the entertainment.

Excellent analysis (though I wouldn't necessarily use the word "polemical", sounds too harsh ;o) But we have yet to hear why you are convinced "it will become the cryptological equivalent of the cold fusion debacle", please elaborate for us.

Tom

Cliff,

While I agree with most of what you said, I am sorry you said it, particularly with respect to Tom. Such compliments will only encourage him.

Hey, what's that supposed to mean?

With respect to Noel, I agree that he appears to have a substantial interest in mysticism, but I am not convinced that his reason is clouded by it substantially.

I have to agree with Philip. An interest in mysticism necessarily clouds reason.

With respect to "dangers that institutionalized superstition and anti-intellectualism pose to civilization," and Noel’s supposed indifference to it, I would request clarification on your meaning. If you are referring to organized religion, I am not sure I agree that the church poses a significant danger to civilization. Please clarify.

Just look at history.

Tom

Tom Anderson: Hey, what's that supposed to mean?

An attempt at humor, only. (How can you take offense when I earlier called you a giant of intellect?)

Cliff Beall: I am not sure I agree that the church poses a significant danger to civilization.

Tom Anderson: Just look at history.

Specifically, what are these dangers to which you refer? Some people would say that civilization was built on religion, and I agree in the following sense: When hunters and food gatherers first gained a sense of religion, they began to build altars and temples to their gods. Staying close to these altars and temples limited their movement, which is inconsistent, in large part, with hunting and food gathering activities. The introduction of agriculture and civilization were the result.

The above presupposes that religion preceded the introduction of agriculture. I think it probably did.

Cliff

I agree that animals can make a choice , but it is based on instinct---- not rational thought and decision .

I agree that religion is bad and has been destructive ; Jesus Christ thought so too . The only people that He showed anger towards ,instead of love and patience , was the religious leaders of that time . He despised their sanctimonious, rigid rules and raked them over the coals for using God to control and scare people . You are all very intelligent and logical people . A bunch of very fine minds doing the absolute best with the information that you are limited to.......but there is so much we puny beings don't know . We are no more capable of declaring anything we think we know as a 'truth' , than cavemen were of building a modern-day computer . So in the end it boils down to what you believe in with your heart (metaphorically speaking) . That is why I do believe in God . Man is just plain incapable of anything on his own without help . The highest wisdom of all is realizing you know nothing compared to what there is left to learn . What I have observed is that love is more important than intelligence to human beings . I have a friend that is a super-intelligent Mensan , and for all his knowledge and capabilities , he has never been happy , even as a child . He is lacking heart-knowledge (love) , and even 'science' concedes we need that . The God I know provides that ; anybody who thinks of God as 'hateful' has read only isolated incidences without putting the whole thing in context . Read it ALL, without preformed opinions, and you might truly find the 'truth'. As for the tired subject of pre-determined futures and God's knowledge of them, I think we start a journey at birth. The road we go down has many , many forks and forks off of the forks, etc. WE decide which way to go, always . But God is big enough to be at every fork , no matter which we choose . It is still up to us .(continued)

(continued) God's laws are not 'legal' laws, they are 'natural' laws, (for every action, there is a reaction). How can He NOT know what will happen next, according to our actions? Finally, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter one way or the other if the ' Bible Code' is real or not. If it is, then it's pretty awesome that God gave us this 'computer-chip' for our times in a lovely, readable book-form to be used by all people in all times . If it's not, the book is plenty sufficient on it's own . I've enjoyed all of you, thanks.......................cathy

Cathy Davis: Man is just plain incapable of anything on his own without help . The highest wisdom of all is realizing you know nothing compared to what there is left to learn . What I have observed is that love is more important than intelligence to human beings .

Ah... I see you can "talk the talk." (You know the lingo.)

Cathy Davis: I have a friend that is a super-intelligent Mensan , and for all his knowledge and capabilities , he has never been happy , even as a child . He is lacking heart-knowledge (love)...

Some more talk the talk, I see. Cathy, if I had a nickel for every time I have heard that "he has never been happy" talk, I would probably have enough money to buy my lunch tomorrow. What can I say. If I were to tell you I am happy with my belief system, would you believe me? Do me a favor and skip over to the "Cloning" messageboard (re. message#465) for a detailed explanation as to why I became a great deal happier once I no longer believed in Hell and the Devil.

Now one thing you need to understand, over there I am engaged in an argument with this atheist (Tom Anderson), who believes that religion is very bad and poses a great danger to society. I am an agnostic who believes that religion is benign, neither good nor bad (at least, for the most part). Unfortunately, I am in deep trouble with the argument over there right now, mainly because Tom is a lot smarter than me. Why don’t you jump in and help me out?

Cliff

Cliff;please dont infer that Iconsider you a lesser light in the Bible code debate.I had an a priori bias when I came to the board and Tom's position happened to be consistent with mine so I ''endorsed'' him.You would run circles around me in a similar debate.I'm curious. You identified yourself as an agnostic in a previous post,yet I thought you were suggesting to tom that the Bible code might be true. Are you positing a supernatural influence; and if so how do you reconcile that with agnosticism which by definition denotes the inability to know God? I apologize if I've confused the facts. Tom; I think you interpreted ''polemical'' more harshly than I intended it. I didn't mean it in the popular, political, pejorative sense. I wanted to connote that you derive pleasure from debate or disputation. In an earlier post someone (Cliff?) used the term ''proseylate'' or something to that effect. You asked ,rhetorically perhaps, what he was referring to. Ithink he meant ''proselytize''. My skepticism about the B.C. ? I'm an atheist and ipso facto rule out the possibility of miracles. What I've read on the web confirms my skepticism (McKay,James Randi,You, Skeptical Inquirer,et al. Einstein said ''The idea of a Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible''. Appeal to authority because I'm not schooled in this discipline. Thanks for letting me kibbitz.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry Cliff, ''proselate'' was Noel's word. My apologies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phillip, thanks for the kind words. They were nice to read even if you didn’t mean them. Unlike Tom, I do need encouragement from time to time. To answer your question, let me first note something I said in my first response to your post:

Cliff Beall: In order to participate in a substantial way, from the beginning, I decided that I had to stake out a position at least somewhat different than those of the two then existing major participants. I don’t know if the genesis code will hold up, nor do I really care…

The "nor do I really care" was my response to your "your heart is leading your head" comment. Unfortunately, it leaves the impression of insincerity on my part in the discussion. However, I did not worry about it at the time because I thought Tom would jump on it and I could then clarify. However, he ignored it, and I was left holding the bag. Thanks for rescuing me. "Clarification" follows:

Phillip, I neither believe, nor disbelieve, in the existence of the genesis code. I do not know if it exists for the same reason I do not know whether or not God exists. I simply have no conclusive information either way. Tom has tried to prove to me the non-existence of the Bible Code using comparable logic to the logic he uses to "prove" the non-existence of God. I do not accept the logic in either case since it involves assumptions which I can not know of certainty.

However, the Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg paper does exist. I entered the board after Tom had dismissed the Bible Code as impossible, based on what he has subsequently referred to as a "reliable information system" and which I would normally identify as a "belief system." I present the final paragraph from my first post (July 19, #320).

Tom, the way I see it is this: Either the math (calculation of the odds in the paper) is correct and based on correct assumptions, or it is not. I understand that the paper stood up to peer review. If it stood up to peer review, it seems likely to me that the calculations are probably correct. If the calculations are correct, the code must exist, regardless of any preconceptions you may or may not have, and regardless of any belief system you may or may not have about predestination and free will.

You indicated that you had read Professor McKay. My question is, have you read the Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg paper? Have you read Professor Rips refutation of the Bar-Natan, Gindis, Levitan and McKay paper? Or the statements by Witztum and Gans? You can access them from the Official Torah Codes page at either:

http://www.math.gatech.edu/~jkatz/Religions/Numerics/genesis.html

or

http://www.cybermail.net/~codes/index.htm.

Also, while you are at it, make sure you read the Rejoiner by the McKay team and the letter from Professor Cohen, both of which are accessible from Brendon McKay’s page at:

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/index.html

Then come join the fun.

Cliff Beall

Gee, I don't know where to start, I seem to be at least partially opposed to everyone :)

Man is an animal! (I hate that commertial!)

The only way in which we can "lift ourselves up" is to understand that the universe will sail on fine without us. As long as we (as a society) remain mired in the concept that we are "favoured children" we will be unwilling to make the sacrifices (as in delayed gratification, etc.) required to develope as a species and society. We need to put away these notions that the universe is our plaything. When we see ourselves as part of the system, without special moral and/or qualitative privledges, we have the intelectual and spiritual opportunity to grow. When we see ourselves as "granted" we tend to stagnate. For historical reference; what was the difference between the Renasance and the "Dark Ages?" (Although the Renasance was quite "dark" at times I think the lesson is still there!)

I guess I should make my position clear on "God". I do believe in God, but have some problems with the popular interpretations of both the content and origen of the bible. My previous statement regarding my conception of God was meant to convey that I view God as a "super-set" of our universe. This is very convieniant as it gives God the capability of "knowing" non-deterministic events and removes the neccesity of God maintaining an "interfering" finger in the day to day events of our universe. I used the word "convieniant" on purpose. I can't possibly know of the existance nor non-existance of a being of this magnatude. This explanation fits in with my general conception of "how things are" so it is "convieniant." It in no way should be taken as a statement of fact (true or untrue,) but rather as a stement of my personal philosophy.

I think my argument regarding the B.C. has been put forth elequantly by others already; "It is Scrabble," interesting, but not meaningfull. What is does show is how much fun ma

Philip Carey: to all of you for the intellectual stimulation and the entertainment.

Hey, no problem. When it comes to more serious problems, I really do try to be more scientific about it. I just feel that the topic of belief in improvable things should remain outside the realm of science. When others believe in supernatural beings, it is a non- problem. It becomes a problem when they and non-believers start taking away freedoms. IOW, belief is harmless, actions may not be.

Tom Anderson - 12:39am Oct 5, 1997 ET (#642 of 660)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Noel,

I would think applying Occam's Razor would imply there is no free will. Determinism doesn't suggest an external entity, only the laws of physics. Free will itself is the extra.

Tom Anderson: Free will may be an extra... but it very likely results from determinism.

According to chaos theory, the universe is non-deterministic.

We are just a conglomeration of matter and energy which effects matter and energy within the laws of physics.

I agree. So what you're saying is that free will is an emergent behaviour coming out of the universe following it's static laws?

Tom Anderson: if there were no black ones already, the species would probably become extinct.

Given: There was no natural setting that selected darker moths over lighter ones. If there were, there would have been no white moths.

Given: The Industrial Revolution occurred overnight (in geological time).

So evolution was not responsible for creating the black moths. They just came abo

Tom Anderson: No it doesn't, every single biological organism is a testimony to evolution.

I could just as easily say that every single biological organism is a testimony to creationism.

Tom Anderson: It is like saying it boils down to a belief in whether electrons are hitting the phosphors in your monitor or your image appears by magic!

No, it's not, electrons hitting the phosphors are statistically deterministic. Therefore, the steps can be traced through and shown that that's what causes the images. No such thing can be done for evolution.

Plus, you still go on believing that every genome is beneficial. Dawn Willis has already posted that Junior Diabetes has no known benefits. According to your reliable knowledge system, you must prove that there is such a benefit.

Noel Yap: Have you ever noticed that none of our theories are always correct.

Tom Anderson: No, because that is not true. The fact that your computer works is a perfect example.

You know that's not what I had meant. To clarify, none of our theories are correct on all levels. For example, Newton's Laws break down at relativistic levels. Even Quantum Mechanics still has experimental exceptions that seem to break the rules.

Noel Yap: This is exactly my point. Predictions are not 100%.

Tom Anderson: the authors of the Bible (and of the Bible Code) could have predicted what would occur in the millenia to come.

Yes, they could have, but predictions are not 100% exactly correct; some of the details may be off.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson: Because you post non-truths as truth. I can only assume that you believe what you write when you don't say otherwise.

Noel Yap: You then assume the positive, something your reliable knowledge system tells you not to do.

Again you stretch things to mean things they do not. I assume that you believe what you write because the point of your making an argument is to influence the thoughts of others to be more in accord with your own.

Another false assumption. My goals here are to discuss and probe. I play the devil's advocate 'cos simply agreeing would stagnate the tought process. Nothing new comes out of stagnation, somethings might be learned from discussing non-truths. If this weren't so, educational systems would have dropped the Bohr model of the atom decades ago and researchers would just throw away dead end paths.

Tom Anderson: The other option would be to assume that you are extremely bored and just write something to produce an argument.

More or less what I just said.

Noel Yap: Case in point: JDF until recent years.

Tom Anderson: Please explain.

Oops, it's JD, not JDF. Anyway, see my post above about Junior Diabetes.

Tom Anderson: My rights are being trampled by the religious...

Noel Yap: Then I could also claim that...

Tom Anderson: Then we are in agreement: Religion, smoking, bad drivers, and radiation are bad things.

Yes, well if all your scale has is "good" and "bad", then everything must fall

Noel Yap: We should be able to teach them [evolution and creation] and have them decide which to believe.

Tom Anderson: Yeah, right, and I suppose we should give them broccoli and chocolate and let them decide.

At a certain age, yes.

Tom Anderson: Or let's give kids the choice between smoking pot and going to math class.

I don't know about you, but I would've picked the math class any day.

Tom Anderson: You don't teach children bad habits and expect them to be better off for it.

Where did you pick up your knowledge of creationism. Were you harmed by it? Besides, weren't you the one, on some other message board, who posted that children should be opened up to the entire world of sex?

Noel Yap: I am also not a propent for forcing atheism in schools.

Tom Anderson: Sorry, but that is what this country is founded on. No religion may be forced upon any individual. Therefore, religion cannot be taught in public schools. The absence of religion is atheism.

Atheism, itself, is a belief system. By forcing atheism, you are forcing the non-belief of another religion; they are mutually exclusive. Forcing of beliefs is not what this country was founded on.

Noel Yap: So then belief in God could help people also.

Tom Anderson: No, the belief in well-being of self could help people, not God.

They are not mutually exclusive.

Tom Anderson: A belief in God is far more damaging than good.

To some. Was it so damaging to the people Mother Teresa helped?

Tom Anderson: I never said they don't need proof. However, with the case of love and many other abstract concepts, the only proof necessary is that they are experienced -- love effects nothing but your mind and can work on the external environment only through a person, it is not physical.

Noel Yap: Belief in God is the same.

To a degree... Yes, God is real in so much as people can imagine him, but not a single religion on earth limits God to the imagination. Miracles are physical.

I think you don't see the subtle difference between imagination and belief. As far as the existence of God is concerned, I personally believe you are right (although I won't stake my life on it.) Others, though, believe that God is as real as love. You have already said that love cannot be (dis)proven. It is just a small step from there to see that God cannot be (dis)proven. They both lie in the realm of belief.

Tom Anderson: The Bible Code suggests an omniscience which could precisely pinpoint any event in time.

I haven't settled on any consequences of the Bible Code's existence.

Tom Anderson: How do you intend to change the spin or polarity? And how exactly are they related to each other?

Ahhh... I see. But, from previous postings (not necessarily from you), I came under the impression that spin and polarity were dual properties much as position and momentum were.

Tom Anderson: Then you dismiss science.

Sometimes, yes, as I have stated before.

Tom Anderson: [The Bible Code] does not exist for the very reason it has no predictive value. The predictive value is what makes it a code, otherwise it is just a game of Scrabble.

This assumes that the intent of the Bible Code is for communication of future events. "God works in mysterious ways," or so they say.

Tom Anderson: I will cling to the Scrabble analogy (I like it better anyway).

Well, steganographic codes work more like word searches than Scrabble.

Cliff Beall: The purpose of the paper was to show, based on valid, standard statistical science, that the equidistant letter sequences in the book of Genesis are not random.

Tom Anderson: It proves no such thing.

I had thought that a NSA employee had verified the paper. Unless this person or the US government had an ulterior motive, I would tend to believe him.

Tom Anderson: then finding "FRED" in a sequence of letters from a text of only four letters is 0.04*0.08*0.20*0.02=0.000028=0.0028%. However, the chance of finding it in a text of 500,000 letters is 0.000028*125000=3.5=350%; that means that you are guaranteed to find "FRED" at least several times (probabilistically).

There is something wrong with your math if you wind up with a probability of over 100%.

Cliff Beall: What, necessarily, does the existence of non-random equidistant letter sequences in the Book of Genesis have to do with a pre-determined universe?

Tom Anderson: Well, since those sequences supposedly relate events in the far future, the universe must be pre-determined.

I disagree. I've cited examples before of predictive models in non-deterministic systems.

<cont...>

Cliff Beall: Unfortunately, I have to agree with you that they have the superior intellects.

Well, thank you.

Cliff Beall: But you can not imagine the fun it has been for me to try to keep up with these giants.

It's been fun for me, too. And I must admit that Tom is a far better debater than I.

Cliff Beall: With respect to Noel, I agree that he appears to have a substantial interest in mysticism, but I am not convinced that his reason is clouded by it substantially.

Ahhh, you see right through me.

Tom Anderson: If God knows future, then future cannot change without God's previous foreknowledge being wrong, and then he didn't know the future.

If God exists outside our system, then God can see all futures. Of course, my real line of thinking is, "God and our system taken together form another system, what lies outside that? IOW, does God know what He'll be doing some eons hence?" At this point, you must speak of meta-Gods, meta-meta-Gods, etc. Where does the Judeo-Christian God lie in this structure?

Tom Anderson: Give me a break! All animals have free will and choice as much as we do.

To an extent. We understand some unicellular life to such an extent that we can predict its response given certain stimuli. Is this free will? In who's point of view? What if some other being understand us as well?

Tom Anderson: First, science is not a religion.

I have already posted Webster's definition of religion. Democracy would say that we abide by this definition, not yours.

Tom Anderson: Science does not preach anything, nor is it controlling. People can use science to create technology that allows them to control, but you are stretching it way too far to say that science controls.

If you say that then Western religions don't preach control, either. The people who practice it do. So, science is as non-controlling as the other Western religions.

Tom Anderson: No, you can't. God knows nothing since the universe knows nothing.

We are smaller than ants in a colony or neurons in a brain when it comes to the entire universe. We cannot fathom what it knows. Again, you are stuck in an anthropocentic state, much as the Catholics of the Middle Ages.

Tom Anderson: If there is no free will, then the future is pre-determined, but we can know nothing since knowledge is the result of free will.

Do artifical life (AL) have free will?

Tom Anderson: I have to agree with Philip. An interest in mysticism necessarily clouds reason.

Not if mysticism comes second to reason and only used to form the foundation that reason has not yet formed.

Cliff Beall: I am not sure I agree that the church poses a significant danger to civilization. Please clarify.

Tom Anderson: Just look at history.

But look at the benefits we've gotten from it also (ie charity.) Yes, charity can exist without religion, but you cannot say that God did not play a major motivational role in Mother Teresa's life.

Cliff Beall: Some people would say that civilization was built on religion, and I agree in the following sense: When hunters and food gatherers first gained a sense of religion, they began to build altars and temples to their gods. Staying close to these altars and temples limited their movement, which is inconsistent, in large part, with hunting and food gathering activities. The introduction of agriculture and civilization were the result.

I had thought it was the other

cathy davis: [Jesus] despised [religious leaders'] sanctimonious, rigid rules and raked them over the coals for using God to control and scare people .

Yup.

cathy davis: but there is so much we puny beings don't know .

Yup.

cathy davis: We are no more capable of declaring anything we think we know as a 'truth' , than cavemen were of building a modern-day computer .

Yup. That's three, so far.

cathy davis: So in the end it boils down to what you believe in with your heart (metaphorically speaking) .

Wow, 'seems our line of thinking is similar. It's interesting we reached different beliefs.

cathy davis: Man is just plain incapable of anything on his own without help .

For now, anyway.

The highest wisdom of all is realizing you know nothing compared to what there is left to learn . What I have observed is that love is more important than intelligence to human beings .

I just started seeing this only a couple of years ago.

I have a friend that is a super-intelligent Mensan , and for all his knowledge and capabilities , he has never been happy , even as a child .

Ignorance is bliss. Happiness comes when either there are no problems or you feel you can deal with the problems. Ignorant people don't see problems, therefore they are happy. Religion allows more intelligent people to believe that the problems they face are not insurmountable. Non-believers must rely upon themselves (and others to a lesser extent.) Note that I am not making any judgements, just stating "facts" the way I see them.

cathy davis: it doesn't matter one way or the other if the ' Bible Code' is real or not.

I agree.

Cliff;please dont infer that Iconsider you a lesser light in the Bible code debate.I had an a priori bias when I came to the board and Tom's position happened to be consistent with mine so I ''endorsed'' him.You would run circles around me in a similar debate.I'm curious. You identified yourself as an agnostic in a previous post,yet I thought you were suggesting to tom that the Bible code might be true. Are you positing a supernatural influence; and if so how do you reconcile that with agnosticism which by definition denotes the inability to know God? I apologize if I've confused the facts. Tom; I think you interpreted ''polemical'' more harshly than I intended it. I didn't mean it in the popular, political, pejorative sense. I wanted to connote that you derive pleasure from debate or disputation. In an earlier post someone (Cliff?) used the term ''proseylate'' or something to

Cliff;thanks for your kind response and the invitation to join the fun. I'm not being falsely modest when I say I don't think I could add anything substantive to the discussion. Besides, I don't type and would have a hard time keeping up. I'm content to be a voyeur of sorts and maybe learn some things along the way Besides, I have a fragile ego and no desire to be intellectually humiliated ! Maybe I'll be a sniper,staying hidden until I get a clear shot and then run for cover before anybody else can get me in their sights. I'll try to read the references you provided,but if they're too recondite I'll have to pass. Noel; If religion was purely subjective intellectual onanism I'd have no problem with it either.But I think the impulse is hardwired and adherents feel compelled to infuse society with it thereby infringing on my rights.Jefferson said, ''It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg''.But he also said A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. Back to the Bible Code.

Anyone on this board that is interested to know what happens when you combine the topics of RELIGION with WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND OPPRESSION, check out the PromiseKeepers board! It's a trip.

Maria; I already did. That's why I came back to this board. I'd rather stare at a blank screen than read some of the religious pap being propagated over there. The P K's arguments remind me of the ''separate but equal'' doctrine in Plessy Vs. Ferguson. Or,the ''Everyone's equal but some are more equal than others'' in Orwell's 1984. If theirs is the God that purportedly inspired or perpetrated the Bible Code, I'm thankful I'm an infidel

Phillip Carey: I'm not being falsely modest when I say I don't think I could add anything substantive to the discussion.

To the contrary, I think you have already had a significant impact on the discussion.

Phillip Carey: Besides, I don't type and would have a hard time keeping up.

It is easy if you do what I do. First, copy all new posts to your word processor. Close your Internet connection. Read through the posts offline and decide what you want to respond to offline. Write your post and edit as needed. Do a spell check. (I sometimes forget to do a new one after I have made some changes and it irritates me to no end.) Copy the post into the edit box provided. It is easy.

Phillip Carey: I'll try to read the references you provided,but if they're too recondite I'll have to pass.

Don’t make me laugh. Anyway, you don’t have to read and understand every word to get an overall picture. I don’t understand the math in the Witztum paper. But I figure that if other mathematicians are unable to find substantial fault with it, it is probably pretty sound. Other than the math, the paper is pretty readable. The statements by Witztum and Gans I suggested are in plain English. The original paper by Bar-Natan, Gindis, Levitan and McKay paper is difficult to follow and, apparently, riddled with errors. I suggest scanning it anyway. The refutation by Professor Rips is interesting in that it reveals the passion of the man.

The letter from Professor Cohen to Professor Bar-Natan contains the strongest evidence against the Witztum paper I have seen to date. (It reveals a great deal about the data collection, by Professor Havlin, that one will not find in the paper, itself, such as background on the selection of names and appellations of the scholars used in the experiment etc.) Professor Cohen appears to know what he is talking about.

I will be interested in your assessment.

Cliff

I think I meant Animal Farm not 1984 ! Cliff; I'll be back to you after I read the literature. Thanks.

The Promise Keepers board is dangerous. They definitely need some intelligent men to come over there and clean it up. Help.

Philip Carey: If religion was purely subjective intellectual onanism I'd have no problem with it either.But I think the impulse is hardwired and adherents feel compelled to infuse society with it thereby infringing on my rights.

Then it's just a matter of learning proper behaviour. Eastern religions don't proselytize. Jesus had no intention of setting up an organised religion.

Much of our society is based on controlling urges. This is no different. So, discussing is good behaviour, but forcing is not.

Philip Carey: Jefferson said, ''It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg''.But he also said A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. Back to the Bible Code.

He said it just right.

I think you are being overly modest. I've already increased my vocabulary by two words just from this post.

Maria D.: The Promise Keepers board is dangerous. They definitely need some intelligent men to come over there and clean it up. Help.

Maria, I didn’t even know what you meant when you first referred to the Promises Keepers board. Shows you how I keep up with current events. So I went looking.

My reaction: so what? All it is is a bunch of talk the talk. It doesn’t mean anything. It isn’t dangerous. After reading your post, I was very alarmed: I thought it might be even be something comparable to Women’s Lib. But it wasn’t.

Cliff

re: #678---------- They ARE intelligent, that's why they aren't participating in a bunch of ' religious vs. feminist' mudslinging.

Having somehow missed this controversy, I read Drosnin's book this weekend. Quite alarmed, I then read every pro and con I could find on the issue, including sections from this message board. In truth, Drosnin's account is sensationalistic and irresponsible. Through the skip sequencing of letters, a multitude of coincidental or strikingly formed word patterns can be found in any text of that size. The beauty and wonder of the Torah code is the fact that it can be -- and has been -- scientifically validated. The simple study performed by Eliyahu Rips and Doron Witzum, which was published in Statistical Science after an unusually rigorous peer review, does prove that skip coding exists in the Torah. Drosnin included examples which were statistically insignificant in his book of *predictions*, which renders them meaningless, a matter of simple coincidence until proven otherwise.

Three years later, the paper by Rips and Witzum has not been challenged in any scientific publication. Drosnin offered a mix of science fact/fiction/fantasy in his book The Bible Code; but the Torah code, as demonstrated by Rips and Witzum, remains scientific fact until proven otherwise.

I don't understand how hebrew text can be translated to english names like Kennedy or Shoemaker-Levy. Can anybody explain this to me?

Chris Bristow: I don't understand how hebrew text can be translated to english names like Kennedy or Shoemaker-Levy. Can anybody explain this to me? Chris, I don't know Hebrew so I can't answer that question. I just wanted to point out that Doron Witzum, one of the original scientists who discovered the bible code, stated in his refutation of Drosnin's Book that the Jupiter/Shoemaker-Levy predictions were not statistically significant -- ie. were not coded in relation to each other, or in a way that would indicate anything other than coincidence.

For anyone who cares to comment: Rips and Witzum's scientifically accepted study proved that the names of 32 rabbis were coded in the bible, with their birth and/or death dates linked most closely to their own names. NSA statistician Harold Gans repeated the study, including each rabbi's place of origin, with the same significant results.This all may sound kind of boring, but the rabbis in question were born AFTER the Torah was written. The study showed statistically that this information was deliberately coded in the bible text (i.e. could not have happened by coincidence) and implies that whoever created the coding system could also see into the future. Set your skepticism aside for a second, and ponder the implications.

1. If it is proven true, what does it signify to you?

2. What guesses would you make as to the coder's identity?

I have read the Bible Code, and personally, from the viewpiont of a Catholic who was also raised with fundamentalist leanings (scary, huh?), it scared the crap out of me. However, also being a learned man, I also respect the science behind the statistics. The thing is, the probability of finding these names and dates, etc., in the code IS extremely small, but, there have been many, many books written since the beginning of written language, so the probability that this happened by chance, no matter how small, cannot be ruled out.

Kelly Pope: Three years later, the paper by Rips and Witzum has not been challenged in any scientific publication. Drosnin offered a mix of science fact/fiction/fantasy in his book The Bible Code; but the Torah code, as demonstrated by Rips and Witzum, remains scientific fact until proven otherwise.

Kelly, this is the position that I have argued for several months now. However, I am not sure that I have as much confidence in the "Torah code" as I once had. The letter from Professor Cohen to Professor Bar-Natan, which you can access from Brendan McKay’s page, is strong enough to give me pause. Furthermore, the War and Peace "paper" produced by Bar-Natan and McKay, while not really a "serious" paper, demonstrates that fraud is a possibility. (It doesn’t prove fraud--it just shows that the selection of appellations can skew the results so as to produce statistical significance when none should exist.) In case you are interested and have not previously seen these documents, the address is:

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/index.html

Kelly Pope: NSA statistician Harold Gans repeated the study, including each rabbi's place of origin, with the same significant results.

Yes, this may be the sleeper. The Gans paper has never been published--as far as I know. Supposedly, it was submitted to a scientific publication, but was turned down because the effect it purported to demonstrate has already been demonstrated.

However, suppose the McKay group gets a little too confident with their "fraud" theory, the Gans paper may be capable of providing a refutation of a charge of fraud. Granted that one can, as demonstrated by Bar-Natan and MaKay, skew statistical results in a fraudulent manner by adding and subtracting appellations to and from a particular list, it would seem unlikely that a list of names and appellations, skewed to indicate positive for dates of birth and death, would also show similar positive results for associated cities.

Cliff

Kelly Pope 10/15/97 1:59am You say "For anyone who cares to comment: Rips and Witzum's scientifically accepted study proved that the names of 32 rabbis were coded in the bible, with their birth and/or death dates linked most closely to their own names...(i.e. could not have happened by coincidence) and implies that whoever created the coding system could also see into the future. Set your skepticism aside for a second, and ponder the implications.

1. If it is proven true, what does it signify to you?

2. What guesses would you make as to the coder's identity?

It always raises a red flag when someone wants me to "Set your skepticism aside for a second". If it won't survive a little skepticism, maybe there is something false about it.

You point out 32 rabbis names and dates. This from a massive amount of text with no vowels (in, an, un, on would all be spelled "n"). And how many rabbis have there been total in all these years? Quite a few I would guess. So what are the odds when approach that way? That out of millions of potential references, 32 happen to show up? Should I be impressed?

Glenn Curry: So what are the odds when approach that way? That out of millions of potential references, 32 happen to show up? Should I be impressed?.

Glenn, I assume this was intended as a rhetorical question.

Of course they show up. They show up in Genesis and they show up in a Hebrew translation of War and Peace. They show up in a random collection of Hebrew characters. This is not a difficult concept. The question is at what proximity. Inside a given proximity, an associated occurance of a name and a date, or city, or whatever, is statistically significant.

I suggest you read the paper for a better understanding of what it attempts to prove. And while your at it, if you are interested, read some of the stuff that has been written about it (both sides).

Cliff

Can someone explain me what's the "Bible code" is ???