Search results

Really? More than the pet owners themselves? I actually raise beef cattle. So I think from the above we wouldn't cancel each other out. I've heard seeral of them describe personality traits, including nurture-based ones, i.e., where the animal was treated poorly even just once and developed...

My turn to take a second bite. Most dog owners would disagree with you here. I'm not one (anymore) but I can kind of see their point. Dogs exhibit personality (animality?). Maybe a lookalike with the same personality could be found, like when a child loses a beloved pet, and you want to replace...

I equivocated a bit between the two uses, in an attempt to draw out @Halster's meaning, to show that it was fallacious. I agree with you that that God includes factual details, and I would equate that with scientific details. But I don't really know what Halster means by "scientific details." I...

God may not be intending to lay out scientific details, but if He's laying something out for our understanding, which any passage on the generations of something (see Gen 2:4) would be expected to do, it will contain scientific details. And if He's laying out scientific details, one would either...

Why is occasionalism helpful to anyone?

double understatement

https://babylonbee.com/news/pros-and-cons-of-ai

Yes, because the sequence is at a different point each subsequent time you call it. The sequence is repeatable if you start with the same seed, even if you call it multiple times.

Rethinking this for a minute. If soul is the whole person, then of course the soul is the (an) answer, but not a useful one. It's like saying 1 is 1 and 2 is 2. Or like using a word in its own definition.

Each call only gives a different answer if the seed is different. I did absolutely no development in Python, but the concept is the same in all languages, in all pseudo-random sequence generators, which I spent 35 years working on. That's not to say someone can't come up with a true random...

So was heavier than air flight at one time, as well as traveling across the ocean in a few hours.

If that was your point, then it is incorrect. If the seed and generator are the same, you get the same result, repeatedly. Here's how you do it in Python: Python Random seed() Method This function generates a random number based on the seed value. It is used to initialize the base value of the...

But the soul can exist, function, desire, worship, feel pain, inhabit places without the body? I'm not talking about AI, but about a potential future step. Perhaps man could create a real intelligence...if a soul is a body and breath of life, just like animals have (even if not in the image of...

If you run the same generator with the same seed, you get the same result. There are different generators that will give a different result with the same seed, or same generators with a different seed, like the microsecond difference, as you said.

Random number generators aren't even random. They are randomized by picking a different seed (starting point), which is often a time hack, because it would approximate randomness. Use the same seed, and you get the same answer.

A lot of the older hymns seem much richer than modern Christian music, but I wonder if some of that is because time has filtered out the poorer ones from the past. I.e., they don't make it into our hymnals today. I enjoy the richness of both words and melodies in a lot of the Getty hymns (Keith...

Yeah, I understand what you are saying. So I'll edit the other post to make it clear.

Well, the word "all" being replaced by "we" wouldn't change any rhyme or meter. And the wording is not untrue. Just flagrant in its denial of a universally available salvation, when comparing the two versions.

Soul is not the same as mind. When God breathed into man the breath of life, he became a living soul. When the breath of life leaves us, we die and return to dust. The "soul" appears to be the whole man, at least in Genesis 2. If we are able to create a being that has a mind and body and lives...

That wasn't the only answer he gave you. You should attempt to refute his answers.