Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> >> Hey, why be offended? I have good intentions....
> > "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
>
> Yours too?

yes, sure asking to God for one's well-being shows just about as much good
intentions as one offering a chicken to Satan for obscure purposes.  The only
difference is Who you're asking for.  The road to Heaven is paved with good
intentions as well.

> He doesn't speak to me at all.  Unless you are, once again, going to
> tell me I'm too STUPID to worship your God. :-)

you're not stupid, just stubborn.  and is not paying close attention...

> Do you begin to see why some people take your prayers as a "fuck you"?

no.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:56:24 +0100, andrel wrote:
> 
>>  First you
>> don't know for sure that Jim is completely heterosexual, 
> 
> Well, *I*'m sure about that. :-)
Possibly, but you are the only one. I can not even be sure that you are 
male. Are you? No don't bother answering, there is no way I can check 
your answer anyway. BTW I assumed you are human, but when I think about 
it, I can not even be sure of that. Following the reasoning of Descartes 
I might end up proving God exists from this, but ATM I can not remember 
how he did it.

> 
>> second these
>> women (and his boss) might have free will too (assuming such a thing
>> exists  ). This might be perceived as slightly sexist.
> 
> Actually, my boss, my boss' boss, and my boss' boss' boss, are all female.
> 
Ah, so you do have several women. Or actually, they have you, but that 
is mere detail.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:56:24 +0100, andrel wrote:
> >
> >>  First you
> >> don't know for sure that Jim is completely heterosexual,
> >
> > Well, *I*'m sure about that. :-)
> Possibly, but you are the only one. I can not even be sure that you are
> male. Are you? No don't bother answering, there is no way I can check
> your answer anyway. BTW I assumed you are human, but when I think about
> it, I can not even be sure of that. Following the reasoning of Descartes
> I might end up proving God exists from this, but ATM I can not remember
> how he did it.

following the Adamsian thinking, it seems indeed He is God!  Because He's trying
His best to hide evidence of His existence by denying it in a newsgroups! :))

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Grassblade wrote:
>  > Do you disbelieve historians of centuries past?
>
> Of course I do. They may or may not be accurate, depending on their
> point of view. Do you think there are no histories with conflicting
> information in them?
The question was quite innocent, actually, just trying to figure out where you
draw the line of what you believe others tell you. E.g. Do you believe
reporters?
>
> What historians, *other* than biblical, do you base your entire life and
> view of the universe around?
I don't really count biblical historians as "historians", except maybe Luke.
With "historian", I was thinking more of end of middle ages to last century. I
should have spelt it out.
Can't think of any historian whom I cared about so much as to base my life
around. Except there's this chick I know... Ehr, never mind. ;-)
>
> Do you believe in Islam? How about Mormonism? If not, why not? Aren't
> those historical figures just as valid as the folks in the Bible?
I have no particular reason to disbelieve chronicles they may have produced. If
it contains some supernatural stuff, I'd likely raise an eyebrow, though.
>
> How about Jason and the Argonauts? Do you believe in that? Why not?
There may have been some grain of truth in that story actually.

> >> Here's a question for you: What would it take you to convince you that
> >> ESP is real? Would you consider yourself egotistical to ask to see an
> >> actual ESP experiment that succeeded? Or is just reading Doctor Mesmer's
> >> writing good enough for you? If you came across a book written in the
> >> 1700s talking about how there was this one guy who could predict what
> >> card was coming up next in the deck, would that convince you that ESP is
> >> real? If not, why not?
> > Depends if it was his deck or not, I guess. ;-)
>
> I'll take that as meaning there's nothing that would convince you.
> Again, why not? Why do you believe biblical historians, and not someone
> from just a few hundred years ago?
I didn't say that. If it was his deck I would look askance: there's plenty of
known tricks with cards. If it was my deck, or a deck from somebody that I was
reasonably convinced wasn't in league with him, maybe.

>
> >> Do you see how you're starting from the presumption that you know you're
> >> right? Do you see how each response you make implies that the God I
> >> would wind up believing in is the same one you believe in?
>
> > As opposed to atheists, who just know there is no God?
>
> Except I only "know" it in the scientific sense. I am confident, not
> faithful. I not only am confident your god doesn't exist, I'm confident
> that Shiva doesn't exist, that Zeus doesn't exist, etc.
It is my understanding that that would make you more of an agnostic than an
atheist, then.

<snip>
> >> In any case, I thought baptism got rid of original sin or something? Is
> >> the Pope really still being punished in this world for Original Sin? I
> >> thought believing in Jesus and/or doing the right rituals got rid of
> >> that original sin? That whole "Jesus died for our sins" isn't right? Is
> >> there anything one can do to stop being punished for Adam's "sin"?
> >>
> > That is correct. For Christians baptism gets rid of original sin.
>
> Then saying there's evil in the world that happens to Christians because
> of original sin doesn't make much sense.
Who said such nonsense?

>
> --
>    Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
>      It's not feature creep if you put it
>      at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Grassblade wrote:
> > Ah, the magic of statistics. :-D If it's statistically proven, then you can be
> > confident it isn't proven.
>
> Define "proven" then.
"Statistically proven" is the result of the usual hypothesis testing, with
rejection or acceptance of the null hypothesis.
"Proven" has been defined somewhere in this thread, and you didn't raise any
objection to its definition.
This was also meant to be a pun for statisticians. Never mind.
>
> I'm pretty sure we've proven the sun comes up reliably every day, and
> that the phases of the moon repeat about once every 4 weeks. If God gave
> proof at that level, I don't think I'd question his existence.
Who was that guy who bet the sun would rise again the next day? British, around
XVIIIth century, I seem to recall...?
<snip>
> > In statistics you give up certainty to
> > get (possibly) greater insight through inference. It makes no sense to claim
> > that you can prove a negative with statistics.
>
> Sure it does. If you can "prove" a positive statement with statistics,
> you can prove a negative statement in the same way.
>
> "This drug cures cancer."
> "This drug does *not* fail to cure cancer."
To prove a positive I only need to find one item with the required property.
"Some grass is green". Easy as pie to prove. To prove a negative I need to sort
through the whole population: "There exists no grass that isn't green". If I use
statistics to make the proof, I'll be using a subsample. That's the whole point
of using statistics. Consequently no statistical proof of a negative is
possible, in general ("in general" in the mathematical sense).
>
> These aren't quite the same statement statistically speaking, I know,
> but it makes the point.
>
> >>> and it's that faith in the impossible not happening
> >>> that provides them with the comfort of their beliefs.
>
> >> I have a great deal of faith that the impossible won't happen.
>
> > I guess that begs the question: define "impossible".
>
> Define "proof" first. Or God. Or Faith. Why am I the first person who
> has to nail down exactly what I mean by everyday words?
Tsk, I asked first. ;-) Impossible is an interesting word. If I base myself on
everyday experience, I would say that being in two places at the same time is
impossible, or that what comes before causes what comes after. Yet in quantum
physics that isn't true.
Besides, it ties in with the proof-of-negative, since I suppose you prove
"impossible" by negation of what is "possible". Since you claim you can prove
it, be my guest.
>
> --
>    Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
>      It's not feature creep if you put it
>      at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Grassblade wrote:
> The question was quite innocent, actually, just trying to figure out where you
> draw the line of what you believe others tell you. E.g. Do you believe
> reporters?

You're asking the wrong kind of question. You're asking whether I 
believe certain types of people. No. Nor do I disbelieve them.

What you *should* be asking is what *information* I believe.

I think that right there says a lot about our different viewpoints.

>> What historians, *other* than biblical, do you base your entire life and
>> view of the universe around?
> I don't really count biblical historians as "historians", except maybe Luke.

I was interpreting the Bible as a historical (possibly inaccurate) 
account of what happened. (I'd hope you would count Moses writing 
Genesis as "historian". :-)

>>>> Here's a question for you: What would it take you to convince you that
>>>> ESP is real? Would you consider yourself egotistical to ask to see an
>>>> actual ESP experiment that succeeded? Or is just reading Doctor Mesmer's
>>>> writing good enough for you? If you came across a book written in the
>>>> 1700s talking about how there was this one guy who could predict what
>>>> card was coming up next in the deck, would that convince you that ESP is
>>>> real? If not, why not?
>>> Depends if it was his deck or not, I guess. ;-)
>> I'll take that as meaning there's nothing that would convince you.
>> Again, why not? Why do you believe biblical historians, and not someone
>> from just a few hundred years ago?
> I didn't say that. If it was his deck I would look askance: there's plenty of
> known tricks with cards. If it was my deck, or a deck from somebody that I was
> reasonably convinced wasn't in league with him, maybe.

Well, all you have to go on is the reports from 300 years ago. Not 
something where you can say "here, do it with my deck." That's kind of 
my point.

>> Except I only "know" it in the scientific sense. I am confident, not
>> faithful. I not only am confident your god doesn't exist, I'm confident
>> that Shiva doesn't exist, that Zeus doesn't exist, etc.

> It is my understanding that that would make you more of an agnostic than an
> atheist, then.

You would be incorrect. One doesn't have to have a blind faith that gods 
don't exist in order to be an atheist. One *can* have an *informed* 
opinion that gods don't exist.

I don't say "since I haven't ever seen an electron, I'm not sure whether 
they exist."  I'm confident they do. Not faithful, confident, not agnostic.

Would you say you're agnostic on the topic of unicorns, fairies, and 
leprachans?

>> Then saying there's evil in the world that happens to Christians because
>> of original sin doesn't make much sense.
> Who said such nonsense?

Whoever it was I was following up on. IIRC, someone claimed that God 
doesn't *allow* evil, but it's a result of the original sin. I'm too 
lazy now to track it back.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>>> Hey, why be offended? I have good intentions....
>>> "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
>> Yours too?
> 
> yes, sure asking to God for one's well-being shows just about as much good
> intentions as one offering a chicken to Satan for obscure purposes.  The only
> difference is Who you're asking for.

Yep. And since they're both equally nonexistent, I'm not sure why you'd 
get upset, see?

>> He doesn't speak to me at all.  Unless you are, once again, going to
>> tell me I'm too STUPID to worship your God. :-)
> 
> you're not stupid, just stubborn.  and is not paying close attention...

Ah. Yes.  "You don't believe in my God, so you must be TOO STUBBORN TO 
LISTEN TO THE TRUTH!"  Sure, thanks for that.

>> Do you begin to see why some people take your prayers as a "fuck you"?

> no.

I'm sorry for you.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> God gave us free will and a minimum set (10) of rules.  We sentence ourselves by
> not complying.

Funky. I thought there were more than 10. Or less than 10. Depending.

You know, number 11, accept Jesus as your Personal Savior? Didn't that 
get slipped in there a bit back?

>> Ah? Um, OK. Not sure what HDTV has to do with that, but OK.
> 
> I can't steal an HDTV and PS3 from store by God's law.

Of course you can.

>  Neither can Jim, by men's law.  

He can too.

> so much for free will, will to do anything that comes to our sinful
> minds...

The logic (such as it is) is getting weird.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Grassblade wrote:
> "Proven" has been defined somewhere in this thread, and you didn't raise any
> objection to its definition.

I believe I did at one point, actually. I pointed out that 
"mathematically proven" is only "proven" if you do the math right.

> To prove a positive I only need to find one item with the required property.
> "Some grass is green". Easy as pie to prove. 

Harder than you think, actually. Grass *isn't* green. It looks green to 
you. "Green" is an interaction between you and the grass (and to some 
extent the light sources etc), not a property of the grass itself.

> To prove a negative I need to sort
> through the whole population: "There exists no grass that isn't green".

That's only one kind of negative, tho.

I understand the argument. It's simply flawed.

If you're talking about mathematics, it's easy to "prove" a negative: 
Halting Problem.

If you're talking about science, it's easy to "prove" a negative: there 
are no photons that move at other than the speed of light.

Either one of those could be wrong.

> Consequently no statistical proof of a negative is
> possible, in general ("in general" in the mathematical sense).

No, but it's a bogus argument to take someone who says something has 
been scientifically proven, and argue that it hasn't been mathematically 
proven. You're not making a point, you're changing definitions of words 
being used.

There are both mathematical and scientific/statistical proofs that the 
supernatural doesn't exist. They're not the same kind of proof, but 
they're both satisfying to me.

>>>> I have a great deal of faith that the impossible won't happen.
>>> I guess that begs the question: define "impossible".
>> Define "proof" first. Or God. Or Faith. Why am I the first person who
>> has to nail down exactly what I mean by everyday words?
> Tsk, I asked first. ;-) 

I'll grant you that "the impossible won't happen" is pretty 
tautological. However, that's kind of the point. If you want to prove 
the supernatural is real, breaking tautologies is a good way to do it.

> Besides, it ties in with the proof-of-negative, since I suppose you prove
> "impossible" by negation of what is "possible". Since you claim you can prove
> it, be my guest.

You said it's impossible to prove *any* negative, right? Not just "there 
are negatives that are impossible to prove" (which I agree with), but 
"it's impossible to prove a negative". That latter statement is the same 
as "there are no negatives it is possible to prove."

Guess what? "There are no negatives that it's possible to prove" is a 
negative. Think about it.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Grassblade wrote:
> > Lessee. Have you ever observed a point, a line or a segment? As I'm sure you
> > know, the correct answer is: no, because they aren't defined.
>
> Sure, they're defined. They're just not real in the real world. :-)
>
> > They're oh-so-conveniently axiomatised (is that a word?).
>
> That would be how they got defined.
>
>
> Have you ever seen an electron, or a single photon? How do you know they
> exist?
[Dumb]Because I'm told so?[/Dumb] :-D
>
> > If you have never seen them, and nobody has and never will, how do you know they
exist?
>
> They don't, as you're trying to mean it. They're mathematical
> abstractions. They exist as a thought construct in your brain and mine,
> but not as something "out there".
>
> > Geometry is based on
> > them, and space vectors too. Since there is no evidence of points' and lines'
> > existence, I can claim with atheistic certainty, that geometry doesn't exist,
> > and consequently neither ray-tracing.
>
> Except they do exist.
My point exactly.

> They just don't exist "out there".
Well, the Bible claims good and evil come from the heart. Does that qualify as
not "out there"? *Runs and hides*

<snip>
> I'm not judging God.
You said in an earlier post that God is evil. In the post I replied to, you said
he was a SOB in the book of Job. That sounds like judging God to me.

> I'm judging the world around me, and I see that it
> holds evil.
So? That's men for you. (Huh, that came out weird :-O )

> And I'm judging some people who claim to know the will of
> God, and see them too doing evil.
>
> How could I be passing judgement on God if I don't believe in God?
> That's kind of silly. I'm passing judgement on my belief, and its
> compatibility with God as described by many religious people. Since, of
> course, every religious person has a different conceptualization of God,
> I can't even imagine how I could pass judgement on *your* God.

I have a hard time believing that God isn't compatible with your beliefs. It's
just an additional axiom. Unnecessary, apparently, but hardly colliding with
other axioms. Except the axiom of "there is no God".
>
> --
>    Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
>      It's not feature creep if you put it
>      at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message