On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:51:58 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Grassblade wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> I believe Jesus disagrees with you as well, when he says not to suffer
>>> a witch to live. Why would he instruct you to execute those who can
>>> perform miracles (such as flying on brooms and cursing fig trees), if
>>> all miracles come from JHVH?
>> He said WHAT????!!! I would check my facts, if I were you. Seriously.
> 
> Sorry. Old testament. My bad.
> 
> In any case, JHVH disagrees, which was my point.

Arguably, if Jesus is God incarnate, then the distinction matters little 
anyways.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:56:13 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
>> require, at
>> bare minimum, that even one tiny fragment of evidence could be applied
>> to at least on "god", for the idea that any such god exists, or more to
>> the point, that *their* god exists? lol
> 
> the evidence is out there everytime I open my eyes:  the sky, the stars,
> the sea, life...

When I open my eyes, I see a marvelous universe out there, but no 
evidence that there must have been a creator or god.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:35:59 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:07:09 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
> did spake, saying:
> 
>> FangleMork, the god of blue tomatoes
> 
> I couldn't resist
> http://flipc.blogspot.com/2007/12/fanglemork-god-of-blue-tomatoes.html

LOL!  Good one, Phil. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:05:16 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> But yeah, strictly speaking, I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

Ah, now I see what you were saying. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:48:26 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Irrational to you - that's part of what I'm saying, if I say "God told
>> me x", you might see it as irrational because it wasn't God who was
>> talking to you, but to me it's entirely rational because God talked to
>> me.
> 
> That's not the meaning of the word "rational" I was using.

I wasn't aware of a different meaning in that context...

>> Even if they did happen, they wouldn't be proof of the existence of
>> God. Even if modern science had no rational explanation for them, they
>> still wouldn't prove the existence of God.
> 
> Yes, I know.

So I guess I still don't see how those miracles you listed would prove to 
you that God exists rather than just proving to you that we don't know 
enough to understand why they occurred (assuming that one or more of them 
did).

>> Nostradamas, anyone?  Some say he was very specific (something I
>> disagree with, but it's all a matter of perspective).
> 
> In the things for which he was very specific, he was also wrong.

True, at least to some readings.  There are people who have worked out in 
their own logic that he was right and that those who don't see that just 
haven't figured out how right he was.  But then again, that borders on 
religious reasoning rather than logical reasoning.

> And again, if you take a prediction that's sufficiently vague, and you
> allow for minor errors, it's easy to find *something* that matches.

Yep, absolutely.

> Mash any five keys on your keyboard. Now go try to find what word that
> *might* be in a big dictionary. How often will you find something?

avoih :-)

>>> Well, the logic rules we use are scientifically supported, and science
>>> seems to continue to obey the laws of logic.
>> 
>> That doesn't seem much different than "the bible is consistent because
>> the bible says it is".....
> 
> I was simply pointing out the difference between science and logic.
> Science isn't right because science say it's right. Science is right
> because science changes until it matches the observed world.

Well, I think it's more that science changes logically until it matches 
the observed world.  Removing logic from that process makes science take 
a lot longer - at least usually.  But I see your point.

>>> If modus ponens didn't work, we wouldn't use it. Since begging the
>>> question doesn't work, we don't use it.
>> 
>> Now I need to go and try again to understand modus ponens. :)
> 
> If A implies B, and A is true, then B is true.

Ah, OK - that's what I thought, but the reference I found last time 
around got far too involved to make sense without a lot of study.  Even 
using my trusty OED confused me, though now I read it again, I must've 
just been overtired, because now it makes sense to me there (since it 
says essentially what you said).

>> Sounds a lot like something I'd enjoy - thanks again for the reference,
>> will definitely have to find a copy.
> 
> Amazon!

I'm thinking the library - we've got a couple pretty good ones.  Of 
course, it probably would help for me to have a library card (that way my 
wife doesn't have to check out all these books for me).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:17:20 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But something that keeps time accurately that you can wear on your
>> wrist?  Surely there aren't forests where those sorts of things grow on
>> trees. :-)
> 
> Only because it's easier to design than grow. "Something you eat, and it
> cures an infection? And it just showed up on bread? A miracle!"

LOL, now I'm thinking of the probability of a ratchet screwdriver tree.

>> I know some who
>> do, of course, but I think a larger percentage believe that all that
>> can be known is known, in spite of evidence to the contrary.
> 
> And those who *do* know the depths of science realize it's not
> incompatible with faith in the supernatural.

Yep, I have observed that as well - many well-known names from science 
had quite strong religious beliefs.

>> I don't think there's any serious disagreement in the US that math and
>> science scores are down in schools.
> 
> I've seen such.

Citation?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:20:00 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> So, the questions really are: 1. Does it have to be human readable? 

That would be a "watch" by definition.  The usage that I have seen this 
is in the context of the book "The Invisible Watchmaker", and the premise 
(at least from the debates I've had with people who have read it; I have 
not) seems to be flawed as the idea is that a watch has to imply a 
watchmaker because a watch must be made by a maker.  Therefore, there 
must be a watchmaker or there'd be no watch.

The book, from what I've heard of it, uses the idea of a clockwork as its 
premise - something so mechanically complex that it must have been 
created rather than evolved or grown.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:475ec17e$1@news.povray.org...
> Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message Accepting Jesus as your 
>> Saviour is the only thing that will get you into heaven.
>
> I was asking nemesis, actually, as he was the one that listed 10 rules.
>

Sorry about that. I noticed both of you were hamering on the ten 
commandments, so I thought I'd just clarify somthing there.

>> No good deed can get you into heaven because we are all sinfull. If you 
>> accept Jesus as your saviour you won't want to do the wrong things.
>
> And this is not evil? To drag off two thirds of the human population and 
> burn them forever? Damn, I must have missed my bit of original sin.
>
Who has the right to define what is evil?
Would you let someone into your house that you know has bad intentions 
toward you?

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:54:50 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> (The common statement made is "does not a watch imply a watchmaker?").
> 
> The answer, by the way, is "no."
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
> 
> Let's watch watches evolve.

Fascinating video....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:49:05 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> is
> anyone claiming otherwise?

There are some (not necessarily those in this discussion) who believe 
religion trumps science, or that concepts like Creationism *are* science 
and should be taught as part of public school science curriculum.

I call BS on that. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message