Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Grassblade wrote:
> >> Yeah, its called chance. If you want to imply otherwise you first have
> >> to provide evidence that divine intervention was needed to make that
> >> happen, not human action.
>
> > Yeah, right. Now you're asking for God as testable hypothesis.
>
> No. Read closer: "Not human" != "God". There are multiple reasons this
> could happen: JHVJ, chance, aliens, Zeus. Patrick and you seem to agree
> it's not human. But your only other explanation is "God", which you need
> to support, as there are more things in heaven and earth than God and
> Human. If you'll forgive the irresistible phrasing. ;-)  If you assert
> that anything inexplicable and unlikely must be the work of God, you'll
> have to show how you came to that conclusion. You *don't* really have to
> show how you came to the conclusion that it wasn't humans guiding the
> process.
>
> The religious stance of "if we can't explain it, it must be God" isn't
> valid logic.
Hmm, right, but I think I read it correctly. I take Patrick's statement to mean
the "not" as:
you first have to provide evidence that divine intervention was needed to make
that happen, not (that) human action was needed (or whatever). The context
doesn't seem to be "not human" in the sense of negation of human.

>
> > Really? So language cannot prove itself, can it?
>
> That statement doesn't even make sense. Or, if it does, you'll have to
> clarify what you're asking.
>
> > Therefore let's burn dictionaries.
>
> Dictionaries don't prove anything.
Apart from the meaning of words, I would presume.

>
> > And math? Can it prove itself?
>
> No.
>
> On the other hand, if you postulated the existence of God as a
> mathematical premise, nobody would be arguing with you. Nobody bashes
> religion because Decartes' "evil deceiver" doesn't really exist.
>
> > So let's add math books to the pile.
>
> (clip snarky comment about how much religious people like burning books
> about science and math... ;-)
:-D

>
> > Considering Science is based on published papers, that consist of math
> > and (usually English) commentaries, I think you just killed Science.
>
> It's not that "language" can't prove itself. It's that a statement can't
> assert that it itself is true and logically therefore prove it is true.
>
> Neither science nor math attempts to prove themselves true "because we
> said so".
>
> OK, so Math says "assume X. Therefore Y is true." But everyone who knows
> anything about the topic understands that the second statement means "Y
> is true logically within a framework that assumes X is true and which
> assumes the logical rules we used for getting from X to Y is true." Math
> doesn't attempt to prove that Y is true in the real world because you
> assumed X is true in your logical system.
>
> Don't you know this stuff? Why are you trying to disprove math works, if
> you don't know how math works?
Of course I know this stuff. I'm going for a proof ab absurdo. I only note that
biblical studies use the same procedure. Given the premise(s) everything is
derived logically. Saying that you can't use (some parts of) the Bible to prove
(other parts of) the Bible is just as ungrounded as the above statements. Well,
excepting linguistics.

>
> >> And even if you prove times and places, which it invariably fails at,
> >> your argument that God was involved in it is based ***solely*** on the
> >> presupposition that because a lot of people believe in your God, this
> >> validates the idea that *he* was involved somehow. Its argument via
> >> popularity, not evidence.
>
> > Ever heard of peer review? It works on popularity among peers.
>
> No it doesn't. Have you ever published a paper in a peer-reviewed
> journal? Have you ever reviewed a peer-reviewed paper? I have maybe half
> a dozen publications, and reviewed dozens more. It has *nothing* to do
> with popularity. Indeed, people organizing peer reviews go *out of their
> way* to make sure the people doing the reviews don't know *who* they are
> reviewing.
Let's see: peer review consists of two words. You claim to have reviewed papers.
Did you ever receive more than a pat on the back and a thank you, or even that?
Because, I, sure as heck, haven't. In another context that would be called
slavery. And slaves are peer only to other slaves. I don't know about how it
works in your parts, but hereabout universities are vaguely aristocratic. The
lamest lecturer's opinion is always worth a million times better than an
alumnus. And let's not even talk about the big whigs.
Now for review, I am told that in times past, professors would referee some
papers. I have no problem calling that partial peer review. But the way it
works now, at least here, is just for weeding out the patently unpublishable
work and getting suggestions.
However I maintain that refereeing is not the whole peer review process. When an
important paper is published, each and everybody who is somebody in that field
will form an informed opinion, and the majority will get its way. You don't
want to call it peer review, despite it being quite literally what happens?
Fine, I don't know how else to call it, though.
Patrick used "popularity" to describe religions' diffusion, and I used it in the
same sense too.

>
> Another one of those possibly-true logical systems (popularity -> truth)
> that turns out not to work scientifically. That's why it's called
> "Doctor of Philosophy", you see. Think about it.
See above.

>
> That you don't know this tells me you're talking out your butt when it
> comes to science,
Ah, the turn of phrase, the sheer genius oozing out of the elegance of the
beatuous statement! I am awed unto silence. Nay, what says I, my ideas and I
fade into Oblivion.

> and that you understand it as little as you think
> atheists understand your religion.
I do not claim to know how atheists understand my religion. Also in a recent
post you quipped that nemesis couldn't know what you think. Looks like you
found the trick to telepathy on your own.

>
> > Man, if you're
> > trying to take science out of the picture you're doing a good job. <_<
>
> Only to those who are ignorant of science, apparently.
>
> And it's *still* the case that lack of science doesn't prove your God is
> right.
I am not attacking Science. Nor am I out to making such nonsense as disproving
it. Science is IMO the greatest invention humanity ever made.

>
> > I seriously doubt that Buddhism is second. Islam allows four wives, BTW. Kind of
> > an unfair advantage. ;-)
>
> http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
>
> A trivial google search turns up at least some information. Note that
> atheism is third.
>
> On the other hand,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Demographics
> gives a completely different order to the list, off by orders of
> magnitude, so obviously this isn't easily measurable.
>
> --
>    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