|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#91
August 31st 03, 09:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
"Anonymous Agenda-Boy calling himself mturner" wrote in message:
. com... onloser (Building The Perfect Beast) wrote What is Building a perfect beast? Building *The* Perfect Beast is the title of a Don Henley album. Henley was apparently referring to human ability to manipulate nature through genetic engineering. non-participating intrusion asking if pilots travel. He didn't ask "if pilots travel". He asked if you were a "Traveling Man". That's a specific term used by a specific group to refer to other group members. By failing to catch the reference, you made clear you are not a member of that group. Bob may know who you are, but I don't. Until then you're zero. Pot paging Kettle, Kettle come in please. Cheers, Sydney (headin' down to the Sunset Grill) 
|
|
#92
September 1st 03, 02:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheers,
Sydney (headin' down to the Sunset Grill) Man, I love that song. And the rest of the album is excellent too for that matter.
|
|
#93
September 1st 03, 08:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#94
September 1st 03, 09:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Eric Miller" wrote in message et...
"Corrie" wrote "Eric Miller" wrote A valid argument by induction, starting with no assumptions and simply looking at the evidence, is: It rained today. It rained yesterday. It rained the day before. Therefore it will rain tomorrow. Logically correct and consistent... and demonstrably false (unless you live in Seattle). But in the present discussion, your example doesn't examp. One, it's not demonstrably false until it doesn't rain tomorrow (but will Schroedinger's cat get wet insude the box? :-p) Two (related to one), you're using past events to predict the future. That's not what we're doing. We're using historical documents (and modern science) to decide whether a reported event occurred or not. You're missing the point. It's irrelevant that past events are used to predict future ones, or that the truth can't be determined until tomorrow. What *is* important is that induction can be logically correct and demonstrably false. For that reason, induction can't exist in a vacuum, without other confirmation. RIGHT. But the situation we have here is NOT that the conclusion is "logically correct and demonstrably false." On the other hand, deduction cannot lead to such false conclusion, so there's no need to confirmation... however, the conclusions that can be made are limited without "seeding" it with starting premises... obtained from the other types of logic. HALF-RIGHT. The initial premises do not have to be obtained from other types of logic. They can simply BE. They can also be incorrect and/or artificially limiting. And that's my point. When you say, "People don't rise from the dead, therefore Jesus didn't rise from the dead," you are seeding your investigation with the conclusion you expect to reach. When you get to the point of dealing with the eyewitness evidence, you must force it to fit into the mold of Elvis sightings. You are prevented by your initial assumptions from taking it on its own merits. If, on the other hand, you begin with, "PERHAPS Jesus really did rise from the dead," you are permitting yourself to be drawn to that conclusion - without requiring that that conclusion be reached. In a nutshell, if we have: (1) All planes have wings. (2) The RV-6 is a plane. (3) The RV-6 has wings. Deduction lets us infer (3) from (1) and (2). Induction allows us conclude (1) from (2) and (3). Abduction gives us (2) from (1) and (3). Your example doesn't examp. All three statements are independently verifiable as true. Irrelevant, I was simply clarifying the differences between the 3 types of logic, I could use the nonsense (and false) statements: (1) All ducks are blue. (2) My house is a duck. (3) My house is blue. and it would still be logically correct, if harder to understand. Ok, I see what you meant by getting (2) from (1) and (3), but it still does not follow that I'm using abduction to say that "all other reasonable materialist explanations having proved unsatisfactory to account for the evidence, the remaining explanation - though supernatural - is most likely true." It's simple process of elimination. There's a big difference between concluding a premise is wrong in advance and saying that it's not true until demonstrated otherwise. It's the difference between a closed and an open mind. The problem is in your initial assumption that it is false. That is in fact a closed mind. The open mind is in assuming that it may be either true or false. The difference may seem slight, but it is huge. Maybe this is a stretch, but think about Schroedinger's cat. (Used to demonstrate the principle that you can't tell whether a particular proton has decayed or not without measuring it.) Cat's in a box. At some unknown time, the cat will be fed (nicer way of illustrating it than the original, right?). So - right now - is the cat in the box hungry or not? You'd say that the cat is hungry unless proven full. I say that we can't tell without opening the box. Big difference. I say that I don't know whether the cat is hungry or not. But you say that you DO know, and without opening the box! You don't even have to open the box, since a hungry cat suits you just fine. But if you do open the box and don't see any food, you can say that that the cat is hungry. If I suggest that the cat ate the food, you can say that well, it's fine for me to believe that, but as far as you're concerned the cat is hungry since you don't see any food. And if the box and cat happen to be set up so that the cat eats all the food the instant it appears, and no food is dispensed if the box is open, then you'll NEVER have the proof you demand. Your assumption that the cat is hungry unless proven fed - that is, unless you see it eating, an impossible situation - will never be met. The cat may be very well fed indeed, but you'll never believe it. To pull the other thread in he Regarding Elvis sightings, I've got two responses. One. How many Elvis fans are willing to be tortured and killed rather than recant their belief that Elvis is still alive? (My guess, zero.) If you guess zero, then you don't know human nature very well. If you and I can even *imagine* something, like "penile spoon piercing" or "willing to be tortured and killed for the belief that Elvis is alive" then: 1) there are people that get off on it, and 2) there's a magazine, newsgroup and scores of web pages devoted to it I'll take your word on the spoon thing. ;-) Show me one person who has willingly died for what they KNEW to be a lie, when they could have lived simply by recanting. In the Middle Ages, people would falsely confess to practicing witchcraft in order to *avoid* torture. In contrast, the first followers of Jesus were beaten and threatened with worse if they didn't just shut up and go back to their nets (see Acts) but did they? Nope. If they were in on the conspiracy - and if not Peter and James then who? - why in the world would they not simply have said, "Ok, guys, the jig is up. Back to the boats." No conspiracy theory I've ever seen fits the available evidence. Two. Do you think it would be possible to reconstruct an accurate account of Elvis' life today solely by interviewing living witnesses, or by reference to the recorded recollections of recently-deceased witnesses such as Sam Phillips? (My guess, almost certainly.) I'd guess so too, but that's not even close to a fair comparison. Elvis covered more ground, saw (or was seen by) more people, and had the benefit of mass media. He was literally, to steal the famous quote, "more popular than Jesus (in his day)," both in raw numbers and percentage of the world population. Leave out the radio and television audience. Just deal with people who saw him live and in person. That's a much smaller number. Further, Elvis died in 1977 (if you belief he's dead). The earliest gospel wasn't written for at least 40 years after Jesus' death, so by the same standards, Elvis's first gospel can't be written for another 14 years, minimum. Ah, but Mark was based on earlier sources, remember? Paul wrote in the mid-50's - *today* in "Elvis years." Acts was written in the late 50's or early 60's, and Luke not ony traveled with Paul but interviewed everyone he could get his hands on. The point is, the *earliest* accounts of Jesus include the conviction - not the faint hope, but the core conviction - that Jesus had risen from the dead. The authorities at the time had EVERY incentive to prove that claim false. That claim was the basis for their persecution of the apostles from Day One. It was a major embarassment. If anyone had means and motive to uncover a conspiracy to fake Jesus' resurrection, it was the political and religious leaders in Jerusalem in the weeks immediately following Easter! Is there room for me in Rock & Roll Heaven (I hear they have a helluva band  ) ?Depends. What do you play? I'm only passing fair as a rhythm guitarist and backing vocalist, but I don't believe I have to pass an audition. I've got a backstage pass. For all that, I'm looking forward to having enough time to really practice. :-) That reminds me, though - what defines a "good" person? I think you (maybe another poster?) opined that you'd go to some sort of pleasant reward if you were a "good" person. My question is, what's "good?" There's a spectrum, right? Chucky Manson gets the Down Elevator. The Pearly Gates jump off their hinges for Ma Theresa. The ends of the spectrum are easy; let's move in a bit. What about the gal who only killed two people by hacking them with an axe, and didn't even write on the walls in their blood? Naw, into the elevator with Chuck. But what if it was her abusive two-timing boyfriend and the homewrecker he was in bed with? Welll, maybe... And back on the other end, how about the saintly Father Mulroney, who spent decades helping the poor children of the inner city, teaching them to read...teaching some of the boys considerably more. Welll, maybe..... Where do you draw the line? At some point, you get a whole bunch of average schmoes like you and me, whose lives are a mixed bag of good and bad thoughts and deeds. Who gets in the elevator with Chucky, who goes marching in with the saints? How can you be sure which group you're in? How good is good enough? On the cosmic grading curve, I know what's an F - no plans to do that. I see what's an A - no possibility of that, for sure. B is probably too much to hope for, if I'm honest with myself. So where's the cutoff between D and C? That's the - excuse the expression - burning question. Corrie
|
|
#95
September 1st 03, 04:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Corrie" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote "Corrie" wrote "Eric Miller" wrote A valid argument by induction, starting with no assumptions and simply looking at the evidence, is: It rained today. It rained yesterday. It rained the day before. Therefore it will rain tomorrow. Logically correct and consistent... and demonstrably false (unless you live in Seattle). It's irrelevant that past events are used to predict future ones, or that the truth can't be determined until tomorrow. What *is* important is that induction can be logically correct and demonstrably false. For that reason, induction can't exist in a vacuum, without other confirmation. RIGHT. But the situation we have here is NOT that the conclusion is "logically correct and demonstrably false." Induction is the observation of multiple specific events and drawing a general conclusion from them. If you notice that seagulls, albatross, geese and swan are all birds and are all white, you can induce that all birds are white. If your only examples of the weather are rain, then you can induce it will rain tomorrow. Doesn't matter that you can't verify the truth of the statement until tomorrow. This is simply the definition of induction. In a nutshell, if we have: (1) All planes have wings. (2) The RV-6 is a plane. (3) The RV-6 has wings. Ok, I see what you meant by getting (2) from (1) and (3), but it still does not follow that I'm using abduction to say that "all other reasonable materialist explanations having proved unsatisfactory to account for the evidence, the remaining explanation - though supernatural - is most likely true." It's simple process of elimination. Abduction = "the simple process of elimination", this is just another definition. On the other hand, deduction cannot lead to such false conclusion, so there's no need to confirmation... however, the conclusions that can be made are limited without "seeding" it with starting premises... obtained from the other types of logic. HALF-RIGHT. The initial premises do not have to be obtained from other types of logic. They can simply BE. They can also be incorrect and/or artificially limiting. And that's my point. When you say, "People don't rise from the dead, therefore Jesus didn't rise from the dead," you are seeding your investigation with the conclusion you expect to reach. When you get to the point of dealing with the eyewitness evidence, you must force it to fit into the mold of Elvis sightings. You are prevented by your initial assumptions from taking it on its own merits. The premises you say "simply ARE" are simply induction over the long term. Every day we observe that people don't rise from the dead and reasonably conclude that it doesn't happen. In fact, if it DID happen, Jesus' claim wouldn't be remarkable, when we BOTH agree it is, which supports this premise. The premise that people don't rise from the grave doesn't prevent me (or you) from accepting Jesus' claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Anecdotal evidence, especially eye witness accounts, especially secondhand accounts, NEVER qualifies as extraordinary evidence because it's demonstrably unreliable. That's what prevents me from accepting the claim. There's a big difference between concluding a premise is wrong in advance and saying that it's not true until demonstrated otherwise. It's the difference between a closed and an open mind. The problem is in your initial assumption that it is false. That is in fact a closed mind. The open mind is in assuming that it may be either true or false. The difference may seem slight, but it is huge. I doubt you'd disagree with the premise that "people don't rise from the dead". Our disagreement stems from what is considered acceptable evidence. However, not accepting anecdotal evidence due to unreliability, isn't closed mindedness. Anecdotal evidence, no matter how voluminous, can only suggest; hard evidence is necessary for confirmation. Maybe this is a stretch, but think about Schroedinger's cat. (Used to demonstrate the principle that you can't tell whether a particular proton has decayed or not without measuring it.) Cat's in a box. At some unknown time, the cat will be fed (nicer way of illustrating it than the original, right?). So - right now - is the cat in the box hungry or not? You'd say that the cat is hungry unless proven full. I say that we can't tell without opening the box. Big difference. I say that I don't know whether the cat is hungry or not. But you say that you DO know, and without opening the box! You don't even have to open the box, since a hungry cat suits you just fine. But if you do open the box and don't see any food, you can say that that the cat is hungry. If I suggest that the cat ate the food, you can say that well, it's fine for me to believe that, but as far as you're concerned the cat is hungry since you don't see any food. And if the box and cat happen to be set up so that the cat eats all the food the instant it appears, and no food is dispensed if the box is open, then you'll NEVER have the proof you demand. Your assumption that the cat is hungry unless proven fed - that is, unless you see it eating, an impossible situation - will never be met. The cat may be very well fed indeed, but you'll never believe it. First, I wouldn't change the experiment because I don't like cats Second, this isn't just a strawman argument, you're stuffing hay down my shirt! When you put words in my mouth, please don't assign me the role of comic relief. Speaking for myself...you're completely missing the point of Schroedinger's Cat, as well as, misstating my position. Maybe because you're missing an important part of the experiment: when the box is opened the cat is snuffed. Although the cat can only be either dead or alive, it's condition is actually a probability state. Whether the cat is alive or not is both unknown and unknowable. You CAN'T open the box to check and see because doing so alters the experiment (kills the cat). The act of observing alters the observed (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). This is NOT directed at you Corrie, but my pet peeve with the junk science/crystal/magnets/spiritualist/homeopathic crowd is hijacking scientific terms (which have precise meanings), that they have little/no/negative understanding of, and assembling them in random and nonsense fashion according to what sounds good to the authoring huckster's ear. Back to your example to pick a few nits: - I do NOT say I know whether or not the cat is hungry without opening the box - If the box is opened and no food is there, I'd suggest the cat ate it (non-extraordinary claim) - On seeing no food, you're the one claiming it wasn't eaten (extraordinary claim) - I don't have to see the cat eat the food to believe it's not hungry - I do have to see the food disappear without assistance from the cat to believe the cat IS hungry. To pull the other thread in he Regarding Elvis sightings, I've got two responses. One. How many Elvis fans are willing to be tortured and killed rather than recant their belief that Elvis is still alive? (My guess, zero.) If you guess zero, then you don't know human nature very well. If you and I can even *imagine* something, like "penile spoon piercing" or "willing to be tortured and killed for the belief that Elvis is alive" then: 1) there are people that get off on it, and 2) there's a magazine, newsgroup and scores of web pages devoted to it I'll take your word on the spoon thing. ;-) Show me one person who has willingly died for what they KNEW to be a lie, when they could have lived simply by recanting. In the Middle Ages, people would falsely confess to practicing witchcraft in order to *avoid* torture. In contrast, the first followers of Jesus were beaten and threatened with worse if they didn't just shut up and go back to their nets (see Acts) but did they? Nope. If they were in on the conspiracy - and if not Peter and James then who? - why in the world would they not simply have said, "Ok, guys, the jig is up. Back to the boats." No conspiracy theory I've ever seen fits the available evidence. You're misstating me again. I never said people would willingly die for what they knew to be a lie. But a willingness to be tortured and killed for what you belief doesn't prove that what you believe is true. The Heaven's Gate cult believed that they'd meet up with a flying saucer that would whisk them off to heaven. Then, over the course of 3 in days in March of 1997, 40 cultists suicided. I'd certainly say they put their money where their mouth was. Does that prove the existence of extra-terrestrials and flying saucers? Ah, but Mark was based on earlier sources, remember? Paul wrote in the mid-50's - *today* in "Elvis years." Acts was written in the late 50's or early 60's, and Luke not ony traveled with Paul but interviewed everyone he could get his hands on. The point is, the *earliest* accounts of Jesus include the conviction - not the faint hope, but the core conviction - that Jesus had risen from the dead. See above. Conviction isn't truth and isn't proof. The authorities at the time had EVERY incentive to prove that claim false. That claim was the basis for their persecution of the apostles from Day One. It was a major embarassment. If anyone had means and motive to uncover a conspiracy to fake Jesus' resurrection, it was the political and religious leaders in Jerusalem in the weeks immediately following Easter! You can't use a lack of disproof as proof.. It could be a fabrication they failed to disprove and still be false. The explanation could've been lost (or suppressed, remember, history is liberally written and re-written by the victors) over time. For that matter, it could've been beneath notice and no attempt to disprove was made. None of which would make it true. That reminds me, though - what defines a "good" person? I think you (maybe another poster?) opined that you'd go to some sort of pleasant reward if you were a "good" person. My question is, what's "good?" There's a spectrum, right? Chucky Manson gets the Down Elevator. The Pearly Gates jump off their hinges for Ma Theresa. The ends of the spectrum are easy; let's move in a bit. What about the gal who only killed two people by hacking them with an axe, and didn't even write on the walls in their blood? Naw, into the elevator with Chuck. But what if it was her abusive two-timing boyfriend and the homewrecker he was in bed with? Welll, maybe... And back on the other end, how about the saintly Father Mulroney, who spent decades helping the poor children of the inner city, teaching them to read...teaching some of the boys considerably more. Welll, maybe..... Where do you draw the line? At some point, you get a whole bunch of average schmoes like you and me, whose lives are a mixed bag of good and bad thoughts and deeds. Who gets in the elevator with Chucky, who goes marching in with the saints? How can you be sure which group you're in? How good is good enough? On the cosmic grading curve, I know what's an F - no plans to do that. I see what's an A - no possibility of that, for sure. B is probably too much to hope for, if I'm honest with myself. So where's the cutoff between D and C? That's the - excuse the expression - burning question. Easy for line for me. A surprising lack of raping, pillaging, murder and mayhem on my part puts me squarely in the "good" column. Not my job to judge anyone else... that's more of a hobby The cutoff between C and D doesn't matter, unless you're a cosmic slacker trying to squeak by on the bare minimum, you do the best you can and hope it's good enough. BTW I have a working theory that Mother Teresa was an intensely selfish individual that derived secret and perverse pleasure from self-denial, self-sacrifice and the apparent assistance of others... an Altruistic Masochist if you will Eric
|
|
#96
September 1st 03, 04:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Corrie" wrote
(pac plyer) wrote An interesting concept in its own right, as the next poster illustrated. The great swordsman Miamato Mushashi spoke of "the mind of no mind." When he was in combat, he was not "aware" of anything, really, not as most people would define awareness. He simply reacted to his opponent. Physically, he was likely in a high-alpha-wave state that researchers call a "flow" or "fugue" state. Subjectively, he was not thinking. It may have something to do with "spiritual" feelings or trance states. But it would be an error to assume that the perception of a spiritual reality is the *result* of an alpha state, and therefore does not objectively exist. It may be that the objectively-real spiritual realm can only be perceived when the brain is in a certain relaxed state. I dunno, you're starting from MM tried to articulate, interpreting it, speculating an explanation and drawing a conclusion from that.... Any athlete (myself included) can tell you about training and muscle memory and reflexes... no need to conclude a spiritual world/existence/state based on that. I suspect that when we die, the mechanism that measures time is altered. As your brain decomposes, seconds turn to years, minutes turn to infinity... Interesting idea, but AFAIK studies of people who have had near-death experiences does not bear this out. The "floating above by body on the operating table" experience doesn't have an altered sense of time passing - persons report watching events in real-time. The "floating towards a warm white light" doesn't seem to be correlated to belief system, at least as far as I've read. Interviews with survivors of drownings don't indicate an altered sense of time (read "The Perfect Storm" for an interesting and harrowing description of what it's like to drown). You both might be interested in reading Susan Blackmore's explanation of near death experiences (NDEs) and the biological explanation for the similarities (and differences). Eric
|
|
#97
September 2nd 03, 03:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What you describe is called "cheap grace," Pete, and it's not what
Christianity is all about. Paul discussed it in his letter to the Romans. Chapter 2, IIRC. I'd go into more detail, but from your tone it appears that you're not seeking information as much as taking cheap shots. I'm not in the mood to spar. Sorry to disappoint you. "Pete" wrote in message .. . "Corrie" wrote in message om... What about the gal who only killed two people by hacking them with an axe, and didn't even write on the walls in their blood? Naw, into the elevator with Chuck. But what if it was her abusive two-timing boyfriend and the homewrecker he was in bed with? Welll, maybe... And back on the other end, how about the saintly Father Mulroney, who spent decades helping the poor children of the inner city, teaching them to read...teaching some of the boys considerably more. Welll, maybe..... Where do you draw the line? At some point, you get a whole bunch of average schmoes like you and me, whose lives are a mixed bag of good and bad thoughts and deeds. Who gets in the elevator with Chucky, who goes marching in with the saints? How can you be sure which group you're in? How good is good enough? On the cosmic grading curve, I know what's an F - no plans to do that. I see what's an A - no possibility of that, for sure. B is probably too much to hope for, if I'm honest with myself. So where's the cutoff between D and C? That's the - excuse the expression - burning question. Corrie Hey Corrie, But what about all this stuff about "if you accept Jesus into your life" then you'll still get the up elevator, Chucky and axe-Gal included... no? Sounds like a deal.... do your deads; axe some folks, rob some banks, spend the stolen money on women and wine. Live 40 years of fun, fun, fun! Then when you either get caught, or even better just get tired of it all, then "accept Jesus" and bingo! all is forgivin, and you get to compare notes with Ma Theresa. (while all your victims get nothing..... no life savings, missing limbs, etc). Doesn't compute with common sense, respect or civil diginity (to me at least). Why bother then with police forces, or armies for that matter, just put Billy on the tube and get all the baddies to "accept" and be born again, an the world will be a nice and pretty place. Geesh. Pete
|
|
#98
September 2nd 03, 04:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Eric Miller" wrote in message . net...
This is simply the definition of induction. Abduction = "the simple process of elimination", this is just another definition. Sounds like we're in vigorous agreement, then. Anecdotal evidence, no matter how voluminous, can only suggest; hard evidence is necessary for confirmation. That's the nugget, then. What hard evidence would convince you? Maybe this is a stretch, but think about Schroedinger's cat. Like I said, it was a stretch. It's HARD to come up with good analogies on the fly at two in the morning! I don't claim to be a phizzykist, just a fairly-well-read layman with a few years of engineerin' skoolin. You're quite right about misinformed believers half-quoting science. Bothers me a great deal. Verges on "false witness" IMO. It's nearly as irritating as non-believers misquoting and misrepresenting religious beliefs. To pull the other thread in he Regarding Elvis sightings, I've got You're misstating me again. I never said people would willingly die for what they knew to be a lie. But a willingness to be tortured and killed for what you belief doesn't prove that what you believe is true. Agreed. The point is that the ringleaders of any hypothetical conspiracy to fake a resurrection and mass sightings would have been among those whom the authorities tried to threaten into silence. But they weren't silenced. Ah, but Mark was based on earlier sources, remember? Paul wrote in the mid-50's - *today* in "Elvis years." Acts was written in the late 50's or early 60's, and Luke not ony traveled with Paul but interviewed everyone he could get his hands on. The point is, the *earliest* accounts of Jesus include the conviction - not the faint hope, but the core conviction - that Jesus had risen from the dead. See above. Conviction isn't truth and isn't proof. True, but the point is merely that the "borrowed from Mithraism" hypothesis doesn't fly - it's documentabe that the belief dates to the earliest days of the Jerusalem church. The authorities at the time had EVERY incentive to prove that claim false. That claim was the basis for their persecution of the apostles from Day One. It was a major embarassment. If anyone had means and motive to uncover a conspiracy to fake Jesus' resurrection, it was the political and religious leaders in Jerusalem in the weeks immediately following Easter! You can't use a lack of disproof as proof.. Agreed, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - it cuts both ways, though. The point here is that the folks with means to pull off a PR con-job lacked motive - unless that motive was to discredit the movement. The folks with alleged motive to fake a resurrection (and that motive is HIGHLY debatable) lacked the means. It could be a fabrication they failed to disprove and still be false. Sure, but you still have to have a plausible fabrication. I'm still waiting for a scenario that fits the facts. The explanation could've been lost (or suppressed, remember, history is liberally written and re-written by the victors) over time. Nuh-uhn, that dog won't hunt. The argument might have been valid a century or two ago, but we've since discovered NT documents that predate Constantine. The contents of the Gospels were not altered when Christianity became legal. For that matter, it could've been beneath notice and no attempt to disprove was made. Wrong again, my friend. Have a look at Acts - Within weeks after the resurrection, Peter was hauled up in court and ordered to stop preaching. He refused. you do the best you can and hope it's good enough. So on the question of the resurrection you demand incontrovertible ironclad proof, but on the question of your *own* eternal fate you're perfectly satisfied with a fuzzy-wuzzy I'm-ok-you're-ok warm happy feel-good explanation? Error, Will Robinson! That does not compute! War-ning! War-ning! *waves vacuum-hose arms* :-D BTW, that is *precisely* what kept Martin Luther up nights. He couldn't be sure. He had a worldview that laid out a clear roadmap to salvation - do these do's, don't those don'ts, and it'll all work out. Problem was, he couldn't figure his grade. Never mind the fine line between C and D. He couldn't tell if he was running a B+ or a D-. That's when he figured out that salvation HAS to be by faith alone, apart from works. "Do the best you can" doesn't count, because no human best can come anywhere CLOSE to perfect - and perfect is all that gets across the gate. Oh BTW, you dodged the question. You place yourself in the group with Ma T, but you don't say where the line gets drawn. Somewhere between you and pillagers and looters, though, right? Them folks are SOL, right? But pillaging and looting is really just theft, writ large. So is ANY theft automatically disqualifying? Think about that carefully - ever get back too much change and not notice till later? If you keep the money, that's technically theft. It'd be a real bummer to go to Hell over a couple of lousy bucks. So maybe SOME level of theft is acceptable? How much? How do you determine it? Is it a percentage-transaction basis, an incident count (three strikes and you're out), or is there a lifetime dollar limit? What if you steal from the rich and give to the poor? Is that OK? See, when you say, "I'm good enough" you're automatically drawing a line and claiming to be above it. Which means that somewhere are two people whose deeds and misdeeds are very much alike, except that one of them is just a tiny bit worse than the other - just worse enough to miss the glory train. Doesn't matter that you're comfortably above that point. For your worldview to be consistent, it has to account for that tipping point. So where is it?
|
|
#99
September 2nd 03, 07:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#100
September 2nd 03, 07:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Corrie" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote This is simply the definition of induction. Abduction = "the simple process of elimination", this is just another definition. Sounds like we're in vigorous agreement, then. Now that we agree on definitions, refer back to my earlier point. Induction and abduction can lead to false (logical) conclusions even when logically correct and consistent. Deduction can never lead to false logical conclusions, but may be limited as to what conclusions can be reached. All three forms of logic have their strengths and weaknesses which you have to be aware of when using them. Anecdotal evidence, no matter how voluminous, can only suggest; hard evidence is necessary for confirmation. That's the nugget, then. What hard evidence would convince you? Good question, and I don't have an answer... but then I don't need to have one, convincing me is your job. If I come across some convincing and acceptable evidence, I'll let you know, but nothing I've seen comes even remotely close, so don't hold your breath You're misstating me again. I never said people would willingly die for what they knew to be a lie. But a willingness to be tortured and killed for what you belief doesn't prove that what you believe is true. Agreed. The point is that the ringleaders of any hypothetical conspiracy to fake a resurrection and mass sightings would have been among those whom the authorities tried to threaten into silence. But they weren't silenced. While I'm not suggesting conspiracy.. It's not a given that the authorities, and there were at least 3 different authorities, would necessarily have any/all the ringleaders identified, contacted, threatened and silenced. Lack of evidence isn't evidence, so lack of silence doesn't mean there *wasn't* a conspiracy. True, but the point is merely that the "borrowed from Mithraism" hypothesis doesn't fly - it's documentabe that the belief dates to the earliest days of the Jerusalem church. I won't be drawn in to defend a theory I didn't suggest For that matter, it could've been beneath notice and no attempt to disprove was made. Wrong again, my friend. Have a look at Acts - Within weeks after the resurrection, Peter was hauled up in court and ordered to stop preaching. He refused. You can't use the contents of the bible to defend the veracity of the bible. you do the best you can and hope it's good enough. So on the question of the resurrection you demand incontrovertible ironclad proof, but on the question of your *own* eternal fate you're perfectly satisfied with a fuzzy-wuzzy I'm-ok-you're-ok warm happy feel-good explanation? Error, Will Robinson! That does not compute! War-ning! War-ning! *waves vacuum-hose arms* :-D First, I have no proof (or even suggestion) of an afterlife, so I don't need hard fast rules to live and die by. Second, even if I did believe in a hereafter, nothing says I'm required to have the same standards for all my beliefs. I'm free to window-shop, pick and choose as I please. There's nothing inconsistent here. People are notoriously short sighted, especially where short-term pleasures vs. long-term benefits are concerned. It's clear that smoking, drinking and overeating will cut years off your life, and yet the world is full of people that abuse one, more, or all. BTW, that is *precisely* what kept Martin Luther up nights. He couldn't be sure. He had a worldview that laid out a clear roadmap to salvation - do these do's, don't those don'ts, and it'll all work out. Problem was, he couldn't figure his grade. Never mind the fine line between C and D. He couldn't tell if he was running a B+ or a D-. That's when he figured out that salvation HAS to be by faith alone, apart from works. "Do the best you can" doesn't count, because no human best can come anywhere CLOSE to perfect - and perfect is all that gets across the gate. I just said "you do the best you can", I didn't suggest that only perfect scores were acceptable, or were even achievable. Oh BTW, you dodged the question. You place yourself in the group with Ma T, but you don't say where the line gets drawn. Somewhere between you and pillagers and looters, though, right? Them folks are SOL, right? Since I don't belief in life after death, I'm free to dodge the question. To me it's all just recreational hot air, *you're* the one that has to sweat the details. If I had to judge I'd do it like most us judge "art"... I'm not an expert, but I know what I like! (As always, the rulings of the judge are arbitrary, capricious and final!) But pillaging and looting is really just theft, writ large. So is ANY theft automatically disqualifying? Think about that carefully - ever get back too much change and not notice till later? Yes, and if it was too far to walk to return immediately, I call when I get home. Unless it's a huge amount, they invariably say keep it and don't worry about it. If it's larger, they just say return it next time you come by, and I do. If you keep the money, that's technically theft. I don't agree that an honest mistake on someone else's part becomes a crime/sin on mine. And what's more, if the judge of our lives is some self-important, officious, little prick trying to ding us on technicalities, then I have a few anatomically dubious suggestions on where he can stick it and twist it sideways... twice. In any case, since I don't keep valuables that aren't mine without trying earnestly to return them, I'm Scot free on this account. What if you steal from the rich and give to the poor? Is that OK? Depends. Am I the rich or the poor in this scenario? See, when you say, "I'm good enough" you're automatically drawing a line and claiming to be above it. Which means that somewhere are two people whose deeds and misdeeds are very much alike, except that one of them is just a tiny bit worse than the other - just worse enough to miss the glory train. Doesn't matter that you're comfortably above that point. For your worldview to be consistent, it has to account for that tipping point. So where is it? My worldview is consistent because mine has no afterlife and thus no line. If there was an afterlife, I'm comfortable with my position. Given that, I'm free to leave all the other real and hypothetical cases unexamined without threat of any inconsistency. Eric
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Alright, All You Dashing, Swaggering Bush Pilots | Larry Smith | Home Built | 22 | August 14th 03 10:03 PM |
Linear Mode
