I think you've got a very weak level of criteria for "very well" - akin to somebody claiming to know Harley Davidsons "very well" because they can change the oil or change spark plugs.
Ignoring your curiously porous and selective memory for the moment, let's look at this issue, since you seem particularly fascinated with it. If a guy can rebuild a Harley, exchanging broken parts, and end up with a modified chopper that fits his personal needs as opposed to the factory-model bike, I'd say he knows it "very well." (We can do this with microbes.) You think otherwise, which is fine -- I'm not sure where you draw the line, but I'm guessing he has to design and build a functioning Harley out of matchsticks and gumdrops. (We can't do this with microbes at this time.)
But that's totally tangential to the main topic of conversation. Your implication was that science cannot be used to understand life, not that it currently doesn't understand all aspects. (Hopefully everyone acknowledges the latter.) "Shifting goalposts" means that, when one of your assertions is shown not to be true, you immediately move to another example or side-conversation in order to avoid addressing that fact. Indeed, you do this repeatedly:
Go back to any one of those points and look at what you claimed vs. what I demonstrated, as a token of honesty, and I'll be impressed. Alternatively, let it go. I've conceded that I knowlingly violated your standards of "respect." You have done so consistently and egregiously with mine, albeit potentially unconsciously. Call it even-steven and we both walk away.
Don't make me bring in the poodles.
Seriously.
How do you grade the results?
I don't believe in a absolute (that is, fundamental) morality, but I believe that any action can be measured against a consensual morality based on desired results.
I suspect most such judgments must by nature be there/not-there quantifications, although I recognize that many moralities place emphasis on the quantity or quality of certain emergent things (human lives, money, etc.).
This also assumes, of course, that the desired result is something that can be measure--that is to say, not supernatural. However, I would dare say, that in all cases where a non-measurable result is claimed as desirable, certain measurable quantities or qualities will be used to judged whether that supernatural result is to be achieved.
Don't make me bring in the poodles.
Seriously.
I knew you would call.
I did take offense when, after having treated Kirth with respect, he insisted on not returning that respect. It is very possible that that offense prevented me from acting objectively and, further, led to me over stressing my point with regards to systems theory.Our definitions of "respect" evidently differ substantially. When evaluating a lack of respect, I weigh "failing to pretend to talk nice" into it far less than things like making false assertions, moving goalposts, ignoring points, and so on.
There's a conception of respect I can get behind.
Water is a catalyst and is the most common catalyst that I know of. It makes sense to me that discussing common catalysts as examples in a discussion about catalysts makes sense.
Except that you immediately ceased to talk about it as a catalyst, and instead started looking at other properties. That may be attributable to a lack of chemistry -- are you familiar with what a catalyst does, and how it applies to the topic at hand? If not, that's maybe the source of our problem there.
You feel otherwise - perhaps you'd like to discuss obscure catalysts - that's fine, but the fact that I focused on common catalysts isn't some rhetorical trick.
I wanted to discuss catalysts -- as they're an easy refutation of your assertion that emergent properties cannot be isolated a priori in complex systems. Water as a catalyst would have been fine. But you weren't willing (or able, one or the other) to discuss anything related to catalytic reactions.
As for your other two points, I conceeded that there are a small percentage of complex systems for which we can control all associated variables. What more do you want?
Not ignoring an entire discussion of why all variables need not be controlled, would be a nice start. For example, I mentioned sensitivity analysis (are you familiar with that concept? If not, again, that may be one of our stumbling blocks). I also described how one can get a realistic approximation of the behavior of many natural systems using only a few known parameters, which then require additional study only if predictions fail to model actual (observed) behavior within acceptable limits. In other words, the claim that all variables need to be controlled is itself yet another misrepresentation -- and a concession that hinges on a false statement is not a concession.
Seriously, how long are we suppossed to hear "catalysts are an easy refutation of your assertion" without any mention of how they are an easy refutation? If you want to discuss catalysts in more detail, do so.
You implied that you knew what they were -- only now is it clear that "not being an expert on chemistry" is your way of saying that you know nothing about chemistry whatsoever. Earlier, I advised a basic Chem course, and specifically mentioned that this forum maybe isn't the best place for me to give you a semester-long intro. Here's the long and short of it, though: chemistry has lots of emerging properties in complex systems. All of them that I can think of can be studied in a lab, and have been. You can choose to disbelieve me, but you have no basis of knowledge for that disbelief, only an emotional prejudice and appeal to non-analogous fields of study.
I love the way you handle system decomposition (ie. how one can get a realistic approximation of the behavior of many natural systems using only a few known parameters) as if it were just that easy. It's not. Figuring out interfaces (e.g. subsystem boundaries) in a real world system is a bit of an art. So, figuring out what the relevant variables even are is usually the first challenge. It's easy to forget that if a person spends most of their time in a lab.
I've said twice before now (this is the 3rd time) that I'm a field scientist -- I don't currently spend ANY time in a lab. I successfully evaluate and clean up contaminated soils and groundwater, in the real world, using exactly the method described (I told you that as well).
I think the problem is that you can't really see what I'm talking about most of the time, since you have no knowledge of applied natural sciences; only manmade systems engineering. The two are not the same, as I've tried to outline, and do not behave in the same manner. I don't care if you find that to be some sort of obscure philosophical paradox on some purely mental level; it's true in real life. My primary source of annoyance, then, is that you pretend you know enough about natural science to make assertions about it -- assertions which are not true, and which you don't know enough to grasp when I demonstrate that.
This all sounds rude even to me, but I'm trying to be honest with you here. My whole end of our conversation boils down to "be a lot more careful making statements about things you have no knowledge of."
I knew you would call.Don't make me bring in the poodles.
Seriously.
Yap?
|
Moff, CJ…either of you want to walk me through how worshiping Jesus is not a violation of the first commandment again. It is still bugging me. I know Jesus, god and the holy ghost are suppose to be one and the same, but can you give me some supporting verses out of the Bible?
For context, I was in church again Christmas eve and starting mulling this whole thing over again.
I'm trying to catch up. I have no idea what LT is talking about and am pretty much staying out of it.
Re: Jesus = God (the Father)
There are bits and pieces that by themselves don't mean a whole lot, but when looked at as a whole, you can kind of see where Christians get their beliefs.
You can start with Genesis 1 -- Verse 26 -- "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness..." Here's the first indication that "God" is plural.
There is a lot of emphasis on John 1 as well. Verse 1 -- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And then verse 14 -- "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."
John 10:30 -- Jesus states that "I and the Father are one."
Philippians 2:6 states "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;"
There are the Old Testament prophecies -- like his name "Immanuel" which means "God with us". (Isaiah 7:14)
And then you have Isaiah 9:6 -- "...And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, ..."
Here is an article (I know you like to read) on the plurality of "God" in the Old Testament.
Or are you looking for more information?
|
|
You're right. Bad memory on my part. Nevertheless, there were many examples in the Old Testament of priests of other gods performing miracles - Pharoah's priests performed several.Ba'al's priests called fire from the skies.Reread the story. No they didn't. And that was really the point of the story.
Pharoah's priests and sorcerers did the same (or similar) "miracles" as Moses with only the first three -- staff to snake, water to blood, and frogs. The Bible says that they were unable to produce gnats and they pretty much were not mentioned after that (they were mentioned again as being unable to produce boils).
But that's the only reference to miracles by other gods listed in the Bible (that I can think of) and for that matter, the Egyptian gods are not mentioned at all in those passages. So, not sure how that equates to "many examples".
|
|
Yes, they only did some of the miracles that matched what Moses did. How many would be enough to be significant in your opinion? Personally, I think turning a staff into a snake is pretty darn impressive. They would have had my attention right then and there.Who did the "miracle"?
Here's the thing...
If this story is to be taken at face value, who would you be more impressed with? A few people who could (maybe) change water to blood but couldn't change it back or God who changed the entire Nile river to blood and could change it back? People who could summon a few frogs but couldn't make the frogs go away or God who could cause the problem and then fix it as well. How about God who could (overnight) selectively kill all your enemies livestock?
I've seen someone saw another person in half. Changing a staff to a snake probably wouldn't be too hard for them. But changing the entire Nile river to blood? That takes a bit more than some smoke and mirrors.
But, more than that, let's go back to how this "discussion" started. You stated an example that was false. You then said that there were "many examples" of other gods performing miracles in the Bible. Of which you came up with three "examples" from the same story (really only counts as one in my opinion) and I'm still trying to figure out how this equates to "many". Fine -- what they did was "impressive". They still seemed to be rather restrictive in their "miracles". And at no time was credit given to their gods.
Bringing up new questions to try and hide the fact that your information is faulty or wrong seems a little lame to me. You said that there were "many examples". There aren't. Be happy with that and move on.
I've seen someone saw another person in half. Changing a staff to a snake probably wouldn't be too hard for them. But changing the entire Nile river to blood? That takes a bit more than some smoke and mirrors.
I've read some lit crit that suggests a substrate under this and similar exchanges where both parties' gods might have done a miracle-off but later monotheists cut it out. So far as I'm aware, this is purely speculative. We don't have that story, or a useful, rigorous way to reconstruct it. (We can of course just assume it's there and cherry pick verses, but that's neither rigorous nor very honest. If that's fair game, we can make any sufficiently long text say anything.)
We do have some ways to pull out narratives based on linguistics and repeated stories and passages, though they can be a bit problematic. My understanding is that lately the clean straightforward distinctions between the sources have fallen out of favor with the realization that a whole lot more mixing and redacting has gone on than previously expected.
Removed some posts. Let's refrain from making derogatory statements about other posters.
Um, aren't we supposed to be calling people stupid for believing in the Big Sky Dude?
That's not my bag, baby. To paraphrase Chris Hitchens, "I'd rather be walking a dog."
|
This from an email I received this morning...
(the issue is a counterpoint nonfiction book being published to refute notions published in a fictive novel)
"George Washington didn’t seem to have a problem with Christian-Universalism. Indeed, I think GW probably believed like the other “key Founders” did — good people get into Heaven, bad people are temporarily punished, eventually saved. Though, his views on the afterlife are hard to pin down; they seemed as much “Greco-Roman” as “Judeo-Christian,” and that synthesis is certainly consistent with the notion that virtuous people get into Heaven, the bad temporarily punished. Here is their reductio:
"'Universal reconciliation is the teaching that all people go to heaven. Even the wicked angels and wicked people will repent in hell and get to heaven. The most heinous evils committed by the Hitlers of history find forgiveness. Even the embodiment of evil, Satan, the devil himself, will finally repent and enter heaven. God’s love conquers all. Hell ceases to exist. Unfortunately, this teaching overlooks the “little matter” of God’s justice and holiness. In my book, “Burning Down the Shack,” I expose the universalism still embedded in the novel.'
"Why even mention Hilter to prove the point. As far as I understand orthodox view of salvation, Hitler could have had a deathbed conversion to Christianity and be in Heaven, yet every Jew he had killed, if they didn’t have a similar conversion, ends up in Hell for eternity where, according to some orthodox notions of Hell, they experience something even worse than the Holocaust. This, to me, is as nuts as the worst I’ve heard come from the Bin Ladens of the world.
"But even if Hitler DIDN’T have a deathbed conversion, the orthodox version of eternal damnation relativizes his sin and teaches Hitler ends up in the same place with the Jews killed during the Holocaust, Ghandi and those who believe in soul damning heresies like Mormons (and perhaps even Roman Catholics). At least with universal reconciliation there is room for punishing folks IN PROPORTION to the sin they committed on Earth so that, if everyone gets into Heaven, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are at the END of the line (for humans). And Satan, at the end of the line for all beings. That makes far more sense than the orthodox version of eternal damnation. Now, if one wants to stick with, “this is just what the Bible teaches,” fine. Don’t try to argue there is any rhyme or reason to it."
Thoughts...?
|
|
Thoughts?
Changed your avatar?
I guess it kind of feels like we are using "Universalism" to disprove Christianity.
Personally, I don't know how effective "death bed conversions" really are.
This is really more a question that is the "What about all the untouched peoples of the world that never had an opportunity to hear about Christ?" Only worded in a more accusatory way that basically says "God is using faulty methods and that people are clearly smarter than God and that it should all be about being good."
In the end, I really don't think that it's as simple as this guy is trying to make it out to be. While "Salvation" is pretty well spelled out in the Bible, it also isn't. (What does "...has the Son..." really mean?) But creating a more palatable version of "heaven" because you don't like the version you've been taught as if that actually does anything seems a bit odd to me.
I mean, I don't really care if you don't believe in a magical place you go to after you die, but to say that instead you believe in a different magical place that has no basis in anything but simply because it sounds nicer seems odd to me.
Well there's a few random thoughts that I'm sure I'll get comments on...
|
Changed your avatar?
I and Charlie Bell were getting each other's mail, so to speak. Plus, I've been the Bald Butler for as long as I can remember. DM is my beat-a-dead-horse alias, but my AT avatar is Cthuluesq now, at least for a while...
On topic, if GW was truly universalist and as my friend alludes, more Greco-Roman in beliefs than Judaeo-Christian, it begs the question was his concept of Heaven 'right' or 'wrong'?
As I've mentioned in previous posts, most Christians have a Greek concept of the Afterlife and simply don't realize it--like meeting and recognizing loved-ones in Heaven; like relaxing and enjoying oneself in Heaven; eternal dinner parties and long-walks on celestial beaches with one's spouse and Golden Retriever; actually going to Heaven immediately after dying...
I, myself, if I truly believe in Heaven (and I'm not entirely sure I do), have often thought wistfully of it as a strange amalgam of some book-lined Victorian gentleman's study and a Gothic manor, yet rife with the scents of freshly-brewed coffee and a crackling fire in the hearth, a glorious New England autumn visible outside the blown-glass paned windows... but I digress.
Is my picture of the Afterlife 'wrong', or simply different? I'd answer myself -- If it's different, that's OK, but it's not a Christian Heaven. From a Christian (fundamental, literalist) POV, my picture is flat-out wrong, and decidedly 'pagan'...
On topic, if GW was truly universalist and as my friend alludes, more Greco-Roman in beliefs than Judaeo-Christian, it begs the question was his concept of Heaven 'right' or 'wrong'?
I'm far from a Washington scholar, but my understanding is that he deliberately patterned himself on Greco-Roman ideals when he became president.
I think Moff stole my moxie...And you ain't never getting it back.
Then you admit to the theft? Well then, sir, the firm of Pony & Paladin may just have a thing or 50 to say about that. Prepare to face the full wrath of the LAW!!
Thanks, Moff.
|
|
Is my picture of the Afterlife 'wrong', or simply different?
Truthfully there is very little written down about "Heaven" or "Hell". A lot of our image(s) of it comes from other sources. But also, what is written is hard to tell if it is literal or metaphorical. I mean -- is there really a literal "gate" made of pearls? Are the streets literally made of gold? Personally, I just think it was their way of saying "It's a really really cool place" or something like that.
So I don't really have any issues with people who want to believe that there will be bubbles everywhere they walk, or fountains of chocolate, etc. My issue has more to do with deciding that there is a "goal" and that the "goal" is heaven, but that everyone will get there regardless of what we do here based on nothing more than what you might feel is palatable. Which seems infinitely more odd to me than the basic concepts of a magical heaven and hell.
It kind of feels like they're saying -- "I like God's idea of 'Heaven', but not its delivery, so through sheer force of will, I will make it better."
It kind of feels like they're saying -- "I like God's idea of 'Heaven', but not its delivery, so through sheer force of will, I will make it better."
Is that really any more far fetched than Pascal's Wager that is often bandied about by some believers? I know you do not subscribe to that line of reasoning, but there are plenty who seem to.