dark, give me one just ONE piece of evidence in support of #3. ONE! that's all i ask from you but you'd better give it your best shot! just one... ok, i'm all ears.....*(- -)*
"Life has an apparent purpose"--Dark Pussy, I think your purpose is to annoy the SH*T out of me and MANY other people.
Wow faster, we actually agree on something. You are correct, there is no such thing as luck. If you want to get right down to it, there is no such thing as probability or chance either. They are heuristic illusions created to deal with partial knowledge, anthropomorphic terms used by finite man when dealing with uncertainties. I have two chess pieces behind my back. What are your odds of picking the black piece? Say that I know which hand holds which color, and I also know which hand you will pick because you always go the same way. Is there any true 'probability' in that situation at all? From your perspective, yes. From my perspective, no. Say you are playing poker and get a card combination that would occur 1 in 50,000 times by chance. Did you beat incredible odds to get that hand? No, you simply got the hand and there you sit. If we had perfect knowledge, we would understand there are no 'odds' and no 'probabilities.' There is only a long unbroken series of events, with each event in the series happening once. We don't get the omniscient view so we have to hedge our bets. Feeling fortunate and feeling lucky are not always the same thing. A lot of people use the word 'luck' as a casual synonym for a fortunate occurrence without getting into the nitty gritty of what 'luck' really could be or consist of. And I'm not about to nitpick with guys who are clearly expressing a desire to live and let live and enjoy life. p.s. one piece of evidence? Ok: it is documented that Christ's disciples went on to preach in his name and to a man die horrible deaths. It's one thing to follow a charismatic leader while he is alive. But would you allow yourself to be beaten, flogged and crucified upside down just to support a dead imposter's scam that you helped to fake, when you could be let off in a second by 'fessing up? I don't think so. Before the cross, the apostles were meek bumblers, practically keystone cops. After, they were so full of strength and conviction that nothing stood in their way, they literally marched triumphantly to their deaths in the name of God's word. I don't know about you, but if Christ were a nutjob instead of exactly who he said he was, I doubt he could inspire that kind of confidence, especially after being gone. p.p.s. two pieces of evidence: look around you. consider everything. really look through your eyes. look at sunsets, mountains, eagles, wolves. look at your family, your loved ones. feel your sense of morality, ask yourself if there is monstrous evil, if there is shining good, and if so how are they known and from whence do they come. read Francis Schaeffer, read CS Lewis, open your eyes and really seek. if you are willing to lay your world on the line, your eyes may open.
by the way faster re evidence: i've got lots more, of all kinds. i could write a book. looking back at my posts here, i practically have. do you know how long i've been studying and searching? i'm willing to bet you can't even come up with a question that i haven't already pondered in depth. i have searched so far and wide, so high and low for opposition and challenging schools of thought, that i don't think you have one single fresh piece of ammo in your arsenal. i'll be very impressed if you do. nothin' so far.
the term "models" would be more appropriate than "definitions" here. scientists deal with the "hairyness" of the real world by constructing abstract models of its aspects and then analysing the models. of course, models are never 100% accurate, but they don't have to be -- a properly designed model only disregards those aspects of reality that are unimportant for particular analysis. hence, the unfathomability of reality becomes a non-issue in practice. - jaan
here's a question for you, dark: what's your take on other religions out there? do you respect them as equal to christianity or not? if you do, then do you think all religions refer to the same god? - jaan
I agree. The subpar nature of the model is sometimes important, but other times it is not. That's why I believe in a maximum utility function of certain ideas or concepts. It's not always necessary to build the model perfectly to scale when an imperfect replica will get the job done, and not always necessary to digest the minutia of an idea when the general thrust alone is sufficient to help strengthen a conceptual framework. Sometimes though, scientists erroneously stake their claim on the full accuracy of the model, as much with a general mindset as a specific experimental result, and it is this type of thinking that can be unfortunate. This 'black and white itis' is what fuzzy logic makes fun of and seeks to knock down. Someone who knows that words and models are often imprecise will be less likely to fall into the false precision trap. p.s. Economics is a perfect example where flaws in the models brought down the whole shooting match. 'Rational economic man' is a useless myth. p.p.s. regarding other religions: I believe in absolute truth and objective standards. Therefore I believe in one reality, one God, and one path. Offensive or not, I did not create this reality, I simply came to an understanding of it (or rather was drawn to it, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of theological fish. just when i thought this thread was winding down....)
>>p.s. one piece of evidence? Ok: it is documented that Christ's disciples went on to preach in his name and to a man die horrible deaths. It's one thing to follow a charismatic leader while he is alive. But would you allow yourself to be beaten, flogged and crucified upside down just to support a dead imposter's scam that you helped to fake, when you could be let off in a second by 'fessing up? I don't think so. Before the cross, the apostles were meek bumblers, practically keystone cops. After, they were so full of strength and conviction that nothing stood in their way, they literally marched triumphantly to their deaths in the name of God's word. I don't know about you, but if Christ were a nutjob instead of exactly who he said he was, I doubt he could inspire that kind of confidence, especially after being gone. dark, 'suicide bombers' in middle east now do this very thing that you suggest wouldn't occur. 'religion is an opiate for the mind' it causes men to do very irrational things, yes even taking one's life. :-/ i am not compelled by your #1 proof of 'His/Hers" existence. you were supposed to give your best stuff first. that isn't it is it? if it is it's not very good and i must/HAVE TO stay an atheist. but i will read on with an open mind. OK, what's next....oh yes... >>p.p.s. two pieces of evidence: look around you. consider everything. really look through your eyes. look at sunsets, mountains, eagles, wolves. OK, dark, i looked around, i mean i REALLY L@@KED A-ROUND! so what? my brain perceived these "things" as you instructed, so what??? >>look at your family, your loved ones. feel your sense of morality, ask yourself if there is monstrous evil, if there is shining good, and if so how are they known and from whence do they come. read Francis Schaeffer, read CS Lewis, open your eyes and really seek. if you are willing to lay your world on the line, your eyes may open. i assume that by your 'evil' reference that you are making the stale theistic "Moral Argument" . c'mon, dark, you know that's been refuted! it doesn't hold water, it's so full of holes! certainly you realize a perfectly simple yet perfectly logical argument from "natural" causes can be and has been made for quite some time now. how could you have not known this has been refuted?? perhaps you should 'update' your "search"? no, dark, we now know that even apes show moral conduct and policy, perfectly "natural", if you get my drift. is that all you have i expected more
Dark why do you feel the need to defend your religious beliefs to such an extent??? If it is "the absolute truth" and you are 100% secure with it then why would you possibly waste time justifying it... wouldn't this time be better spent practing faith instead of chit chatting about??? It was quite comical to see your post regarding the 3 camps earlier... first off is your mind so bound within a dualistic mode that you believe there are only 3 solutions... Secondly your "camp 2" description and the sarcastic puns you made show that you know very little about these things... Is it not enough for you to find "the absolute truth" and live with it... or do you have to go around and convince everybody else what you found???