quote:B) Not a step away from Scientology? A man who had been jailed for being a con artist is told to find gold plates that no one else saw and translates them into English that hadn't been spoken in hundreds of years. Native Americans are cursed Middle Easterners, cities that were never there according to Archeology, Jesus actually came to America, Jesus is coming back to Missouri in the second coming because the Garden of Eden was there. I could keep going for quite a while.
...two dissimilar religions having what you consider as ridiculous beliefs does not make them "a step away" from eachother.
quote:I'll take my chances with Xenu.
Because the man who you say was proven to be lying is much more likely to be telling the truth than the man who died for his religion. That seems pretty logical.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
No- he was in jail at the time of his death, in a county that was known for its antagonism toward Mormons. Read the article you linked to, Pygmalion-- does it sound like Smith was all that politically powerful?
He surrendered himself.
He kept only three other people in the jail with him, none of whom had been charged with wrong-doing. One of them was killed; one was wounded; one was unhurt.
There were no Mormons around the jail to protect him when the mob of 200 anti-Mormons stormed the jail.
In fact, he returned to Nauvoo when he had every chance (and had already started to do so) to walk away from the situation.
The situation was not exactly as you've colored it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sam Harris' point is that the improbability you assign to Jesus coming back, you can assign an even smaller probability that he will come back to Missouri.
Why? Once you open the door to a resurrected being who demonstrates limitless power, probability kind of goes out the window.
No it doesn't. The limitless being still has to choose one particular course of action, no? Coming back in Missouri is clearly a very tiny subset of the actions available to such a limitless being, and is therefore quite improbable. Whatever the probability that such a being exists, it is even smaller when multiplied by the Missouri thing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, in my experience, religious people have a way of believing that neither includes nor excludes probability. Just think about Catholics, and the idea of transubstantiation. There is a simultaneous understanding that one tastes flour and alcohol, and that this *really* is flesh and blood. Of course, this is why during my Catholic high school years, I came to the personal conclusion that there are probably very few people who actually believe in any of the church traditions. It would just be too much to ask of someone.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The limitless being still has to choose one particular course of action, no?
No. He's LIMITLESS. He could, if He chose, appear simultaneously in Missouri, and Paskwah Gulch, and Jerusalem, riding a UFO piloted by sapient dinosaurs.
(That is, if you believe that God/Christ are omnipotent in the classical sense of the word-- which most Christians do. And Mormons do not. So...)
quote:I came to the personal conclusion that there are probably very few people who actually believe in any of the church traditions.
How different is this than the statement, "There are no atheists in foxholes?"
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're comparing believing an extremely silly church doctrine to a founded logical conclusion while under enemy fire? I'm confused about the connection between these two things.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThePygmalionEffect: Janitor, I was expecting that a lot earlier, and I shall cease and desist.
While I am glad that you have the good sense to listen to Pop, it's a shame that he had to step in. Twice. What, Dagonee and I pointing out the issue isn't sufficient?
quote:I came to the personal conclusion that there are probably very few people who actually believe in any of the church traditions.
How different is this than the statement, "There are no atheists in foxholes?"
Well, I don't try and prove a negative for one. I just find it unlikely that there are many people who really believe in transubstantiation. I base that conclusion not entirely on my personal beliefs about God, but on my actuall experiences with church, so I'd say it's fairly different.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we're going to anecdote each other, I do know many people who really believe in transubstantiation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. He's LIMITLESS. He could, if He chose, appear simultaneously in Missouri, and Paskwah Gulch, and Jerusalem, riding a UFO piloted by sapient dinosaurs.
Yes. That is one course of action. Choosing to appear only in Missouri is a different course of action. But even an omnipotent being cannot simultaneously appear only in Missouri, and in Missouri and Jerusalem; logical contradictions are not generally included in the definition of omnipotence, as far as I know.
So, when assigning a probability, you have to say "Given an omnipotent being (probability X), he can do Missouri, he can do New York, he can do Missouri and New York at the same time (...) there are N courses of action available, so the probability of Missouri is 1/N absent other information. Multiply by X for the total probability, to get something smaller than X."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're comparing believing an extremely silly church doctrine to a founded logical conclusion while under enemy fire?
Um....No. Do you know what "there are no atheists in foxholes" means?
Apparently you don't.
Atheists in foxholes is a very unfounded saying meaning that even an atheist will cry out for a god or start believing in a god when under extreme stress such as warfare.
So how does this compare to transubstantiation?
Posts: 40 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThePygmalionEffect: Janitor, I was expecting that a lot earlier, and I shall cease and desist.
While I am glad that you have the good sense to listen to Pop, it's a shame that he had to step in. Twice. What, Dagonee and I pointing out the issue isn't sufficient?
What can I say, I'm a stubborn ass
Posts: 40 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Atheists in foxholes is a very unfounded saying meaning that even an atheist will cry out for a god or start believing in a god when under extreme stress such as warfare.
Um, I think that was the point Scott was making:
What Orincoro said: "there are probably very few people who actually believe in any of the church traditions."
My (I figure) reasonable extrapolation of the foxes quote (especially since I didn't know what it meant either): "there are probably very few people who actually believe in any of the atheist traditions."
Scott's point was that they're *both* bogus.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro made the statement that he didn't really believe that other people believed in things their church (in this case the Catholic church) taught.
The "foxhole" statement assumes that atheistic beliefs do not hold up under duress.
Both statements seem to me to make a judgment about others' beliefs that cannot be reasonably made-- "You don't really believe that, despite you saying you do..."
quote:But even an omnipotent being cannot simultaneously appear only in Missouri, and in Missouri and Jerusalem; logical contradictions are not generally included in the definition of omnipotence, as far as I know.
Is this what you think we were arguing?
To make sure Mormon doctrine is understood:
It's my understanding that Christ will appear in Missouri AFTER he appears in Jerusalem. Not at the same time.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Scott, I said I don't think they believe in the church's traditions. That's not the same thing as belief in God, which I can't attest to. I have found that the Catholic church's mystic traditions, such as transubstantiation or ascension, or immaculate conception, don't seem to appeal much to Catholics I have known. Particularly, the religion teachers I had in high school put very little stock in them, and took every opportunity to downplay their importance.
I think that the weight of the traditions and teachings of the church is so great, that no person could be expected to know about, understand, and much less believe in them all, or even many of them. In my experience, again only anecdotal, I have not known any who attested a firm belief in any of them. That is quite apart from belief in God, as I have known many who really seemed to have that belief. It seems to me that the traditions of the church are a function of its age and political complexity, and I have always been amazed that they aren't more openly rejected. Following Vatican II though, the emphasis on many of the traditions that don't closely apply to belief, as opposed to history, has been lifted.
As for atheists in foxholes, that applies to belief in God only, not to any particular set of traditions or teachings apart from that. Having never been in a foxhole, I can't tell you what my reaction would be. I have been close to death before, and I have never believed in God, even in a stressful moment. What I can say is that I think the saying "there are no Atheists in foxholes" is a rather good demonstration of my position on the belief in God.
My view is that the mind is capable of manufacturing a state of belief that defies fundamental reasoning in times of extreme stress, if the foundation for that belief, such as an image of a "God," already exists and is attached to a person's world view in a more general way. As I've said before, I think the hieroglyphic image of "God" as a part of culture is entirely responsible for the shaping of that kind of belief. If a person were not raised with the more well-defined image as a part of culture, the reaction to stress, and the transcendent state of the mind that people associate with faith would take a different shape.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough. Although, you know that I think it is, or that I say it is, so the individual in question would be me.
I suppose too that the definition of "belief" is murky. If we're talking about music, I am ambivalent about electronic music in its entirety because not all of it is in fact worthwhile.
Also, music writing is based on the shared understanding of glyphic symbols that are manipulated and presented artistically for any number of reasons. You might as well say that you don't think anyone believes that writing or reading is worthwhile. For many people, and many written works, it isn't, but the word itself is above reproach. Since we're talking about a body of traditions that are much less plastic than the act of music making, which encompasses many traditions, I don't think the statements in question are analogous.
I see your point though.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Is this what you think we were arguing?
To make sure Mormon doctrine is understood:
It's my understanding that Christ will appear in Missouri AFTER he appears in Jerusalem. Not at the same time.
Right. But being very powerful, he could appear in both places at the same time if he chose. What he could not do, though, is
a) Appear only in Missouri and b) Appear both in Missouri and Jerusalem.
To put it a different way: At midnight tomorrow, I can choose to be here, or in New York. A sufficiently powerful being could choose to be here and in New York. Three options:
a) Here only b) New York only c) a+b = Both.
The sufficiently powerful being can choose a and b; there is no contradiction. But it cannot choose a and c, because those two options contradict.
So, there are a finite number of options available for the sufficiently powerful being, and therefore probability applies.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't know about most atheists here, but as for me I'm agnostic on the subject; cosmology is not yet a sufficiently precise science to answer such questions.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Is this what you think we were arguing?
To make sure Mormon doctrine is understood:
It's my understanding that Christ will appear in Missouri AFTER he appears in Jerusalem. Not at the same time.
Right. But being very powerful, he could appear in both places at the same time if he chose. What he could not do, though, is
a) Appear only in Missouri and b) Appear both in Missouri and Jerusalem.
To put it a different way: At midnight tomorrow, I can choose to be here, or in New York. A sufficiently powerful being could choose to be here and in New York. Three options:
a) Here only b) New York only c) a+b = Both.
The sufficiently powerful being can choose a and b; there is no contradiction. But it cannot choose a and c, because those two options contradict.
So, there are a finite number of options available for the sufficiently powerful being, and therefore probability applies.
Except to an all powerful god, he could do a, then create another universe and do c, and that way not be contradictory.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, and then he would have times to make chocolate chip cookies and read us all a bedtime story as well. Sheesh
Posts: 40 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because that's what god is to many people: a parent. Going through hard times? Well god is there! Need something really badly, like a new kidney? Ask god! He'll give it to you if you pray hard enough and have faith. Did a loved one die? Go to god for comfort. Etc, etc.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except to an all powerful god, he could do a, then create another universe and do c, and that way not be contradictory.
Yes, yes, but the individuals observing him in each universe would still see him appearing in either New York, or New York+Missouri. The probability analysis still applies.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: To put it a different way: At midnight tomorrow, I can choose to be here, or in New York. A sufficiently powerful being could choose to be here and in New York. Three options:
a) Here only b) New York only c) a+b = Both.
The sufficiently powerful being can choose a and b; there is no contradiction. But it cannot choose a and c, because those two options contradict.
So, there are a finite number of options available for the sufficiently powerful being, and therefore probability applies.
Even if you rule out an infinite number of impossibilities, an infinite number of possibilities still exist.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because that's what god is to many people: a parent. Going through hard times? Well god is there! Need something really badly, like a new kidney? Ask god! He'll give it to you if you pray hard enough and have faith. Did a loved one die? Go to god for comfort. Etc, etc.
Why are these things a problem?
Some people feel that God actually comforts them in their time of need; some people feel that he really does work miracles of healing.
And some people lean on close friends or parents in difficult times; some people trust completely in medical science for their miracles.
Belief in the one doesn't eliminate the benefits of the other.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThePygmalionEffect: Because that's what god is to many people: a parent.
You should have seen the fireworks at my house when I told god that I had been skipping my math class. What does God care? I want to be an artist, I don't need math. But no, God has to be so unreasonable. God grounded me for a month. The worst part was not being able to go to ruby's with my friends. All I had to eat was God's disgusting casserole.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
...but is essentially useless in terms of the conversation we were having.
Wrong. The statement was, "Whatever the probability of a god existing, the probability of it both existing and choosing to appear in Missouri is smaller."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sam Harris' point is that the improbability you assign to Jesus coming back, you can assign an even smaller probability that he will come back to Missouri.
and you responded
quote:Why? Once you open the door to a resurrected being who demonstrates limitless power, probability kind of goes out the window.
I admit to paraphrasing Pygmalion a bit.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
The sufficiently powerful being can choose a and b; there is no contradiction. But it cannot choose a and c, because those two options contradict.
So, there are a finite number of options available for the sufficiently powerful being, and therefore probability applies.
...while technically true don't really add to the conversation much.
The beginning discussion was about whether believing that Christ would come to Missouri was more outrageous than believing he'd come back ANYWHERE AT ALL.
No one claimed that he'd be seen in both places at once; no one claimed anything more than that Mormons believe Christ will come to Missouri.
So how is your point useful to this conversation?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:No one claimed that he'd be seen in both places at once; no one claimed anything more than that Mormons believe Christ will come to Missouri.
quote:No. He's LIMITLESS. He could, if He chose, appear simultaneously in Missouri, and Paskwah Gulch, and Jerusalem, riding a UFO piloted by sapient dinosaurs.
We were discussing probabilities, and whether they apply to limitless beings. You asserted that they do not. I showed why they do. Whatever the probability of X, the probability of (X and Y) is smaller, for any value of Y. Limitless or not.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. He's LIMITLESS. He could, if He chose, appear simultaneously in Missouri, and Paskwah Gulch, and Jerusalem, riding a UFO piloted by sapient dinosaurs.
That would make a believer out of me. That's about the ONLY thing that would though.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, why ignore KoM's analysis, or worse, simply insist that it has no validity in this discussion. It does to KoM, and it does to me. It represents the way that an Athiest, in this case KoM or myself, might consider the question at hand. The fact that you insist that the point is useless or meaningless says something about how you approach your faith. I don't know exactly what it says, but something.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:why ignore KoM's analysis, or worse, simply insist that it has no validity in this discussion.
I didn't ignore it. I'm waiting for it to matter to the conversation.
KoM showed that it's not logical for God to appear in two places at once AND only in one of those places. I agree with this assessment, but disagree with its application in the conversation. No one suggested that Christ was going to appear in Missouri and Jerusalem, but only in Missouri, really.
He did not demonstrate that given a being that COULD appear anywhere at all-- post death, even-- it would be more ridiculous for him to appear in Missouri than at Jerusalem.
:shrug:
I'm not sure why you're speculating about my approach to faith-- it really doesn't matter to the conversation at hand, does it?
Believe me, I know a lot more about it than you do. Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:KoM showed that it's not logical for God to appear in two places at once AND only in one of those places.
No. KoM showed, rather, that it is more unlikely that God would appear in Specific Spot X and also appear, at any time thereafter, in Specific Spot Y than it is that He would just appear in Specific Spot X, all else being held equal.
This is just a basic fact of probability.
Of course, this is not particularly relevant to any conversation anyone else is having; he was just being a bit pedantic.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:KoM showed, rather, that it is more unlikely that God would appear in Specific Spot X and also appear, at any time thereafter, in Specific Spot Y than it is that He would just appear in Specific Spot X, all else being held equal.
quote:He did not demonstrate that given a being that COULD appear anywhere at all-- post death, even-- it would be more ridiculous for him to appear in Missouri than at Jerusalem.
An appearance at Missouri is not ridiculous at all. Nor is an appearance at Jerusalem. Your belief in an appearance at both Jerusalem and Missouri, however, is more ridiculous - in the sense that you are believing in something less probable - than other people's belief in an appearance only at Jerusalem. Which is what was originally asserted,a nd with which you disagreed.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
...and given the statistical improbability of the first act-- rising from the dead; and the second-- appearing out of nowhere in Jerusalem, 2000 years after rising from the dead; criticizing the third (appearing in Missouri) seems a little...unbalanced.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:He did not demonstrate that given a being that COULD appear anywhere at all-- post death, even-- it would be more ridiculous for him to appear in Missouri than at Jerusalem.
An appearance at Missouri is not ridiculous at all. Nor is an appearance at Jerusalem. Your belief in an appearance at both Jerusalem and Missouri, however, is more ridiculous - in the sense that you are believing in something less probable - than other people's belief in an appearance only at Jerusalem. Which is what was originally asserted,a nd with which you disagreed.
Playing Devil's advocate here.
The statement "X + Y is less probable than X" is based upon an assumption. We assume that X + Y is more complex than X. What if this isn't the case? To give an example, what if omnipresence is the natural state of things and we, by not being omnipresent, are actually MORE complex because of it? If that were the case, then X > X + Y, and the whole probability argument goes out the window.
The way I see it, it is quite literally impossible to be right on this subject. In order to claim victory, you would have to have a 100% objective base from which to make your claims. As was discussed in that thread about Objectivity not too long ago, this is impossible for humanity at this juncture.
Even if one were to prepare an absolutely flawless stance in the context of the conversation as it stands, the other could simple regress to a still broader scale and show how the stance isn't valid after all. Eventually, the argument would be pure math, and then the other side would say "Well, how do you know these numbers represent reality? How do you know that in the grand scale of things, 2 + 2 doesn't equal 3?"
The broadest perception of reality from 2 perspectives must coincide else all subsequent perceptions will be unfalsifiable.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: ...and given the statistical improbability of the first act-- rising from the dead; and the second-- appearing out of nowhere in Jerusalem, 2000 years after rising from the dead; criticizing the third (appearing in Missouri) seems a little...unbalanced.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
