FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Discussions About Orson Scott Card » Hitler was probably not a Darwinist. (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Hitler was probably not a Darwinist.
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
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 | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Smile]

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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 | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

This is just a basic fact of probability.

Okay.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
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 | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think that the terms "less probable" and "more ridiculous" are synonymous.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
...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 | Report this post to a Moderator
Achilles
Member
Member # 7741

 - posted      Profile for Achilles           Edit/Delete Post 
Well put, Scott.
Posts: 496 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sylvrdragon
Member
Member # 3332

 - posted      Profile for sylvrdragon   Email sylvrdragon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
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 | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Ok, fair enough. You've got me there.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
I could have sworn that there was a ZZ Top song that was specifically very descriptive and telling of Jesus' logistical situation.

Perhaps this can be extrapolated also to the rest of the holy trinity or what have you.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2