On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Clint O'Dell wrote:
> >>it's obvious to me that I'm saying I have no way to gather
> enough data to read beyond it.<<
> I had originally pre replied to this but took it out because I
> felt it complicated the matter too much for this particular
> exercise. So here it is again for the first time.
> Even if one feels there is no more data and they're stuck
> using what they've got, and is not enough for a conclusion,
> they should still "make-up" imaginary data with properties
> consistent with that of the original data. bla bla bla, I
They SHOULD!? Oh, my. Belief presented as fact. *BZZT*.
> think you can see where I'm going with this. So in
> conclusion because you still don't try to think further than
> the data you don't think for yourself on issues like this.
Your conclusion is based on self-consistent but invalid premises, which
the margin of this note is unfortunately too small to contain. And as for
not thinking for oneself, Mr. Kettle at your service.
> But then again not making a decision is still a decision, so
> in a way this is thinking for yourself. Hmm. Didn't think of
> this before.
Congratulations! In fact, the decision I've made is to live a life where I
don't have to decide about this (G/g)od(s) business, and it works fine for
me. Believe it or not.
> >>The sheaf of hypotheses lumped and labeled "(G/g)od(s)" is
> too broad for me to meaningfully disprove. Popper and
> all, you know.<<
> It should be easy. The broadest definition I can think of is
> "the creator of all things."
*BZZT*! You weren't paying attention. I said "the sheaf", and you pick and
choose the easiest stalk to bend?
Sorry, cheap thinking on your part, and I won't waste my time discussing
it further with you. You've proven you're in too much of a hurry to win
the argument to actually think about it. I didn't think much of it when
St. Augustine did it, either.
I do feel obliged to explain my decision, however:
"God the creator of all things" is your interpretation of the superset of
all possible (G/g)od(s), I take it--you're using a very narrow
definition; it is independent of (for example) "God who exists in all
If you play fair, working from what I said instead of what you hear
echoing in your own head, you're allowed to use a narrow definition to
describe what you don't believe in, or what you claim can't exist, but you
can't honestly palm it off as the set of all (G/g)od(s). So sorry.
> make up god because god is the "creator of all things." So,
> in a poof of logic god disappears.
And you're glad you don't like spinach, because if you did, you'd have to
*EAT* it, and You Hate Spinach.
"Dear sir, you may be right."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:41 MDT