mererdog

Prayer Partner
  • Content count

    6,885
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

2 Followers

About mererdog

  • Rank
    Learned Fool
  • Birthday 12/31/2016

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Marital Status
    happily
  • Location
    Over Here
  • Ordination Date
    00/00/0000

Other Information

  • Occupation
    loafing
  • Website URL
    http://ulc.net/forum/index.php?showuser=192
  • Interests
    Things that are of interest...
  • Religious Affiliation
    none

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

3,682 profile views
  1. So to reach your conclusion you are just using logic... and some unproven assumptions that sound true to you and were once said to you in an authoritative tone?
  2. No. But it is illogical to conclude that a conclusion is false simply because it is an illogial conclusion. That is the Argumentum Ad Logicam, or the Fallacy Fallacy (best named of all the informal fallacies). Truth and adherance to logical rules are separate and distinct qualities.
  3. The assumption that a philosophy is artificial, or that an all powerful God is a fantasy, is predicated on an assumption of personal understanding. Paraphrased: "I understand this well enough to know it is not true."
  4. i would never suggest otherwise. Logic is based on rules, however, and an all powerful God could create an exception for any rule. This means that you can't use logic to understand the concept of an all powerful God. It is a tool that doesn't fit the job, you know? Like trying to weigh your produce with a t-square, or predicting the movements of planets or photons using Newtonian physics. So we agree that you don't have to give up rational thought to belIeve. Its just that rational thought alone won't get you there.
  5. And if the silly idea we have to let go of is the idea that the universe always follows rules that we can understand? Perhaps we, meaning you and I, are just not wired right to understand the more complicated bits. When they start talking about collapsing waveforms, my teeth start to itch.
  6. Very effective summary. I concur.
  7. That is sort of the point. I don't claim to be able to wrap my head around it, either. To me, the cat is either alive or dead. I agree with Einstein about god and dice. The quantum theorists seem to have a lot of evidence on their side, but I cant actually build my own CERN to check their results, you know?
  8. Its the same basic psychology at work. If your audience is not receptive to what you are teaching, you are basically wasting your breath. Even worse, you are kind of innoculating them against your position. And that also means that every time we conclude that something is nonsense, we could be falling prey to the same thing. Because the really nasty part is that we are usually blind to the fact that we are wearing blinders."Disturbing" barely covers it.
  9. An all powerful God would not have to. Such a being would transcend rules of logic, thereby able to both be X and not be X- to both know and not know. Otherwise, it is limited in what it can do and is not All Powerful. The answer to the joke question about the boulder is that an All Powerful God could, in fact, do so. The fact that it seems impossible, and even makes no sense to us, would have no more bearing on it than it does on quantum mechanics. We don't have to grok it for it to be true.
  10. Reverse the question. Do you see how you can have misunderstood him? Do you see how his words could be a warning, rather than an accusation? An "If the shoe doesn't fit" sort of thing? Because if he didn't mean it the way it was taken, only part of the miscommunication is his fault, especially once he has already explained himself. At that point, isn't he basically just getting called a liar, and wouldnt that just make him less willing to play nice?
  11. Of course, because we aren't entirely rational, we are rarely able to look at our irrationality rationally. Somehow, my irrationality is almost always more sensible than the other guy's. He jumps to conclusions while I see the obvious. He lacks solid proof but I have compelling evidence. When that tendency rears its ugly head, its really, really hard to catch myself doing it. Ironically enough for O Henry, anyone calling me out on it is likely to seem to just be doing what they are accusing me of. Given how amazingly good we are at protecting our preconceptions* its kind of a wonder anyone can ever talk anyone out of anything...
  12. That was ULCneo, not Ex Nihilo. Ex Nihilo was silent as to whether he agreed. I assumed he didn't.
  13. Ever read much about cognitive dissonance? Knowing you are able to be wrong does not prevent being completely convinced that you are right. Knowing my wife is imperfect does not mean I won't be surprised if she cheats. We are not entirely rational creatures. That irrational confidence is a survival trait because it allows us to face risks we would otherwiwe balk at. Which explains why it is so prevalent.
  14. Courts have lower standards of evidence than most scientists. Even social scientiats like historians.