Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?)



 Religions > Atheism > Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?)

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 2

1

 

2

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Kevin Simonson"
Date: 16 Oct 2003 03:49:27 PM
Object: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?)
Duwayne, sorry it took so long to get this posted. I've had an enor-
mously hectic schedule, and this is the first opportunity I'd had to
return to this thread.
Quite a long time ago (21 June), Duwayne Anderson
<duwaynea@hotmail.com> wrote...
=> =You have it bass akwards, Kevni. Since it's part of the story YOU are
=> =telling, it's YOU who doesn't know a key element.
=>
=> Duwayne, _you_ made the assertion that if the universe was infi-
=> nite then there wouldn't be any room for anything else.
=
=That's right, Kevin. How to you fit another universe into something
=when it's already filled with infinity?
That's just _it_, Duwayne. We don't _know_ that the "something"
is "filled" or not. If the universe goes on infinitely in all four
dimensions, and if it turns out that those four dimensions are all
there is, then yes you're right, the "something" is "filled." But we
don't know that the four dimensions are all that exist.
Duwayne, you are like a caterpillar on a basketball, that is
somehow suspended in air. The caterpillar wanders all over the bas-
ketball, and convinces himself that what he has explored is all that
there is. After all, he has gone as far as he can go in each of the
two dimensions that he understands. His universe is full, as far as
he is concerned. So how can anyone fit more into it?
The flaw in this caterpillar's perception of the universe is that
he can't perceive a third dimension, an up and down. If he could,
then there would be plenty of room in his universe for more stuff be-
sides what he found on the basketball. In exactly the same way, if
there existed a fifth dimension humans didn't know about (or a sixth,
etc.), then there might be plenty of room for other universes to re-
side in.
Just because the four dimensions we witness in this life appear
to be filled to infinity, does not mean that there are no other dimen-
sions that might house other universes.
=> All I've been
=> trying to do is get you to explain why you think that's the case.
=
=I did. I asked you how you intend to fit another universe into
=something when it's already filled with infinity.
=
=You decided to invent other dimensions. Remember? Where are they,
=Kevin?
The fact that I can't point to a fifth dimension does not prove
that that fifth dimension does not exist. The question of whether or
not there is a fifth dimension remains open, and therefore your asser-
tion that every place that exists is "filled" remains based on an un-
proven assumption.
=> =Kevin, you are making up fairy tales. You say that entropy will have
=> =to increase, yet you say the universe isn't closed, in which case
=> =entropy does NOT have to increase.
=>
=> What if it turns out that the energy required to open up a pas-
=> sageway between two universes always has to be greater than the amount
=> of energy that can pass between the two universes in the time the pas-
=> sageway stays open?
=
=Then your god can't leave. Mass = energy.
I don't follow this at all. Person P uses up energy E to open up
a passageway between this universe and a younger one long enough for
energy E' to move from the younger one to our universe. _Perhaps_ E'
is constrained to always be less than E. What's to keep person P from
traveling between universes while the passageway is open?
=Oh, and when you pull an excuse out your butt (as I'm sure you will)
=explaining some further fairy tail about how your god gets out, then
=the people in that other universe will be able to get in, and they
=will find my photons, and my photons will tell them about us, and
=that's history, and history is a good thing, so I'm god.
=
=Send me your tithing.
I remain quite skeptical that it's guaranteed that other intelli-
gent races will continually travel from other universes to our uni-
verse, as you seem to be implying.
But even if they did, note that with time your message stored on
photons are going to fade. Light can send messages tens of billions
of light years with remarkable preservation of images potentially
stored on them, but light still follows the inverse square law. In
time each individual photon will be more than a kilometer from its
nearest neighbor in the light beam that you implied that you could
send out with the history encoded. Does an instrument exist that
could interpret a light beam so sparsely populated with photons? Is
it _possible_ to build such an instrument?
Other intelligent races visiting our universe would have to be
guaranteed to have such instruments in order for your history to do
any good that will last forever. You need to convince me that the
good that you do really will last forever before I start sending you
my tithing.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.

User: "Duwayne Anderson"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 16 Oct 2003 11:47:41 PM
(Kevin Simonson) wrote in message news:<6dfb1603.0310161249.7ac1688b@posting.google.com>...

Duwayne, sorry it took so long to get this posted. I've had an enor-
mously hectic schedule, and this is the first opportunity I'd had to
return to this thread.

Quite a long time ago (21 June), Duwayne Anderson
<duwaynea@hotmail.com> wrote...

=> =You have it bass akwards, Kevni. Since it's part of the story YOU are
=> =telling, it's YOU who doesn't know a key element.
=>
=> Duwayne, _you_ made the assertion that if the universe was infi-
=> nite then there wouldn't be any room for anything else.
=
=That's right, Kevin. How to you fit another universe into something
=when it's already filled with infinity?

That's just _it_, Duwayne. We don't _know_ that the "something"
is "filled" or not.

If you don't know, then you cannot preclude my method for preserving
some good into the eternities. And if you can't preclude that, then I
satisfy you silly definition of god (that which can preserve some good
into the eternities).
Which illustrates (of course) how silly your definition is.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
.
User: "Kevin Simonson"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 17 Oct 2003 08:51:17 AM
(Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message
news:<a42139e3.0310162047.9cbf4ec@posting.google.com>...
=> =That's right, Kevin. How to you fit another universe into something
=> =when it's already filled with infinity?
=>
=> That's just _it_, Duwayne. We don't _know_ that the "something"
=> is "filled" or not.
=
=If you don't know, then you cannot preclude my method for preserving
=some good into the eternities. And if you can't preclude that, then I
=satisfy you silly definition of god (that which can preserve some good
=into the eternities).
Duwayne, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're say-
ing that your plan to preserve some good into the eternities _might_
work, and as long as I can't prove that it won't work then you satisfy
my definition of God. I'm certainly not going to start sending you my
tithing until I have some reason to believe that your plan _will_
work, some reason to believe that your plan _will_ preserve some good
things into the eternities.
Furthermore, in my last post I expressed a reason why I was
_skeptical_ that your plan would work. Your plan was to encode histo-
ry (or some other document that we could both agree was good, like the
text of the Book of Mormon) onto photons and broadcast those photons
into our universe. Even if humans were all to die out, intelligent
life forms from other universes were sure (you said) to journey to our
universe on a continual basis, and they would read those photons and
get some sort of benefit from it.
But as I said in my last post, over a long enough period of time
the message on those photons is going to fade. Energy broadcast in
the form of photons is subject to the inverse square rule, and given
enough time each individual photon in the broadcast is going to be so
far from its neighbor photons that the intelligent life forms aren't
going to have an instrument sensitive enough that they can read the
message, so after that point in time your message won't be readable
and will stop doing good.
=Which illustrates (of course) how silly your definition is.
There's nothing wrong with my definition. When I defined God to
be whatever entity preserved some good things into the eternities, I
really meant eternities.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
User: "Duwayne Anderson"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 17 Oct 2003 01:14:07 PM
(Kevin Simonson) wrote in message news:<6dfb1603.0310170551.4e2e4525@posting.google.com>...
<snip>

=If you don't know, then you cannot preclude my method for preserving
=some good into the eternities. And if you can't preclude that, then I
=satisfy you silly definition of god (that which can preserve some good
=into the eternities).

Duwayne, correct me if I'm wrong,

Glad to

but it sounds like you're say-
ing that your plan to preserve some good into the eternities _might_
work, and as long as I can't prove that it won't work then you satisfy
my definition of God.

You said within physical law -- but then you went on a wild speculaton
spree, ignoring known physical laws (like entropy), and all the time
justifying your new mythology with excuses about it could be possible.
If you stick within known physical laws, I meet your definition of
god. If you are going to insist on the right to invent new physical
laws with the excuse that it could be possible, then two can play that
game, and I get to invent new physical laws -- on the grounds that it
could be possible.
So, Kevin, decide what set of rules you are playing by, and then stick
with them.

I'm certainly not going to start sending you my
tithing until I have some reason to believe that your plan _will_
work, some reason to believe that your plan _will_ preserve some good
things into the eternities.

I can prove I can preserve some good into the eternities as well as
your prophets -- and you send your money to them.
You have never sent your money to god, though.

Furthermore, in my last post I expressed a reason why I was
_skeptical_ that your plan would work.

Now, if you could only learn to be _skeptical_ about the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Your plan was to encode histo-
ry (or some other document that we could both agree was good, like the
text of the Book of Mormon) onto photons and broadcast those photons
into our universe.

You admitted I'm as good a judge of what is good as you.

Even if humans were all to die out, intelligent
life forms from other universes were sure (you said) to journey to our
universe on a continual basis, and they would read those photons and
get some sort of benefit from it.

No. I didn't use the word "sure." And I don't need to. You admitted
(after failing to define the word "good") that I'm as much an
authority on the meaning of the word "good" as you are. And so I can
define the archiving of history as good, and I can archive it into the
eternities -- thus I'm god by your silly definition.
Indeed, I can define the simple fact that history has been archived as
"good," independent of whether or not anyone reads it. And you can't
object, because you already admitted that I'm as much an expert on the
meaning of "good" as you are.
You lost this argument long, long ago when you refused to define your
definition of words, and capitulated by admitting that I'm as much an
authority on the meaning of the word "good" as you are.
So, I'm god by your silly definitition.
Send me your tithing.

But as I said in my last post, over a long enough period of time
the message on those photons is going to fade.

Doesn't matter. The digital data is still there. It never goes away.

Energy broadcast in
the form of photons is subject to the inverse square rule,
and given
enough time each individual photon in the broadcast is going to be so
far from its neighbor photons that the intelligent life forms aren't
going to have an instrument sensitive enough that they can read the
message, so after that point in time your message won't be readable
and will stop doing good.

=Which illustrates (of course) how silly your definition is.

There's nothing wrong with my definition. When I defined God to
be whatever entity preserved some good things into the eternities, I
really meant eternities.

And I really can preserve good into the eternities. Indeed, everyone
changes the future evolution of the universe to some extent -- even if
it is a miniscule extent. And since I can define "good" as easily as
you, I can define the manner in which I affect the future evolution of
the universe to be good.
Which means I'm god, according to your silly definition.
Send me your tithing.
Duwyane Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
.
User: "Kevin Simonson"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 15 Nov 2003 07:55:35 PM
(Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message
news:<a42139e3.0310171014.7e8f02df@posting.google.com>...
=So, Kevin, decide what set of rules you are playing by, and then stick
=with them.
Duwayne, I'm working on putting together a response to this ar-
ticle, but I probably won't have it done by Monday 17 November. If I
understand Google Groups threads right, that's the deadline past
which the "Post a follow-up to this message" field vanishes. So I'm
posting this brief article as a follow-up as a sort of place keeper.
When I'm finally ready to post my response to your article I'll post
it as a follow-up to _this_ brief article, and we'll go from there.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
User: "Kevin Simonson"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 02 Dec 2003 03:58:52 PM
(Kevin Simonson) wrote in message
news:<6dfb1603.0311151755.752640ce@posting.google.com>...
=> but it sounds like you're say-
=> ing that your plan to preserve some good into the eternities _might_
=> work, and as long as I can't prove that it won't work then you satisfy
=> my definition of God.
=
=You said within physical law -- but then you went on a wild speculaton
=spree, ignoring known physical laws (like entropy), and all the time
=justifying your new mythology with excuses about it could be possible.
=
=If you stick within known physical laws, I meet your definition of
=god. If you are going to insist on the right to invent new physical
=laws with the excuse that it could be possible, then two can play that
=game, and I get to invent new physical laws -- on the grounds that it
=could be possible.
=
=So, Kevin, decide what set of rules you are playing by, and then stick
=with them.
The physical laws regarding entropy state that in a closed system
entropy will inevitably increase until it reaches its maximum value.
The key words there are _in a closed system_. We frankly don't know
enough about our universe to tell whether it's a closed system or not.
How do universes come into existence? We don't know that. Is it
possible that universes come into existence on a (cosmic) regular ba-
sis, and is it possible that intelligent life forms can find ways to
create passageways between two such universes? Again, we don't know
that.
Duwayne, sticking within known physical laws, you don't meet my
definition of God.
You proposed sending a good message out in the form of photons
that you said would benefit intelligent life forms from other uni-
verses coming to visit our own; but I pointed out that that message
would fade with time, and asked if it was even _possible_ for those
life forms to read a message from photons when those photons had
spread out so much that the minimum distance between any two photons
would be a kilometer or more, as would surely happen eventually as the
photons from your broadcast spread out over the universe. You didn't
respond to that question.
You also proposed encoding that good message on a diamond, and
sending that diamond sailing through the universe, justifying that act
with the statement that "diamonds are forever." Unfortunately, they
aren't. The best experts on the subject say that _no_ molecular com-
pound is stable enough to last forever, and given enough time will de-
volve into more basic elements.
So, though your proposed actions would preserve a good message
_very long_ into the future (assuming there are intelligent life forms
left to read it), they still wouldn't preserve anything good eternal-
ly, and therefore you haven't demonstrated to me persuasively that you
have preserved anything good into the eternities, and therefore my de-
finition of God does not include you.
=> I'm certainly not going to start sending you my
=> tithing until I have some reason to believe that your plan _will_
=> work, some reason to believe that your plan _will_ preserve some good
=> things into the eternities.
=
=I can prove I can preserve some good into the eternities as well as
=your prophets -- and you send your money to them.
Prove away; I'm listening.
=> Even if humans were all to die out, intelligent
=> life forms from other universes were sure (you said) to journey to our
=> universe on a continual basis, and they would read those photons and
=> get some sort of benefit from it.
=
=No. I didn't use the word "sure." And I don't need to. You admitted
=(after failing to define the word "good") that I'm as much an
=authority on the meaning of the word "good" as you are. And so I can
=define the archiving of history as good, and I can archive it into the
=eternities -- thus I'm god by your silly definition.
=
=Indeed, I can define the simple fact that history has been archived as
="good," independent of whether or not anyone reads it. And you can't
=object, because you already admitted that I'm as much an expert on the
=meaning of "good" as you are.
=
=You lost this argument long, long ago when you refused to define your
=definition of words, and capitulated by admitting that I'm as much an
=authority on the meaning of the word "good" as you are.
=
=So, I'm god by your silly definitition.
Duwayne, see the other post I'm making today about what I think
"good" means, and whether I think your definition is authoritative.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
User: "Duwayne Anderson"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 04 Dec 2003 10:06:53 PM
(Kevin Simonson) wrote in message news:<6dfb1603.0312021358.3342a239@posting.google.com>...
<snip>

Duwayne, sticking within known physical laws, you don't meet my
definition of God.

You proposed sending a good message out in the form of photons
that you said would benefit intelligent life forms from other uni-
verses coming to visit our own; but I pointed out that that message
would fade with time, and asked if it was even _possible_ for those
life forms to read a message from photons when those photons had
spread out so much that the minimum distance between any two photons
would be a kilometer or more, as would surely happen eventually as the
photons from your broadcast spread out over the universe. You didn't
respond to that question.

Not true. I've responded to it many times. I'll do it again. Here's
what you said:
"God for me is simply that being or group of
beings that know how to
preserve some good things into the eternities and is acting to
preserve those things into the eternities. That deity is not above
physical
law; that deity works within the confines of physical law."
Notice that you didn't say "FOR eternity," but simply "INTO the
eternities." When pressed on the definition of "good," Kevin Simonson
replied:
"Duwayne, clearly I am no more of an authority on what good is
than you are."
Since you are "no more of an authority on what good is" than I am, I'm
just as able to define "good" as you are.
I define preserving history and knowledge as "good." Here is how I
can "preserve some good [i.e., history] INTO the eternities." I take
the words of history, modulate them onto a laser beam (or microwave,
or radio, RF, etc.) and broadcast it into the heavens. The photons
travel outward -- and I broadcast in all directions -- forever. Into
the eternities.
Finally, I should note that if you define god as someone who HAS
preserved good into the eternities, your god doesn't exist because
eternity isn't here. So the *really* funny thing about your
definition of god is that it makes your opinion of who can complete
the race (before it's over) the final determination of who is god.
So, perhaps your definition actually makes YOU god, Kevin.
Congrats.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
.
User: "Kevin Simonson"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 18 Dec 2003 04:41:46 PM
(Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message
news:<a42139e3.0312042006.4acfc859@posting.google.com>...
="God for me is simply that being or group of
=beings that know how to
=preserve some good things into the eternities and is acting to
=preserve those things into the eternities. That deity is not above
=physical
=law; that deity works within the confines of physical law."
=
=Notice that you didn't say "FOR eternity," but simply "INTO the
=eternities." When pressed on the definition of "good," Kevin Simonson
=replied:
=
="Duwayne, clearly I am no more of an authority on what good is
=than you are."
=
=Since you are "no more of an authority on what good is" than I am, I'm
=just as able to define "good" as you are.
=
=I define preserving history and knowledge as "good." Here is how I
=can "preserve some good [i.e., history] INTO the eternities." I take
=the words of history, modulate them onto a laser beam (or microwave,
=or radio, RF, etc.) and broadcast it into the heavens. The photons
=travel outward -- and I broadcast in all directions -- forever. Into
=the eternities.
A little bit later,
(Duwayne Anderson) wrote in
message news:<a42139e3.0312042011.35d11931@posting.google.com>...
=> =Notice that you didn't say "FOR eternity," but simply "INTO the
=> =eternities." When pressed on the definition of "good," Kevin Simonson
=> =replied:
=> =
=> ="Duwayne, clearly I am no more of an authority on what good is
=> =than you are."
=> =
=> =Since you are "no more of an authority on what good is" than I am, I'm
=> =just as able to define "good" as you are.
=>
=> Duwayne, my memory isn't slipping, at least not on this matter.
=> I remember saying that I was no more of an authority on what good is
=> than you were. What boggles my mind is that after we've discussed
=> what I think good is all this time you still don't have a clue what I
=> was really talking about.
=
=Doesn't matter, Kevin. Since I'm as good an authority on what is good
=as you are, my definition of what preserves good into the eternities
=is as good as yours.
Actually, I didn't say you were _as good_ an authority on what
good is than I was. What I said was what you quoted above, "clearly I
am _no more_ of an authority on what good is than you are." Duwayne,
it was you that interpreted my statement as meaning you were "as good"
an authority as I was.
Your definition of good as you listed it above was that that pre-
served "history and knowledge." When I said that I was no more an au-
thority on what good is than you were, and you interpreted that to
mean you were as good an authority on what is good as I am, which one
did you think you were preserving in being an authority, history or
knowledge? You said I said you were as good an authority, and you de-
fined good as being that that preserved history and knowledge, so in
being a good authority there must be something about your authority
that preserves history or knowledge. What is it?
I'm being facetious, of course. But you're doing precisely the
same thing with the word "good" as I tried to do, use it without first
defining it. When you said I said you were as good an authority on
the meaning of the word "good," you didn't mean that your authority
preserved history or knowledge, you meant that your authority was of
high quality, which is a very common usage of the term good. You
didn't need to define it, precisely because of its common usage. Eve-
rybody knew what you meant.
Think about it for a bit. Serious idea-expressers usually do de-
fine their terms before launching a full-scale argument using them.
Why? Because defining their terms is a _good_ thing. It _benefits_
the people involved in the discussion, and therefore we do it. So
people need to realize what "good" means before they ever set about
defining their terms, so they can realize why it is that they're de-
fining those terms. If they don't understand that defining their
terms is benefitting the people involved in the discussion, then why
the heck are they bothering to define their terms?
Let me recap. I defined God to be that being (or group of be-
ings) that preserved into the eternities that nonempty set of good
things that will last forever. You asked me to define good. I
strongly resisted defining it (though I finally did define it by say-
ing that good is that that benefits). At one point I said that you,
Duwayne, were as much an authority on what good is as I was. I didn't
mean to say that you were an authority on what good is; I meant to say
that _neither_ of us were an authority on the meaning of that term;
that term had an intrinsic meaning that neither of us could change by
defining it.
Anyhow, you took my statement the other way, and defined good to
be what you said above, "preserving history and knowledge." But then
you used the term "good" to describe your authority to define "good";
you said, "Since I'm as good an authority on what is good as you
are ...." Clearly the first instance of the term "good" in this
statement can't mean "preserving history and knowledge." Rather, Du-
wayne, you're using the intrinsic meaning of "good" that I was refer-
ring to.
Generally, I'm a big supporter of defining terms whose meanings
are unclear before using them in a discussion. _But it's mathemati-
cally impossible_ to define _all_ your terms before using them! Some
terms have to be understood before the discussion or the discussion
cannot occur, and my contention is that "good" is one of those terms.
After all, if both of the parties don't understand why it is _good_ to
define terms before using them in the discussion, why the heck are
they defining the terms? And if they _do_ understand why it is good
to define terms, then they clearly already understand the term "good"
and therefore don't need to define it.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
User: "rlb"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 18 Dec 2003 05:19:16 PM
"Kevin Simonson" <kvnsmnsn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dfb1603.0312181441.73b01cf@posting.google.com...

duwaynea@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message
news:<a42139e3.0312042006.4acfc859@posting.google.com>...

="God for me is simply that being or group of
=beings that know how to
=preserve some good things into the eternities and is acting to
=preserve those things into the eternities. That deity is not above
=physical
=law; that deity works within the confines of physical law."

What law is used to allow three to endure a fiery furnace without harm? rlb
.
User: "Kevin Simonson"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 20 Dec 2003 12:58:18 AM
"rlb" <rlb@saber.net> wrote in message
news:<vu4df7kgo12g82@corp.supernews.com>...
=> ="God for me is simply that being or group of
=> =beings that know how to
=> =preserve some good things into the eternities and is acting to
=> =preserve those things into the eternities. That deity is not above
=> =physical
=> =law; that deity works within the confines of physical law."
=
=What law is used to allow three to endure a fiery furnace without harm? rlb
So, <rlb>, are you saying that it is absolutely certain that hu-
mans will never walk on the surface of the planet Venus? That surface
is pretty much a fiery furnace, at least as hot as the one Shadrach,
Meshech, and Abednego got thrown into.
In olden days when people caught plagues the people around them
often abandoned them, out of fear of catching the plagues themselves.
Given the medical knowledge they had at the time, this was usually the
right decision; the plague was unable to spread and it died out. (Un-
fortunately, often so did the victims.) But as time went on medical
knowledge advanced, and doctors who braved exposure to the plagues by
treating the sick learned how to protect themselves from the plagues.
Just because we don't currently know how to protect three people
from the extreme heat of a fiery furnace doesn't mean that a deity
doesn't understand physical laws well enough that that deity can pro-
tect those three people.
All that said, I should mention that I don't have a firm convic-
tion that everything that's mentioned in the Bible, particulary the
accounts of the miracles, happened precisely as the Bible relates
them. I've thought for some time that I believe in one miracle; I be-
lieve that Jesus of Nazareth suffered for our sins, so we wouldn't
have to, and that He chose to die so that we could all live again;
that is the one miracle I believe in.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
User: "Jerry Sturdivant"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 20 Dec 2003 02:08:30 PM
"Kevin Simonson"

All that said, I should mention that I don't have a firm
conviction that everything that's mentioned in the Bible,
particulary the accounts of the miracles, happened precisely
as the Bible relates them.

So you think the bible is wrong?

I've thought for some time that I believe in one miracle;
I believe that Jesus of Nazareth suffered for our sins, so
we wouldn't have to, and that He chose to die so that we
could all live again; that is the one miracle I believe in.

So we're all saved?
.
User: "Kevin Simonson"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 20 Dec 2003 10:07:54 PM
"Jerry Sturdivant" <sturdy@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:<k42Fb.23627$gN.5850@fed1read05>...
=> All that said, I should mention that I don't have a firm
=> conviction that everything that's mentioned in the Bible,
=> particulary the accounts of the miracles, happened precisely
=> as the Bible relates them.
=
=So you think the bible is wrong?
Yes, quite frankly, I do. The Bible says that the flood at the
time of Noah was so high that it covered the tops of the mountains. I
don't know of any mountains in the world that are low enough that they
could have been covered by such a flood.
=> I've thought for some time that I believe in one miracle;
=> I believe that Jesus of Nazareth suffered for our sins, so
=> we wouldn't have to, and that He chose to die so that we
=> could all live again; that is the one miracle I believe in.
=
=So we're all saved?
We're all saved from physical death; the day will come when all
people who have lived on Earth will live again. We're _not_ all saved
from the effects of sin. Jesus suffered in Gethsemane so that those
who repent of their sins can be forgiven of those sins. Those who
don't repent of their sins will end up having to suffer for them them-
selves.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
User: "Jerry Sturdivant"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 21 Dec 2003 11:08:18 AM
"Kevin Simonson"

So you think the bible is wrong?

Yes, quite frankly, I do. The Bible says that the flood at
the time of Noah was so high that it covered the tops of
the mountains. I don't know of any mountains in the world
that are low enough that they could have been covered by
such a flood.

So if the bible is wrong about this, it stands to reason the whole thing can
be wrong; right?

I've thought for some time that I believe in one miracle;
I believe that Jesus of Nazareth suffered for our sins, so
we wouldn't have to, and that He chose to die so that we
could all live again; that is the one miracle I believe in.

So we're all saved?

We're all saved from physical death; the day will come when
all people who have lived on Earth will live again.

How about the ones that were blown up? How about a two-day old baby; who
takes care of it?

We're _not_ all saved from the effects of sin. Jesus suffered
in Gethsemane so that those who repent of their sins can
be forgiven of those sins.

So we just have to be sorry? Cool:, "I'm sorry." (That takes care of that,
right?)
Jerry Sturdivant
Showing the light since 1957
.
User: "Kevin Simonson"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 06 Jan 2004 12:58:24 PM
"Jerry Sturdivant" <sturdy@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:<4ukFb.23736$gN.15340@fed1read05>...
=> I don't know of any mountains in the world
=> that are low enough that they could have been covered by
=> such a flood.
=
=So if the bible is wrong about this, it stands to reason the whole thing can
=be wrong; right?
Since I'm LDS, I don't believe the Bible is the only scripture
there is. It's one of four books that we use as scripture. For me
scripture is nothing more than God's chosen textbook in God's spiritu-
al classroom. The class's professor is the Holy Spirit and the LDS
Church authorities are the teaching assistants.
Textbooks are chosen for their ability to complement classroom
instruction, not necessarily for their inerrance on the subject mat-
ter. I have been in classrooms where the professor pointed out errors
in the textbook.
Dallas has an Evangelical radio station that I like to listen to
that had a program talking about the relevance and inerrence of the
Bible. After hearing it it dawned on me that relevance _by itself_ is
the main characteristic of the Bible. The Bible is completely rele-
vant, whether or not it's completely inerrant.
Your assertion that "the whole thing can be wrong" reminds me of
what I read recently about Euclid's geometric theorems, that if you
look at his reasonings you can find a few mistakes. Does it follow
that the whole thing--the entire Euclidean Geometry--could be wrong?
Well, I guess so, but a quick inspection will show you that on the
whole Euclid was extremely rigorous.
I think you'll find the same thing with the Bible. I've asserted
above that it's completely relevant, even though it might not be com-
pletely inerrant. But I sincerely doubt that God's relevant books
would be completely fables, made up entirely of things that didn't ac-
tually happen.
=> We're all saved from physical death; the day will come when
=> all people who have lived on Earth will live again.
=
=How about the ones that were blown up? How about a two-day old baby; who
=takes care of it?
People who were blown up will some day live again. As for the
two-day-old baby, who will take care of it, the answer is simple: my
mother will take care of her/him. Taking care of babies was my mo-
ther's whole life; she'd jump at the chance of taking care of a new
one.
=> We're _not_ all saved from the effects of sin. Jesus suffered
=> in Gethsemane so that those who repent of their sins can
=> be forgiven of those sins.
=
=So we just have to be sorry? Cool:, "I'm sorry." (That takes care of that,
=right?)
Jerry, if you want all the details on how repentance occurs, I
can contact two missionaries who would love to discuss it with you.
:)
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
User: "Jerry Sturdivant"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 06 Jan 2004 10:56:12 PM
"Kevin Simonson"

I don't know of any mountains in the world
that are low enough that they could have been
covered by such a flood.

So if the bible is wrong about this, it stands to
reason the whole thing can be wrong; right?

[A bunch of stuff deleted]

Does it follow that the whole thing--the entire Euclidean
Geometry--could be wrong? Well, I guess so

Thank you.
[A bunch more stuff.]

I've asserted above that it's completely relevant, even though
it might not be completely inerrant. But I sincerely doubt
that God's relevant books would be completely fables, made
up entirely of things that didn't actually happen.

We know the flood thing is wrong. So there is the possibility that it could
all be all wrong. Right?

We're _not_ all saved from the effects of sin. Jesus
suffered in Gethsemane so that those who repent
of their sins can be forgiven of those sins.

So we just have to be sorry? Cool:, "I'm sorry."
(That takes care of that, ight?)

Jerry, if you want all the details on how repentance occurs,
I can contact two missionaries who would love to discuss
it with you. :)

Why? You just made the statement. You don't have the answer?
Jerry Sturdivant
.
User: "Kevin Simonson"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 19 Jan 2004 07:54:03 PM
"Jerry Sturdivant" <sturdy@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:<liMKb.47090$gN.308@fed1read05>...
=> I've asserted above that it's completely relevant, even though
=> it might not be completely inerrant. But I sincerely doubt
=> that God's relevant books would be completely fables, made
=> up entirely of things that didn't actually happen.
=
=We know the flood thing is wrong. So there is the possibility that it could
=all be all wrong. Right?
Yes. The possibility exists that the Bible could be _all_ wrong.
The possibility exists that _all scripture_ (the Tanakh, the New Tes-
tament, the Book of Mormon, the Quran, the Vedas, the Gathas, etc.)
could be _all_ wrong. The possibility exists that _all narratives_
(Greek history, Roman history, Chinese history, etc.) could be all
wrong. The possibility exists that _all documents_ (including scien-
tific "discoveries," etc.) could be all wrong. The possibility
exists. Jerry, what's your point?
=>> So we just have to be sorry? Cool:, "I'm sorry."
=>> (That takes care of that, ight?)
=> Jerry, if you want all the details on how repentance occurs,
=> I can contact two missionaries who would love to discuss
=> it with you. :)
=
=Why? You just made the statement. You don't have the answer?
I have the answer. You're talking to a returned missionary, for
goodness sake!
If you want to repent you need to first recognize that you've
done something wrong, then feel honest remorse for what you've done,
then confess to all relevant parties your sin, then ask for forgive-
ness, try to undo the damage as much as you can, and then resolve to
never commit the offense again. Once you've done all that, then God
forgives you of the sin you repented of.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.


User: "Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 07 Jan 2004 12:01:10 AM
I like to think of him as being the holy ghost with a rather loud
still small voice.
--
"A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is
very easy to govern. It demands no social reforms. It does not haggle
over expenditures on armaments and military equipment. It pays
without discussion, it ruins itself, and that is an excellent thing
for the syndicates of financiers and manufacturers for whom patriotic
terrors are an abundant source of gain."
--Anatole France
Gen. JC Christian, patriot, commentary:
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/
.

User: "Thomas P."

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 07 Jan 2004 01:16:13 AM
On 6 Jan 2004 10:58:24 -0800,
(Kevin Simonson)
wrote:

"Jerry Sturdivant" <sturdy@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:<4ukFb.23736$gN.15340@fed1read05>...

=> I don't know of any mountains in the world
=> that are low enough that they could have been covered by
=> such a flood.
=
=So if the bible is wrong about this, it stands to reason the whole thing can
=be wrong; right?

Since I'm LDS, I don't believe the Bible is the only scripture
there is. It's one of four books that we use as scripture. For me
scripture is nothing more than God's chosen textbook in God's spiritu-
al classroom. The class's professor is the Holy Spirit and the LDS
Church authorities are the teaching assistants.
Textbooks are chosen for their ability to complement classroom
instruction, not necessarily for their inerrance on the subject mat-
ter. I have been in classrooms where the professor pointed out errors
in the textbook.

So you agree that any text in the Bible might be in error. The only
question is what is one to use to determine the errors - logic and
evidence or the word of teachers which also might be in error? It is
obvious that one cannot use the Bible itself, since any part might be
in error.


Dallas has an Evangelical radio station that I like to listen to
that had a program talking about the relevance and inerrence of the
Bible. After hearing it it dawned on me that relevance _by itself_ is
the main characteristic of the Bible. The Bible is completely rele-
vant, whether or not it's completely inerrant.

Your assertion that "the whole thing can be wrong" reminds me of
what I read recently about Euclid's geometric theorems, that if you
look at his reasonings you can find a few mistakes. Does it follow
that the whole thing--the entire Euclidean Geometry--could be wrong?
Well, I guess so, but a quick inspection will show you that on the
whole Euclid was extremely rigorous.

Then one only needs to apply the same logic and standards to the Bible
or the Book of Mormon or the teachings of any church as one does to
Euclid, right?


I think you'll find the same thing with the Bible. I've asserted
above that it's completely relevant, even though it might not be com-
pletely inerrant.

Euclid is a little more than relevant. It is not quite the same
thing.

But I sincerely doubt that God's relevant books
would be completely fables, made up entirely of things that didn't ac-
tually happen.

Why assume that they are his books? After one has made that
assumption why assume any particular part of the book is true after
one has accepted that some parts are in error?
snip
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
User: "Kevin Simonson"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 19 Jan 2004 07:55:11 PM
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<hdcnvvc1naritd9l756kd833b9aqisvm31@4ax.com>...
=So you agree that any text in the Bible might be in error. The only
=question is what is one to use to determine the errors - logic and
=evidence or the word of teachers which also might be in error? It is
=obvious that one cannot use the Bible itself, since any part might be
=in error.
You're part right. It makes no sense to have _faith_ in what
these "teachers" say, unless they say something that turns out under
scrutiny to be self-evident. But that is in fact what happens with
the LDS Church leaders. They say the way to find out what the will of
God is is for each individual to go to God in prayer and ask God what
God's will is.
I don't look at scripture (let alone the Bible) as inerrant docu-
ments that form the basis of my theology. Rather it is the textbook
in my spiritual classroom. God has chosen it as the document God
wants us to use to learn about eternal things.
=> Your assertion that "the whole thing can be wrong" reminds me of
=>what I read recently about Euclid's geometric theorems, that if you
=>look at his reasonings you can find a few mistakes. Does it follow
=>that the whole thing--the entire Euclidean Geometry--could be wrong?
=>Well, I guess so, but a quick inspection will show you that on the
=>whole Euclid was extremely rigorous.
=
=Then one only needs to apply the same logic and standards to the Bible
=or the Book of Mormon or the teachings of any church as one does to
=Euclid, right?
Hardly. You wouldn't "apply the same logic and standards" to a
study of astronomy, would you? Or geology, or anthropology? Science
is by nature less rigorous than Euclid's mathematics.
=>But I sincerely doubt that God's relevant books
=>would be completely fables, made up entirely of things that didn't ac-
=>tually happen.
=
=Why assume that they are his books? After one has made that
=assumption why assume any particular part of the book is true after
=one has accepted that some parts are in error?
See above. Each individual theist needs to ask God if the LDS
canon does indeed constitute "God's relevant books," and wait patient-
ly to hear what God says in response.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.
User: "Lee Paulson"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 20 Jan 2004 07:45:16 AM
"Kevin Simonson" <kvnsmnsn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dfb1603.0401191755.62736b57@posting.google.com...

Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<hdcnvvc1naritd9l756kd833b9aqisvm31@4ax.com>...

snip


=> Your assertion that "the whole thing can be wrong" reminds me of
=>what I read recently about Euclid's geometric theorems, that if you
=>look at his reasonings you can find a few mistakes. Does it follow
=>that the whole thing--the entire Euclidean Geometry--could be wrong?
=>Well, I guess so, but a quick inspection will show you that on the
=>whole Euclid was extremely rigorous.
=
=Then one only needs to apply the same logic and standards to the Bible
=or the Book of Mormon or the teachings of any church as one does to
=Euclid, right?

Hardly. You wouldn't "apply the same logic and standards" to a
study of astronomy, would you? Or geology, or anthropology?

Well, yes. And that's why religion fails the test.
Science

is by nature less rigorous than Euclid's mathematics.

Huh? How do you figure that?

snip
See above. Each individual theist needs to ask God if the LDS
canon does indeed constitute "God's relevant books," and wait patient-
ly to hear what God says in response.


Does God actuaolly speak?
--
Regards,
Lee the James, uM, feminist
The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence--Thomas H. Huxley
.
User: "Gregory Randall"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 22 Jan 2004 05:35:20 AM
"Lee Paulson" <lrpaulson@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bujbdd$idf96$1@ID-146277.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Kevin Simonson" <kvnsmnsn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dfb1603.0401191755.62736b57@posting.google.com...

Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<hdcnvvc1naritd9l756kd833b9aqisvm31@4ax.com>...

snip


=> Your assertion that "the whole thing can be wrong" reminds me of
=>what I read recently about Euclid's geometric theorems, that if you
=>look at his reasonings you can find a few mistakes. Does it follow
=>that the whole thing--the entire Euclidean Geometry--could be wrong?
=>Well, I guess so, but a quick inspection will show you that on the
=>whole Euclid was extremely rigorous.
=
=Then one only needs to apply the same logic and standards to the Bible
=or the Book of Mormon or the teachings of any church as one does to
=Euclid, right?

Hardly. You wouldn't "apply the same logic and standards" to a
study of astronomy, would you? Or geology, or anthropology?



Well, yes. And that's why religion fails the test.

Science

is by nature less rigorous than Euclid's mathematics.


Huh? How do you figure that?


snip


See above. Each individual theist needs to ask God if the LDS
canon does indeed constitute "God's relevant books," and wait patient-
ly to hear what God says in response.


Does God actuaolly speak?


NO Lee, He wispers in dreams. So many of us cant hear him ( Yes I never did
tell you, I am half deaf too ( true, no lie) and the rest cant remember
their dreams. Thats the whole problem I reckon.
So we all just need Cochlear implants ( Good old Aussie genious at work
again !) and to wake up during REM sleep and we'll all be happy little
Prophets. ( Dont even think about it , im putting a patent on the idea).
Regards
Greg

--
Regards,
Lee the James, uM, feminist

The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence--Thomas H. Huxley


.

User: "George Jones"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the ConscientiousAlternative?) 20 Jan 2004 11:18:01 AM
Lee Paulson wrote:


"Kevin Simonson" <kvnsmnsn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dfb1603.0401191755.62736b57@posting.google.com...

Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<hdcnvvc1naritd9l756kd833b9aqisvm31@4ax.com>...

snip


=> Your assertion that "the whole thing can be wrong" reminds me of
=>what I read recently about Euclid's geometric theorems, that if you
=>look at his reasonings you can find a few mistakes. Does it follow
=>that the whole thing--the entire Euclidean Geometry--could be wrong?
=>Well, I guess so, but a quick inspection will show you that on the
=>whole Euclid was extremely rigorous.
=
=Then one only needs to apply the same logic and standards to the Bible
=or the Book of Mormon or the teachings of any church as one does to
=Euclid, right?

Hardly. You wouldn't "apply the same logic and standards" to a
study of astronomy, would you? Or geology, or anthropology?


Well, yes. And that's why religion fails the test.

Science
is by nature less rigorous than Euclid's mathematics.


Huh? How do you figure that?

I don't know if "less rigorous" is pecisely the right term, but I think
Euclid is a good example.
Euclid's system, as extended by the German mathematician David Hilbert,
is a complete, consistent formal system. As such, every statement within
this system is either provably true or false, but not both provably true
and provably false.
Scientific theories and many branches of pure mathematics don't approach
this ideal.
Godel's incompleteness theorems, which gave Hilbert quite a shock, block
access to this ideal for much of mathematics, but Euclid evades these
incompleteness theorems.
Most scientific theories and laws are neither proved nor are even
provable. This may surprise many non-scientists, but, nonetheless, is
true. A good scientific theory is falsifiable, not verifiable.
Take Newton's law of gravity as an example. In order to verify or prove
this law, experiments measuring the gravitational force between objects
of all possible masses and all possible spatial separations would have
to be performed. This involves an infinite number of experiments, so
proving Newton's law of gravity is not possible for humankind. However,
it only takes one experiment that has results impossible to square with
Newton to falsify Newton's law of gravity. In fact, Newton's law of
gravity has indeed been falsified, and has been superseded by
Einstein's general theory of relativity.
General relativity, in turn, is a good theory because it also makes
predictions that allow it to be falsified (but not proved). To date,
there have been no experimental results that general relativity has been
unable to accommodate, so general relativity has not been falsified, but
it has not been proved, either. As more and more results are gathered
that are consistent with general relativity, general relativity's domain
of applicability increases, but, again, an infinite number of results
would be required to prove it.
It might turn out that general relativity is never falsified, but,
because of its apparent incompatibility with quantum theory, most
physicists think general relativity will eventually be falsified.
Now, for argument's sake, consider 2 possible scenarios.
1) Humankind hypothesizes (discovers? invents?) a scientific theory that
is ultimately true. Humankind will never prove that the theory is true,
because the theory cannot be tested in the infinite number of situations
to which the theory applies. Humankind will never falsify the theory,
because the theory is not false, i.e., it is ultimately true.
2) Humankind hypothesizes (discovers? invents?) a scientific theory that
is not ultimately true, but whose falsification is beyond the finite
capabilities of humankind. Humankind will never prove the theory true,
because it is false. Humankind will never falsify the theory, because
this is beyond humankind's capabilities.
Even though scenarios 1) and 2) are quite different different with
respect to actual reality, the end results are the same for humans. In
both scenarios an individual human will:
a) have faith that the theory is true;
b) have faith that the theory is false;
c) be agnostic with respect to the truth value of theory.
I think people can see where I'm heading - replace "a scientific theory"
with "God exists." Atheists (those people who choose b)) are right if
scenario 2) is correct. Theists (those people that choose a)) are right
if scenario 1) is correct.
This analogy between scientific theory is very weak because good
scientific theroris makes testable predictions, while, as far as I can
see, neither theism nor atheism is falsifiable. Still, I find the faith
aspect of scientific practice interesting.
Regards,
George
.
User: "Mike W"

Title: Re: X Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 20 Jan 2004 12:59:00 PM

George Jones wrote:

Lee Paulson wrote:

Kevin Simonson <kvnsmnsn@hotmail.com> wrote:
Science is by nature less rigorous than Euclid's mathematics.

Huh? How do you figure that?

I don't know if "less rigorous" is pecisely the right term, but
I think Euclid is a good example.

Euclid's system, as extended by the German mathematician David
Hilbert, is a complete, consistent formal system. As such, every
statement within this system is either provably true or false, but
not both provably true and provably false.

Scientific theories and many branches of pure mathematics don't
approach this ideal.

Godel's incompleteness theorems, which gave Hilbert quite a shock,
block access to this ideal for much of mathematics, but Euclid
evades these incompleteness theorems.

Well you're shaking the underpinnings of my faith these last couple of
weeks. So... Euclid evades Gödel's incompleteness? Heh, I'm glad there
wasn't much time to build my respect for Gödel.
Mike
~~~ ö try holding ALT and keypadding 0246 ~~~
Note: have no reason to disagree with the following -

Most scientific theories and laws are neither proved nor are even
provable. This may surprise many non-scientists, but, nonetheless,
is true. A good scientific theory is falsifiable, not verifiable.

Take Newton's law of gravity as an example. In order to verify or
prove this law, experiments measuring the gravitational force between
objects of all possible masses and all possible spatial separations
would have to be performed. This involves an infinite number of
experiments, so proving Newton's law of gravity is not possible for
humankind. However, it only takes one experiment that has results
impossible to square with Newton to falsify Newton's law of gravity.
In fact, Newton's law of gravity has indeed been falsified, and has
been superseded by Einstein's general theory of relativity.

General relativity, in turn, is a good theory because it also makes
predictions that allow it to be falsified (but not proved). To date,
there have been no experimental results that general relativity has
been unable to accommodate, so general relativity has not been
falsified, but it has not been proved, either. As more and more
results are gathered that are consistent with general relativity,
general relativity's domain of applicability increases, but, again,
an infinite number of results would be required to prove it.

It might turn out that general relativity is never falsified, but,
because of its apparent incompatibility with quantum theory, most
physicists think general relativity will eventually be falsified.

Now, for argument's sake, consider 2 possible scenarios.

1) Humankind hypothesizes (discovers? invents?) a scientific theory
that is ultimately true. Humankind will never prove that the theory
is true, because the theory cannot be tested in the infinite number
of situations to which the theory applies. Humankind will never
falsify the theory, because the theory is not false, i.e., it is
ultimately true.

2) Humankind hypothesizes (discovers? invents?) a scientific theory
that is not ultimately true, but whose falsification is beyond the
finite capabilities of humankind. Humankind will never prove the
theory true, because it is false. Humankind will never falsify the
theory, because this is beyond humankind's capabilities.

Even though scenarios 1) and 2) are quite different different with
respect to actual reality, the end results are the same for humans.
In both scenarios an individual human will:

a) have faith that the theory is true;
b) have faith that the theory is false;
c) be agnostic with respect to the truth value of theory.

I think people can see where I'm heading - replace "a scientific
theory" with "God exists." Atheists (those people who choose b))
are right if scenario 2) is correct. Theists (those people that
choose a)) are right if scenario 1) is correct.

This analogy between scientific theory is very weak because good
scientific theroris makes testable predictions, while, as far as
I can see, neither theism nor atheism is falsifiable. Still, I find
the faith aspect of scientific practice interesting.

Regards,
George

.
User: "Owls of the Black Sun"

Title: Re: X Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 20 Jan 2004 06:07:41 PM
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:59:00 -0500, "Mike W"
<Circle_314_And_Square_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

shaking the underpinnings of my faith

Ether Theory
"For reader who has never heard of "ether", perhaps the simplest
explanation for ether physics is that of the late Dr. Hans A. Nieper
titled Revolution in Technology, Medicine and Society. Ether could be
thought of as an energy source emanating from everywhere equally at
once. The universe could be considered, as often said, "a sea of
energy". It from a background of energy everywhere, and since it is
everywhere all the time; it is difficult make independent measurement
of it. This ether energy is in constant motion. All energy is
radiant energy, according to this theory. This can easily be
appreciated as to electromagnetic radiation but it is also true of
that very elusive thing called gravity. Newton described the effects
of gravity but he never told us exactly what it was. Dr. Nieper tells
us that gravity is really a push, not a pull. Gravity is acceleration
and is caused by the ether field. Again, all energy is radiant energy
whose fundamental basis is ether radiation."
Now let us take a break, here. You may have thought that I am going
off in a tangent only find myself supporting your post as well as
approaching it from another perspective. You are correct in this
matter, however I would also like add upon this what has been already
expound by Latter-day prophets.
It is said that "light" radiates from the throne of God, and fills all
cubic sectors. Is this not correct?
Ether is said to be neither good nor evil, but dangerous. Much like
electricity which neither visible to the human eye, but it effects
very noticeable. Now, electricity is said to be everywhere at once,
but not ready available everywhere at once. My understanding is that
electricity is made up of charge particles and Latter-day Saint
prophets have told us that particles that fill all cubic sectors in
this universe were never created or made, but have always existed,
they are called intelligence. Intelligence in this context has
several meanings, three of which are: (1) It is the light of truth
which gives life and light to all things in the universe. It has
always existed, radiates from God's throne, and is the means by which
the Holy Ghost operates. (2) The word intelligences may also refer to
spirit children of God. It has always existed, and can only be
organized into evolved forms of life. (3) The scriptures also may
speak of intelligence as referring to the spirit element that existed
before we were begotten as spirit children. It has always existed and
this is the spiritual matter that all things are made of which is said
to neither have father nor mother, but always co-existed with God.
Intelligence is also the power to use our knowledge for good, but that
is not relevant to the discussion or direction we are trying to take
here. However, what is relevant is the teaching of the prophets, which
tell us that element of ether like electricity is part of the spirit
world, and electricity on a spectrum measuring absolute energy is
nothing more than the lower end of the spirit world. Electricity is
much like ether, however there is a big difference when measured on a
scale of available sources in the cosmos. While electricity can be
created, ether is cannot be created or uncreated, but is constant.
Electricity is dangerous if mishandled, but ether is far more
dangerous. The Latter-day prophets have told us that the power of the
Holy Ghost is the Light. The Light is the Truth, and the Truth is the
Word of God. The Word of God is Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ = Word of God = Truth = Light = Spirit (Holy Ghost) =
Power
Now, what I am about to tell you are just my opinions, but I base it
upon the teaching of the prophets.
Ether is the means by which we can mentally recreate miracles in this
universe. Jesus Christ instructed his followers that if the command a
tree to plant itself in the water, it would obey. Is this not correct
a teaching of Christ?
[Luke 17: 5-6] - And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our
faith. And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed,
ye might say unto this sycomore-tree, Be thou plucked up by the root,
and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.
Now, I ask you, did Jesus say to ask God to plant it in the sea for
you?
No. Jesus taught the principle of faith, a high law that supercedes
the known laws, and unifies all things, and by which miracles manifest
in this universe, and the power that can increase one's faith
substantially. Yes, in see, one faith does increase. Did Peter walk
on water?
Yes, but for a short while only. It was watching Jesus walk on water
which increase his faith and he did walk for a little while, but then
did Jesus not say unto him, O ye of little faith, wherefore didst thou
doubt? This can be excepted, little faith, little while upon water.
[Matt. 14: 31] - And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand,
caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst
thou doubt?
Here we learn that faith is not something which one possess, but very
fluid in nature. If we look for what its effects are we can call it a
mustard seed.
Now, Jesus did say if you had a great faith, but if you had something
small as a mustard seed.
Now, expound by those who never had the power to do miracles that
Jesus was referring to a mustard seed because it is very small, but
the seed begins to grow, and wax strong, until you are able to do
miracles.
However, they speak without experience, and can tell you how to
recreate miracles mentally. I on the other hand will point out, that
Peter never had the time to wax strong in faith, when he walked on
water. Moreover, when he asked the Lord how he could increase his
faith, and the Lord told him that it was not the size of your faith,
it can be a mustard seed in size, but keeping the fluid ether constant
is what brings about miracles.
Knowledge about ether is what the Jannes and Jambres used to recreate
the same miracles that Moses did. Do you not remember watch the
movie, Ten Commandments, that when Moses created a snake out of his
rod, so did Jannes and Jambres make snakes out of rods. However, the
only thing that gave Moses and edge was that he was always one-step
ahead of them; therefore, Moses snake did swallow their snakes.
[2 Tim. 3: 8] - Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these
also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the
faith.
Let us not read second Timothy in haste, Jannes and Jambres were not
ignorant about ether, or about using the principle of faith in
controlling ether. The context that faith in second Timothy was used,
is that there are men that are reprobate concerning the use of faith,
and they resist the truth, men of corrupt minds, and they always move
to challenge the servants of God, but in no way is it saying that
Jannes and Jambres were reprobated concerning the use of faith.
The only thinking to be made here is that a the stubborn spirit that
wants to challenge the miracles of Moses or another prophet of God,
like the spirits of Jannes and Jambres only had in common with the men
of reprobate in minds. Therefore, Jannes and Jambres were not ignorant
about faith, but stubborn to think that the God of Moses was any
different then their God, which used the same ether to recreate
miracles.
In ending, I will only add this,
[Abr. 3:18] - Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if
there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the
other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent
than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall
have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.
Gnolaum is gravity, for it is ether, and ether is the power of God,
and it is neither good nor evil. In addition, the elements are command
to obey in our universe by the power.
Owls of the Black Sun
.
User: "Mike W"

Title: Re: X Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 21 Jan 2004 08:44:40 AM

Owls of the Black Sun wrote:

Mike W wrote:
shaking the underpinnings of my faith

That was a bemused comment but now I'm not so certain...

Ether Theory

"For reader who has never heard of "ether", perhaps the simplest
explanation for ether physics is that of the late Dr. Hans A. Nieper
titled Revolution in Technology, Medicine and Society. Ether could
be thought of as an energy source emanating from everywhere equally
at once. The universe could be considered, as often said, "a sea of
energy". It from a background of energy everywhere, and since it is
everywhere all the time; it is difficult make independent measurement
of it. This ether energy is in constant motion. All energy is
radiant energy, according to this theory. This can easily be
appreciated as to electromagnetic radiation but it is also true of
that very elusive thing called gravity. Newton described the effects
of gravity but he never told us exactly what it was. Dr. Nieper
tells us that gravity is really a push, not a pull. Gravity is
acceleration and is caused by the ether field. Again, all energy is
radiant energy whose fundamental basis is ether radiation."

Now let us take a break, here. You may have thought that I am going
off in a tangent only find myself supporting your post as well as
approaching it from another perspective.

Approaching it from another perspective, yes. Ether has meant something
different since it was first introduced so, I don't put much stock in it.
Now, if you want to comment on an entropic universe flapping like a sheet in
the wind against another brane...
http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-04/cover/
If "gravity is a push" not a pull, you'd think Google would find more than
four references to it on a .edu site, no? The problem's in the math and the
observations I guess, nobody is ready to sit down and do the hard work.

You are correct in this
matter, however I would also like add upon this what has been already
expound by Latter-day prophets.

It is said that "light" radiates from the throne of God, and fills
all cubic sectors. Is this not correct?

Ether is said to be neither good nor evil, but dangerous. Much like
electricity which neither visible to the human eye, but it effects
very noticeable. Now, electricity is said to be everywhere at once,
but not ready available everywhere at once. My understanding is that
electricity is made up of charge particles and Latter-day Saint
prophets have told us that particles that fill all cubic sectors in
this universe were never created or made, but have always existed,
they are called intelligence. Intelligence in this context has
several meanings, three of which are: (1) It is the light of truth
which gives life and light to all things in the universe. It has
always existed, radiates from God's throne, and is the means by which
the Holy Ghost operates. (2) The word intelligences may also refer to
spirit children of God. It has always existed, and can only be
organized into evolved forms of life. (3) The scriptures also may
speak of intelligence as referring to the spirit element that existed
before we were begotten as spirit children. It has always existed and
this is the spiritual matter that all things are made of which is
said to neither have father nor mother, but always co-existed with
God.

Intelligence is also the power to use our knowledge for good, but
that is not relevant to the discussion or direction we are trying to
take here. However, what is relevant is the teaching of the prophets,
which tell us that element of ether like electricity is part of the
spirit world, and electricity on a spectrum measuring absolute energy
is nothing more than the lower end of the spirit world. Electricity
is much like ether, however there is a big difference when measured
on a scale of available sources in the cosmos. While electricity can
be created, ether is cannot be created or uncreated, but is constant.

Electricity is dangerous if mishandled, but ether is far more
dangerous.

If they're serious about selling this to the flock that wants knowledge (in
addition to belief) something like lightning is going to have to be
mentioned. I have no idea what Nieper is talking about. On the other hand,
contemplating whether intelligence is a product of chemical and electrical
interactions in the brain or that those interactions are the earliest
perceptible manifestations of intelligence, that's a matter for philosophy.
The LDS might take the latter POV, intelligence is eternal and manifests
itself here as chemical and electrical interactions followed by behavioural
patterns.

The Latter-day prophets have told us that the power of the
Holy Ghost is the Light. The Light is the Truth, and the Truth is the
Word of God. The Word of God is Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ = Word of God = Truth = Light = Spirit (Holy Ghost) =
Power

Now, what I am about to tell you are just my opinions, but I base it
upon the teaching of the prophets.

Ether is the means by which we can mentally recreate miracles in this
universe. Jesus Christ instructed his followers that if the command
a tree to plant itself in the water, it would obey. Is this not
correct a teaching of Christ?

[Luke 17: 5-6] - And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our
faith. And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed,
ye might say unto this sycomore-tree, Be thou plucked up by the root,
and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

Now, I ask you, did Jesus say to ask God to plant it in the sea for
you?

No. Jesus taught the principle of faith, a high law that supercedes
the known laws, and unifies all things, and by which miracles
manifest in this universe, and the power that can increase one's
faith substantially. Yes, in see, one faith does increase. Did Peter
walk on water?
Yes, but for a short while only. It was watching Jesus walk on water
which increase his faith and he did walk for a little while, but then
did Jesus not say unto him, O ye of little faith, wherefore didst
thou doubt? This can be excepted, little faith, little while upon
water.

[Matt. 14: 31] - And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand,
caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore
didst thou doubt?

Here we learn that faith is not something which one possess, but very
fluid in nature. If we look for what its effects are we can call it a
mustard seed.

Now, Jesus did say if you had a great faith, but if you had something
small as a mustard seed.

Now, expound by those who never had the power to do miracles that
Jesus was referring to a mustard seed because it is very small, but
the seed begins to grow, and wax strong, until you are able to do
miracles.

However, they speak without experience, and can tell you how to
recreate miracles mentally.

Sorta like being "in the groove" and remembering all that's needed to pass
the exam? :-)
Mike

I on the other hand will point out, that Peter never had the time to
wax strong in faith, when he walked on water. Moreover, when he asked
the Lord how he could increase his faith, and the Lord told him that
it was not the size of your faith, it can be a mustard seed in size,
but keeping the fluid ether constant is what brings about miracles.

Knowledge about ether is what the Jannes and Jambres used to recreate
the same miracles that Moses did. Do you not remember watch the
movie, Ten Commandments, that when Moses created a snake out of his
rod, so did Jannes and Jambres make snakes out of rods. However, the
only thing that gave Moses and edge was that he was always one-step
ahead of them; therefore, Moses snake did swallow their snakes.

[2 Tim. 3: 8] - Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do
these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate
concerning the faith.

Let us not read second Timothy in haste, Jannes and Jambres were not
ignorant about ether, or about using the principle of faith in
controlling ether. The context that faith in second Timothy was used,
is that there are men that are reprobate concerning the use of faith,
and they resist the truth, men of corrupt minds, and they always move
to challenge the servants of God, but in no way is it saying that
Jannes and Jambres were reprobated concerning the use of faith.

The only thinking to be made here is that a the stubborn spirit that
wants to challenge the miracles of Moses or another prophet of God,
like the spirits of Jannes and Jambres only had in common with the
men of reprobate in minds. Therefore, Jannes and Jambres were not
ignorant about faith, but stubborn to think that the God of Moses was
any different then their God, which used the same ether to recreate
miracles.

In ending, I will only add this,

[Abr. 3:18] - Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if
there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the
other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent
than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall
have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or
eternal.

Gnolaum is gravity, for it is ether, and ether is the power of God,
and it is neither good nor evil. In addition, the elements are
command to obey in our universe by the power.

Owls of the Black Sun

.



User: "Kevin Simonson"

Title: Re: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God (WAS: What Is the Conscientious Alternative?) 20 Jan 2004 08:36:52 PM
George Jones <george_llew_jones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<400D62C9.2AFA03B6@yahoo.com>...
=> > Hardly. You wouldn't "apply the same logic and standards" to a
=> > study of astronomy, would you? Or geology, or anthropology?
=>
=> Well, yes. And that's why religion fails the test.
=>
=> > Science
=> > is by nature less rigorous than Euclid's mathematics.
=>
=> Huh? How do you figure that?
=
=I don't know if "less rigorous" is pecisely the right term, but I think
=Euclid is a good example.
=
=Euclid's system, as extended by the German mathematician David Hilbert,
=is a complete, consistent formal system. As such, every statement within
=this system is either provably true or false, but not both provably true
=and provably false.
I knew David Hilbert had _hoped_ that every statement in Euclid's
system was either provably true or false, but George, I'd be really
surprised if that system had actual _reached_ that ideal, as you put
it. I thought Godel proved that _any_ number theory capable of making
statements about itself indirectly was provably either incomplete or
inconsistent.
=Scientific theories and many branches of pure mathematics don't approach
=this ideal.
=
=Godel's incompleteness theorems, which gave Hilbert quite a shock, block
=access to this ideal for much of mathematics, but Euclid evades these
=incompleteness theorems.
=
=Most scientific theories and laws are neither proved nor are even
=provable. This may surprise many non-scientists, but, nonetheless, is
=true. A good scientific theory is falsifiable, not verifiable.
=
=Take Newton's law of gravity as an example.
..........<snip>..........
= In fact, Newton's law of
=gravity has indeed been falsified, and has been superseded by
=Einstein's general theory of relativity.
=
=General relativity, in turn, is a good theory because it also makes
=predictions that allow it to be falsified (but not proved).
..........<snip>..........
= As more and more results are gathered
=that are consistent with general relativity, general relativity's domain
=of applicability increases, but, again, an infinite number of results
=would be required to prove it.
=
=It might turn out that general relativity is never falsified, but,
=because of its apparent incompatibility with quantum theory, most
=physicists think general relativity will eventually be falsified.
=
=Now, for argument's sake, consider 2 possible scenarios.
..........<snip>..........
=This analogy between scientific theory is very weak because good
=scientific theroris makes testable predictions, while, as far as I can
=see, neither theism nor atheism is falsifiable. Still, I find the faith