RE: Deism for non-believers
June 10, 2012 at 10:51 pm
(This post was last modified: June 10, 2012 at 10:56 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Wouldn't it be simpler and more reliable to do away with belief entirely, instead throwing our chips in with things that could at least theoretically meet that "other component" requirement?
If you limit the definition of intervention to something which isn't devastating to your position, sure, that would imply - therefor. Let me ask this another way, why have you decided that a plausible god does not intervene? Is it the mucking about you take issue with, or only recent mucking about? If the mucking about occurred in some distant (bonus points if currently unfalsifiable) point in the past are you okay to propose that particular mucking about as plausible? Why?
What I'm suggesting is not that the scale "doesn't work like that" but that it doesn't work -at all-.
It allows you to construct unfalsifiable propositions which you then label gods. It pays to be precise. However, as long as you stick to the creator requirement this gods unfalsifiability is severely suspect.
Two parallell lines of defined length are actually quite easy to demonstrate..I don';t know why you believe otherwise...
-----
-----
(it;s the infinite bit that had to be inserted to get so confused, of course it would be difficult to check an infinite anything, but we find it to be a useful concept)
ta-da.
4 rocks is 4 rocks, the number is descriptive with regards to any defined set (rocks), it is only a "thing" in the context of the concept of numbers for their own sake.
It amazes me btw, how many times I've had this conversation since joining these forums. Math or numbers (nor logic) are "things" floating around bending the cosmos to their whims. They are descriptive terms and systems we have formed in order to communicate some observation or concept. I could call a "4" a "splurge" nd it would still return the same results when multiplied by itself, i would merely have a different name for those results. That -is- what 4 "is".
If you limit the definition of intervention to something which isn't devastating to your position, sure, that would imply - therefor. Let me ask this another way, why have you decided that a plausible god does not intervene? Is it the mucking about you take issue with, or only recent mucking about? If the mucking about occurred in some distant (bonus points if currently unfalsifiable) point in the past are you okay to propose that particular mucking about as plausible? Why?
What I'm suggesting is not that the scale "doesn't work like that" but that it doesn't work -at all-.
It allows you to construct unfalsifiable propositions which you then label gods. It pays to be precise. However, as long as you stick to the creator requirement this gods unfalsifiability is severely suspect.
Two parallell lines of defined length are actually quite easy to demonstrate..I don';t know why you believe otherwise...
-----
-----
(it;s the infinite bit that had to be inserted to get so confused, of course it would be difficult to check an infinite anything, but we find it to be a useful concept)
ta-da.
4 rocks is 4 rocks, the number is descriptive with regards to any defined set (rocks), it is only a "thing" in the context of the concept of numbers for their own sake.
It amazes me btw, how many times I've had this conversation since joining these forums. Math or numbers (nor logic) are "things" floating around bending the cosmos to their whims. They are descriptive terms and systems we have formed in order to communicate some observation or concept. I could call a "4" a "splurge" nd it would still return the same results when multiplied by itself, i would merely have a different name for those results. That -is- what 4 "is".
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
