RE: Deism for non-believers
June 10, 2012 at 11:43 pm
(This post was last modified: June 10, 2012 at 11:54 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
This is the trouble with defining intervention so that it excludes an act like creation. You've simply set a floor for acceptable mucking about. The mucking about of creation is acceptable and indeed required. But for whatever reason, other mucking about is not. Have you considered whether or not the reasons you gave yourself for throwing out intervention also apply equally to creation?
Meh, I don't know anything at all about what you want. I'm wondering what in the statement you quoted led you to conclude this? I'd try to rephrase, but I can't honestly think of a simpler or more direct way to make those statements.
Epic facepalm on the math. You could, if you wished, instead of checking the infinite ends of any given line, measure the distance between the two lines at defined points and see if the measurement was increasing, decreasing, or equivalent. Now, at some point beyond the horizon those two lines may change their respective angles and intersect, but for the purposes of the set of two lines of a known length this isn't an issue, now is it? It also isn't an issue for the set of two lines of indeterminate length whose angle never changes, now is it? I think you're having trouble with this for the same reason that you're having trouble with the 4 below. These concepts are defined, the variables are defined. An infinite is a shady variable, and thats pretty well understood, that if you plug infinity into a number of our systems they do strange things (and conversely that a requirement of infinite [whatever] is unfalsifiable - by definition) Think of this in the terms of the line example. You cannot prove to me that an infinitely long line exists, because you would have to travel into infinity to be certain that it didn't end - a task which you could never accomplish, again, by definition. On the other hand, it's very easy to determine if something is not infinitely long, isn't it? In the same way it is a simple thing to determine if two lines are parralel with regards to any defined length, but the moment we ask for infinitely paralell lines, predictable hilarity ensues. The assumption, in paralel lines, is that the lines angles/orientation/arc will remain consistent throughout the length of the line..
4 -is- the name of a concept which we use to describe a set of (insert whatever here). Are you proposing here that there is a "thing" 4 that is not the descriptor 4? Theres a name for that. If not, you've just explained exactly what 4 is precisely before saying that I couldn't show you what 4 is. Why would I have to, you seem to have it handled all by your onesies.
Meh, I don't know anything at all about what you want. I'm wondering what in the statement you quoted led you to conclude this? I'd try to rephrase, but I can't honestly think of a simpler or more direct way to make those statements.
Epic facepalm on the math. You could, if you wished, instead of checking the infinite ends of any given line, measure the distance between the two lines at defined points and see if the measurement was increasing, decreasing, or equivalent. Now, at some point beyond the horizon those two lines may change their respective angles and intersect, but for the purposes of the set of two lines of a known length this isn't an issue, now is it? It also isn't an issue for the set of two lines of indeterminate length whose angle never changes, now is it? I think you're having trouble with this for the same reason that you're having trouble with the 4 below. These concepts are defined, the variables are defined. An infinite is a shady variable, and thats pretty well understood, that if you plug infinity into a number of our systems they do strange things (and conversely that a requirement of infinite [whatever] is unfalsifiable - by definition) Think of this in the terms of the line example. You cannot prove to me that an infinitely long line exists, because you would have to travel into infinity to be certain that it didn't end - a task which you could never accomplish, again, by definition. On the other hand, it's very easy to determine if something is not infinitely long, isn't it? In the same way it is a simple thing to determine if two lines are parralel with regards to any defined length, but the moment we ask for infinitely paralell lines, predictable hilarity ensues. The assumption, in paralel lines, is that the lines angles/orientation/arc will remain consistent throughout the length of the line..
4 -is- the name of a concept which we use to describe a set of (insert whatever here). Are you proposing here that there is a "thing" 4 that is not the descriptor 4? Theres a name for that. If not, you've just explained exactly what 4 is precisely before saying that I couldn't show you what 4 is. Why would I have to, you seem to have it handled all by your onesies.
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!
