Christian Paradox

[Tiberius]

Holmes got the correct people every time because Doyle wrote the fucking books...he made sure Holmes always got them in the end. I daresay modern detectives would get the criminal much faster, and without relying on some pre-ordained set of events. We don't live in a book, things don't always go the way they do in the stories...

[Watson]

Holmes did not always cacth the criminal. And Doyle made damn certain in his writing that if Holmes caught the criminal, he was able to catch the criminal through a rational process.

[Tiberius]

You don't seem to understand. I'll try to explain better.

"Reality" doesn't play out the same way as a story in a book. You see, in a book, the author knows how everything is going to work out, and so can work on different sections at the same time, since they know exactly how to bring everything together.

"Reality" on the other hand, goes from start to finish. We can't see into the future, we can only go on what we know now. Characters in a book don't come into it, and when you insist on bringing them in, your view seems less curious and more like an infatuated schoolgirl. We don't give a fuck what Holmes did.

[Watson]

[tavarish]

And you are aware that his techniques and methodology are even today being impemented in forensic science, right?

I don't get how Sherlock Holmes' methods provides evidence of God.

I think you're reading this the wrong way. Many of us HAVE come from religious upbringings, and we took the word of God as true. This would be assuming God's existence first. It is only through examination of evidence and reason have we come to the conclusion that such a prospect is highly unlikely. It is through the methods of science that we can detect that it was not a murder, but a suicide, to perpetuate the analogy.

Do you understand?

[Minimalist]

And you are aware that his techniques and methodology are even today being impemented in forensic science, right?

So why not worship Arthur Conan Doyle (rather than his fictional creation.) If what you say is right then Doyle had something on the ball.

[Rhizomorph13]

Science actually does start with an assumption called a hypothesis. It is usually based on some observation or intuition and stated in a falsifiable way, which makes it different than God as a hypothesis. God is a hypothesis formed specifically to be unfalsifiable and the definition of God seems to get more complex as science grows. Makes ya think huh?

Tackattack,

I've read a lot about your feelings and I have had similar feelings although it is hard to compare our two minds. Most of your rants remind me of my druggie friends and I trying to express how high we were at thus and such a time and try to "out-high" each other. The game usually began with, "Dude, you don't even know..." then insert a bunch of trippy experiences and end with, "...it blew my mind." or some other phrase indicating intensity. You have in your sig an interesting statement about how the mind is a delusion generator; it really is you know.

Watson,

Really? You're going with a Sherlock Holmes did it defense of your approach to religion? You can do better than that.

Rhizo

[Watson]

And you are aware that his techniques and methodology are even today being impemented in forensic science, right?

I don't get how Sherlock Holmes' methods provides evidence of God.

I think you're reading this the wrong way. Many of us HAVE come from religious upbringings, and we took the word of God as true. This would be assuming God's existence first. It is only through examination of evidence and reason have we come to the conclusion that such a prospect is highly unlikely. It is through the methods of science that we can detect that it was not a murder, but a suicide, to perpetuate the analogy.

Do you understand?

I do understand, and also, I never said that Sherlock Holmes' methods proved the existance of God. What I was saying is that he had to believe in the indivdual he was tracking down, and then look for evidence of their existance.

Not only this, what you are saying is that many of you were initially believers, but that you examined the 'evidence' and found none for proof of God. What I am saying is that you do not understand God, and you are looking for the wrong individual evidence of him. You are looking for scientific evidence where there is none to be had.

When Sherlock Holmes looked for evidence of a wooden legged man in the Sign of the Four, for instance, he knew he was looking for a wooden-legged man because of his clients claim that their father had shot a wooden legged man out of fear, and then been killed later. Sherlock then found evidence of this man in the form of footprints where one 'foot' was just a circle; the print of a wooden stump.

You must understand the individual you are looking for evidence of first, then look for evidence which proves their individuality and existance.

[Rhizomorph13]

Watson,

Oh, so you understand the "real" message and all us dumb atheist's who were Christians just couldn't fathom its depth huh? A little patronizing don't ya think?

You are not the first Christian to think they were the one with the true message, I once thought the same thing and I heard it from many of my fellow believers at the time. Guess what happened when we compared notes...

Rhizo

[Watson]

Watson,

Oh, so you understand the "real" message and all us dumb atheist's who were Christians just couldn't fathom its depth huh? A little patronizing don't ya think?

I'm not calling you dumb, but it's not patronizing if it's true that you don't understand the message, if it's too hard for you to.

You are not the first Christian to think they were the one with the true message, I once thought the same thing and I heard it from many of my fellow believers at the time. Guess what happened when we compared notes...

Rhizo

Yes, but my understanding of the Bible is not based on an interpretation of the Bible, it is based on an interpretation of real life applied to the Bible.