From: David Hill (dhill@spee-dee.com)
Date: Fri Feb 01 2002 - 06:52:39 MST
I am including the full text of all associated posts after the separator
"************".
As the quotes are direct the reader may text search to
rapidly find the statement's context without searching church archives or
their own filing system. I realize this adds to storage space, but I find
it
more convenient than Hermit's [Person 1.21] scheme (that I haven't learned).
And it eliminates the very large potential number of alternatively snipped
posts.
With 100Gig drives, I can't imagine running out of room.
Hermit, "If you are so pitiful, and know it, why not listen more and talk
less."
Hermit, I am surprised by your kind words, but thank you. I shall use the
primary definition in my dictionary for pitiful; "Pitiful- full of pity,
tender, compassionate" You may not think these useful or desirable
attributes, but I do. Of course, you also may not accept the definition
found
in my dictionary as you do not with the word Atheist. Such action supports
one of my points regarding communication in the search for Truth. We do not
share definitions. Even were we to agree verbatim on the textual
definitions
of terms, we would each still bring along our individual world views which
would color each word's connotations so as to make agreement unlikely.
Hermit, "Get a better dictionary. One not written by people wanting to
promote their beliefs, and one written by people who know how to spell."
I do find it regrettable that you do not accept the authority of my
dictionary;
Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged. I'm sure the
editors will be crushed. Given that it may not reflect common usage I also
asked half a dozen people what their definitions of Atheist was and though
they did not concur entirely, the consensus agreed with Webster.
David Hill, "'If God is all powerful, can he make a rock so big even he
can't lift it?'"
David Hill, "I answer, 'Yes, of course He can, He is all powerful.'"
Hermit, "How do you know this? How did you test it? "How do you know?"
1) It's in the premise, given. Like "If a tree falls in the forest," you
assume the tree falls.
2) I DON'T know, you are the one claiming knowledge of Truth, not me.
and of course you are denying my possesion of knowledge as evidenced
by the go read a book and you are an idiot comments.
Hermit, "How did you test it"
No, I didn't. My point with the triangle is that testing is untrustworthy.
Again, you miss it.
Hermit, "As far as the "sum of angles in a plane triangle" being 180
degrees, this
is a definitional aspect of a triangle."
Definition per Webster: "Triangle- 1) in geometry, a figure bounded by three
lines and containing three angles." Sorry, no mention of angle measurement
here. The sum of angles in a plane triangle may be more, less or equal to
180
degrees depending on the underlying curvature of space. Of course, your
protractor may be similarly warped. Point is, we don't know.
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/CosmosShape.html So you provide
a
measurement with an untrustworthy instrument to prove a point to be True?
Hermit, "...can be proved to whatever empirical degree you desire."
And how do you know what I would consider an acceptable empirical degree?
The sun
has come up every day of my life and I expect it to rise tomorrow. But that
is not knowledge, it is faith.
Hermit, "...and one of the things you don't know is
that you cannot "conceive" that which you "cannot conceive". It is a
paradox. And in the real world, there is no such thing as a paradox."
Read this one again also please. Note, I am not claiming to conceive the
inconceivable.
One may categorize ideas into the following groups:
1) Concepts of which you can conceive and for which you have sufficient
evidence to give them the status of Truth. e.g. Hermit fails to grant
David
Hill credit for the ability to think, claims he is an idiot and not in
possession of knowledge (of Truth). Actually I agree with you on this as I
feel the best proof would be empirical and that is always provisional.
Hermit
places much in this catagory, Dave Hill places little. These are the things
you "know".
Things I trust I know are, my name, my occupation, a few other incidentals.
Again you missed the point on the coin flipping example and chose to digress
onto some freshman probability discussion. The intent of the example was to
show that no matter what the history, (50 head flips), the outcome of the
next
flip, though expected, like the sun, is unknown until it happens. The whole
superposition
of states thing is something I can't intuitively grasp. For me
Schroedinger's
cat is grey and it's dark. I'm in good company.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_122.html
Science does not claim knowledge of Truth but only evidential support for
hypotheses which are givne greater or lesser weight as theory or natural
law.
2) Concepts which you can conceive, but for which you have insufficient
evidence to give the status of Truth. These are the things you know you
don't
"know". e.g. I don't know Hermit's attribution scheme, but I believe it to
exist, having seen examples, and could probably learn it were I to try.
3) Concepts of which you cannot conceive. These would have to be things you
don't know as you can't know that of which you can't conceive. You also
cannot know how much of this exists because you don't know what you don't
know. Included among these concepts would be Magic and God.
As Hermit places so much of his information in the first catagory, I doubt
he
has much time for the third.
I personally practice magic. I am an artist and I craft images. Then I
wave
them in my hand and they become real. It's magic. At least I am clueless
as
to how it works. I prefer solipsism to the Hermit's rigid sophistry because
I can
continue to marvel at the wonder.
Webster: Sophistry-1. fallacious reasoning; reasoning sound in appearance
only. (So Hermit won't pick out some arbitrary definition).
So I am unloved in an Atheist Church. Sir, you cut me to the quick.
Actually
it is the best evidence I've seen to date that Hermit owns a sense of humor,
withered and vestigial though it may be. Hermit, lighten up, you'll live
longer.
Metagod Larry is a JOKE. Hill's Law is a JOKE. Intended to be amusing.
I do predict that this will remain a small church if the only bait it can
offer
is an opportunity to have Hermit teach one how to think and behave.
"************"
1/29/02 from Hermit
[David Hill 1.1*] Wow, such big words and so many of them. And me such a
poor pitiable high school dropout.
[Hermit 1] If you are so pitiful, and know it, why not listen more and talk
less. Being a "high school dropout" is no reason not to use whatever native
intelligence you have, and even less reason not to learn. Making a noise
about it is unuseful. To yourself or to others. If the length of the words
concerns you, there are dictionaries to look them up. Your vocabulary will
soon expand. If that is "too much trouble" then I have to ask why you are
here.
[David Hill 1] I answer, "Yes, of course He can, He is all powerful."
[Hermit 1] How do you know this? How did you test it? This is another of
your unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiable) assertions and those are the
primary reason you are unloved here.
[David Hill 1] But I can conceive of the idea of concepts of which I can't
conceive.
[Hermit 1] From the amount of noise you make, I would suggest that you have
no idea of how little you know - and one of the things you don't know is
that you cannot "conceive" that which you "cannot conceive". It is a
paradox. And in the real world, there is no such thing as a paradox. Only a
lack of comprehension or expression.
[David Hill 1] I cannot personally conceive of 6*9=42, but we haven't really
shown that the sum of angles in a plane triangle is pi empirically.
[Hermit 1] For 6*9 to be equal to 42, you would need to change some
definitions - and that would make your definitions less than useful to
others (so what is new?). As far as the "sum of angles in a plane triangle"
being 180 degrees, this is a definitional aspect of a triangle. The fact
that 2PI radians is equal to 360 degrees is also definitional. Thus simple
arithmetic shows that PI radians is equal to the "sum of the angles in a
plane triangle" and can be proved to whatever empirical degree you desire.
[David Hill 1] If I flipped a fair coin 50 times and came up with 50 heads,
you'd probably conclude that the 51st toss would also be a head.
[Hermit 1] Statistics tell us that the 51st toss of the fair coin is an
independent event with a probability of 50:50. Our knowledge of probability
tells us that a sequence of 51 heads in a row is highly unlikely (Simple
binomial distribution, i.e. P(k out of n)=((n!)/(k!(n-k)!))(p^k)(q^(n-k)
tells us that the probability is 4.4E-16), though not impossible, and that
given this very low probability (distribution theory tells us that you could
continually toss a coin once a second for 72 million years before expecting
to see this result) the alleged fairness of the coin should be queried. So
you are dealing with two classes of probability, that of a single
independent event and that of a sequence. So your assertion is incorrect
(need I say as usual?). No conflict, no paradox and no banana.
[David Hill 1] My dictionary does not have strong and weak athiesm, only a
one liner "Athiest- one who believes that there is no God." I interpret
that as a rock hard and steadfast conclusion that "there is no God."
[Hermit 1] Get a better dictionary. One not written by people wanting to
promote their beliefs, and one written by people who know how to spell. A
dictionary which misrepresents words is not a useful dictionary, a
dictionary that cannot even spell "atheist" does not inspire me with
confidence in the reliability of their definitions. Perhaps this partially
explains why you are having trouble with words [Dave Hill 1.1 above].
[David Hill 1] I believe I know nothing, but act as if I do.
[Hermit 1] Your beliefs are showing. And like most beliefs (acceptance in
the absence of [i]sufficient[/i] evidence), they are wrong. You don't know
"nothing" even if you act as if you do. But on your behavior here, I would
suggest that you know very little. Good manners suggest that you "shut your
noise."
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
1/29/02 from David Hill
Wow, such big words and so many of them. And me such a poor pitiable high
school dropout.
You just ask with varition and at length, "If God is all powerful, can he
make a rock so big even he can't lift it?"
And answer, "No, it would lead to paradox."
I answer, "Yes, of course He can, He is all powerful."
To which you respond, "But I can't conceive of a universe, consistent with
this one in which logical paradoxes are factual."
With which point, I concur, "No you can't conceive of such, neither can I."
But I can conceive of the idea of concepts of which I can't conceive. At
least I can go one level down. I have similar difficulty with second law
violations or with proofs of the non-existance of God which involve narrow
definitions of Reality or The Universe which involve what we "know" about
this planet and observations made therefrom.
I cannot personally conceive of 6*9=42, but we haven't really shown that the
sum of angles in a plane triangle is pi empirically. If I flipped a fair
coin 50 times and came up with 50 heads, you'd probably conclude that the
51st toss would also be a head. I can't tell.
This does not make me believe in a god, I just can't be that kind of Strong
Athiest. My dictionary does not have strong and weak athiesm, only a one
liner "Athiest- one who believes that there is no God." I interpret that as
a rock hard and steadfast conclusion that "there is no God." Any ground
given on "believes" means that the holder would have doubts and therefore
admit the possible existance of God which makes him an agnostic. "no" means
not any which is pretty clear and also precludes the possibility of Gods
(plural) and encompases all Gods, great and small, Christian and pagan. I
consider strong athiesm a statement not of evidence or fact, but of pride
much like special creation. I believe I know nothing, but act as if I do.
Damn, blew my whole break.
Tweety (Bird)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT