The problem is with alternative explanations. The book could have been blown open by the wind, OR opened by me. Both are, in this instance, completely valid explanations(though less evidence of me opening it). Despite lack of evidence, there is a possibility I opened it. It remains untestable, and even though I really did do it, for all intents and purposes I still don't exist?

THEN you have do explain why it did not have an impact on other things, like childhood cancer and the fact Celine Dion has a career.

It then becomes as Irrelevant as, say, a butterfly sneezing in Megiddo [Stop that.--Ed.] to you or I.

It is a broad definition that can cover many degrees of failure.

But Incompetent! Why did he fail to save "Lil Suzie?" Et cetera. The "answer" to that can be many things under the rubric of Evil, Incompetent, Irrelevant, and/or Some Combination of those. What I mean is if he wants "Lil Suzie" to die in an oven then he becomes Evil. If you remove Evil, then you are left with realizing he is unable to save such for reasons of either/and the other two. As you agree above, pray all you want to it, it will not help.

Anyways, awhile ago on ANOTHER BOARD [Boo! Hiss!--Ed.] there was this guy who would scream "Godwin" in a discussion on Nazi Germany!!!

ENTITY TESTABLE: TRUE != TEST INFALLIBLE

Let's go about this another way. If I make a claim that can be proven OR disproven, it is testable. The accuracy of the test depends on the quality and existence of evidence, but the fact that the claim can be tested does not change.

In your example, a book was opened while I slept. I chose to make the claim that you did it, by stating, "Venen opened a book." This claim is testable, because I can devise logical tests to prove or disprove the event. Now, since you've conveniently deleted the laws of physics as they apply to you, I will never be able to PROVE my claim, but I can continue to devise tests. After some time, I may choose to give up my claim, because I do not have the resources to work around your physics coup, but the claim remains testable. Testable, and as of yet unproven. Sagan uses this category for the Invisible Dragon.

By stating X cannot be tested, you have stated that X has cannot influence a realm. Lack of influence = irrelevance, and an entity irrelevant to a realm does not exist within it.

"When does God work through humanity?" "During times of crisis." This claim could be proven, if we can show through a large enough survey that faithful men survive crises better than unfaithful men, for example. Intimately testable.

"Where does God work through humanity?" "Everywhere." This claim is a strange example of a testable circumstance, in that it is more of a checksum to keep the other tests in line - it is easier to develop a test to disprove this claim than it is to develop one to prove it. First, prove that God works through humanity, then, test it for location. =)

Do we have ANY evidence for ANY of the tests above of the claim that God works through humanity? No. This is where the claims of irrelevancy enter. A God that cannot be seen to influence the realm is declared to not be influencing the realm. Please note, there are two ways to read the "cannot" - it is impossible to ever see any influence from God in the realm by some strange design, or we currently do not have the ability to accurately prove or disprove. The former is typically argued by those who favor Occam's razor. The latter is given some weight by Sagan, as seen in the Invisible Dragon story.

It is said to be impossible to prove a negative, for example, "God does not exist." Sure, it can still be tested, but all answers will come back inconclusive. Therefore, a better claim would be to state "The universe can exist without the influence of a God", as it is both testable and (theoretically, with the right methods) provable.

Why would I need to explain that if I already concede that he may not be all-powerful/all-knowing? It's pretty much... already explained.

At this point I'd simply ask what your version of the definition of irrelevant is.

Obviously he's doing something relevant in the above given case.

If I called a fellow worker incompetent, I'd be speaking in comparison to your average worker or human.

As above, although you threw in a "pray all you want, it will not help". I wouldn't jump to that conclusion on the sole basis that he lacks omnipotence.

Good stuff =p

So I mean... yea, you could test, but it wouldn't do a shred of good - you might as well not be testing. The test would be fallible to the point of being completely moot.
(snip)
My opening of your book had an influence, but was equally or more easily attributable to the wind flapping it open.
(snip)
Being seen or not does not affect his ability to produce effects or influence human actions or the world. Why would it?

Good read Tarot, thanks, but I don't quite buy it.



He goes with the above quote, then after a couple more examples he goes on to say:



He says "once again", as if that was the exact same thing he said. But it's not. Putting it on hold and not "outright rejecting" the notion is a bit different than rejecting the hypothesis altogether. After reading it several times I really don't see how he came to the conclusion that the hypothesis should be rejected outright.


Syuni:



We're assuming here that I found a way to leave no physical evidence. Maybe I floated(or smoothed the carpet), wore gloves, etc etc.

The problem with the book being open is that there's no way to know HOW it opened, ESPECIALLY if there's an easy alternative explanation. IF a god somehow does his stuff via the actions of humans, HOW would that be testable assuming he did it through a stealthy undetectable means? He obviously left something changed, but that can easily be explained away by the human merely performing an action on his/her own will.

The problem is with alternative explanations. The book could have been blown open by the wind, OR opened by me. Both are, in this instance, completely valid explanations(though less evidence of me opening it). Despite lack of evidence, there is a possibility I opened it. It remains untestable, and even though I really did do it, for all intents and purposes I still don't exist?

Depends on what "is" is [Stop that!--Ed.] . . . right . . . okay, better than "depends," yes? Anyways, "irrelevant" or Irrelevant as in not relevant to your life. Try as much as you want; there will be no intervention. Once "you" claim some intervention, you then have to explain why no intervention in cases of Unjustified Suffering [As narrated by William Shatner.--Ed.].

Assuming the deity is not omnipotent, that explanation can be as simple as "It didn't know"

. . .or "It didn't have the power."

Assuming that the deity is omnipotent, the explanation could be "It serves a greater good."

Whether or not that makes the deity "evil" is entirely personal opinion.

Also, an entity does not have to be relevant 100 percent of the time to a person in order to be not be irrelevant.

Your mother for example. If you were to be assaulted as a child and your mother was not there to protect you, does that make her irrelevant?

What is incompetent is your dad not wearing a condom.

What part of wanting and allowing a child to slowly die of paralysis until she drowns in her own secretions--fully conscious and feeling every pain--is not Evil?

Unfortunately he does.

As a deity?
Yes.

Then he degenerates right to one of the three choices discussed above. Pray all you want; Celine is opening tonight in Vegas. . . .

I'm simply talking about whether or not a claim is testable. There was a change, therefore it's testable. It's that simple. I don't care if it's provable, just testable.

Most claims about God are testable. Most, likewise, are not provable. This leads to the invisible dragon argument. Those with such a well-stocked garage are free to discuss the nature of their invisible dragon, but until those of us who do not even have a carport can see more tangible evidence, we're free to withhold acceptance.

I like how venen doesn't buy the invisible dragon arguement, and then proceeds to invalidate all tests in the same manner given in the arguement. I'll post it here so everyone doesn't have to google it. How's that unicorn by the way Venen?

What part of wanting and allowing a child to slowly die of paralysis until she drowns in her own secretions--fully conscious and feeling every pain--is not Evil?

We've gone over this before. Evil is completely subjective.

. . . does not mean that each and every entity should do the same.

There is relevance to a specific matter (rescuing a child from drowning would make you relevant to that situation), . . .

Who says that a deity must be relevant to every aspect of your life?

And invalidates the argument of "God is either irrelevant, incompetent, evil, or some combination of the two".

Who gets to define evil?

We all do. Show me where the cases of Unjust Suffering previously discussed become Just in reality or else you are stuck with the recognition.

In short, a hypothesis is testable if there is some real hope of deciding whether it is true or false of real experience. Upon this property of its constituent hypotheses rests the ability to decide whether a theory can be confirmed or falsified by the data of actual experience."

Define just.

You first need to define an instance of unjust suffering, then you need to explain why that particular suffering is unjust.

What makes a person who thinks a child suffering is good and just less correct about what evil is than you?

Correction: "The very term "unjust suffering" automatically assumes that certain kinds of suffering is unjust."

A couple of thoughts (these are just questions I have floating around):

1) What if THIS WORLD is hell, and death is the only way out of it? Would that make a murderer a instrument of salvation?

2) If an item is not testable does that mean it does not exist or does it mean that we don't yet have the correct means to test it and therefore can not be dismissed totally? Bringing a sports reference to R&R (woot sports!): In MLB they do not have a test for HGH, we suspect that a number of players are using the substance, yet there is not a test that MLB has to prove that those players are using the substance. Is MLB correct to say that there is not an HGH problem because they can not test it or are the people that suspect there is a problem correct because of the surrounding evidence?

Treating them as serious questions, hopefully they are...but either way they are interesting.

Maybe. It depends. Howso? Well, there are people who actually *do* believe that (more or less), but they're not really viewed as 'instruments of salvation'. There is the concept in many cultures when faced with morality questions (especially in war) 'Kill them all, God will know his own', or the more bastardized 'Kill them all, let God sort them out'.

However let's look at a 'real life' instance of this: Andrea Yates. She believes (you may not agree that she really believed it, but let's set aside those arguments for another day) when she murders her children that doing so is the only way to 'save' them. She believes that because she is a 'bad mother' that her children will go to hell. She believes that killing them ensures they will *not* go to hell, but instead will go to heaven, which is a very nice place they'll spend all eternity in, versus a very horrible place they'd spend all eternity in.

By her psychotic logic, what she did was 'good'. However, in her statements to the police, she also knew what she did was 'wrong'.

Let's use another real life example. There was a woman in the Polish ghettos who had care of several children (not her own, but she was related to them). When the Nazis came to liquidate the ghetto, she took a vial of poison from around her neck. She knew that the children would be murdered (horribly killed) by the Nazis. She told the person who warned her they were coming that they would not have her, and they would not have her children. She had done 'drills' before with the children (with non-poison) so that when the time came they would not be frightened and they would obey.

She poisoned all of the children, and herself. The Nazis liquidated that ghetto, and while some children may have survived it (I don't believe any did in that ghetto, it was not the Warsaw ghetto) damn few would have...again if any.

Most people would say that poisoning children is wrong. Even in that instance, it's a 'wrong' but it's a far lesser evil. The motivations are clearly not evil. She is killing them to spare them far worse. Whether or not it's the 'best' choice, given that one at the time cannot know if there is even a chance for survival (even a low chance is a chance) is debatable. There are people who would choose to act differently. As for myself, I hope I'd have the courage to do as she did, I think it was the 'best' choice out of horrible horrific choices.

You can read about that woman in Maus. One of the children killed was the author's brother.

So we're back to 'maybe'. It depends on information, in one respect. Is it a fact? Could the person be wrong? Is there a chance that they're wrong? Would the "salvation" come about in time anyway? (If it's possible that we're wrong, and if we will all die eventually, is it not better to not terminate people's lives rather than risk mistake?)

There's a philosophical question that I always have had an issue with. It involves a train and a switch to make it change tracks.

The train is coming, it cannot be stopped in time. There are 2 tracks available. One leads to a bridge which is 'out' (the train will derail and will fall into a chasm), the other leads to an infant playing on the tracks. It is impossible to save the infant, the infant will be killed.

You only have enough time to move the switch to decide which track the train will go down (broken bridge, or over baby). What do you do? Then the question further evolves to: if you choose the baby, what if instead it was someone you loved on the tracks who couldn't get off in time (pretend they're stuck even if you want). Does that change your choice?

The "correct" moral answer was presented as: The only 'moral' answer is to do nothing. If you do not interject yourself into the problem, then you have no moral liability for the outcome. The train will go where it would have anyway, and you have no liability (morally).

I said then, I say now, that answer is BULLSHIT. Not choosing IS A CHOICE. My logic professor and I became friends outside of school, and we talked over this problem, she wasn't familiar with it, but she agreed with me. That mollified me somewhat. I've always hated this question.

But the question speaks to what you're asking, and that is, in this scenario is there a 'right' choice? Yes, and no. There are logical choices for a variety of reasons. The most logical choice is to save as many people as you can. You can tweak the question around to "change values". Specifically: Make the people on the train 'less valuable' (prisoners perhaps, or other people you wouldn't value much). Make the single person 'more valuable' (your mom, your child, your lover, etc.). But at the end of the day, it's still a choice of lesser evils. You pick the 'most valuable' to save, and sacrifice the 'lesser valuable'.

If it's a train full of monkeys, it's easy. Monkeys > a person. If it's a dog on the track (even your beloved pet) again ...rather easy. Pet < train full of people. As the values start to become more equal to you, the choice becomes more difficult.

Then there's sociological and biological aspects of 'Sophie's Choice' as it were. This is something Stephen Pinker gets into in his book 'How the Mind Works' when he discusses the why and how of parents forced to sacrifice one child to save another. You save the child with the best chance of survival, which almost always means the older child. It's not a moralistic question in as much as it's a 'values' question: which is the more valuable to save? And how we have biological cues which push us towards one choice or another. In times of famine, infants are sacrificed *always* before older children *unless* there's a gender bias in the culture. A boy infant might be saved over a girl child if the value of a boy is that much higher than a female child.

But it's more a mathematical 'values' question than it is anything else, in a very odd way. We (humans) don't sit down with pen and paper and coldly make the choice. We even come up with a variety of reasons to justify our choices. But if you strip that away and look at the choices that do get made, the commonality is the more valued is chosen over the less valued, and that value can be demonstrated in real terms (not emotionalism).

So back to your question:

1) Is it provable?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the person believes absolutely it's factual. That life is in reality hell, and the escape from it is death. Let's even toss in that a diety is behind it all, and wants this person to kill as their 'instrument'.

2) Is it demonstratable to anyone else?

Let's also assume for the sake of argument that answer is no.

If so, then no they're not going to be viewed as an 'instrument of salvation' by anyone but themselves.

But what are they in this reality? That's what you're asking I think really. And I'd have to go back to it's subjective, because what they are is a subjective title.

Example: I am dying. Bob saves me. I think Joe saved me. Bob doesn't speak up, neither does Joe. I hail Joe as my hero, and everyone else agrees. YAY JOE! Is Joe a hero? Most people would say 'no, he's not, he didn't do the act. Bob is the 'real' hero'. Yet if you ask me, I'd say absolutely Joe's the hero...he saved me.

Whether or not you think Joe or Bob is a hero, depends on the information you have. Joe and Bob are not 'heroes' in a vaccum. Someone must have the information in order for there to be a hero.

Slightly different but same example: I am dying. Bob saves me. Then we're all injured immediately after, and have no memory. Just me and Bob, alive. Is Bob a hero? You'd say yes only because you know he saved me. Without that knowledge, Bob is just Bob.

There are also possibilities where Bob knows what he did, doesn't count himself a hero, and is never publically 'hailed' as one. Unless there's some 'all-knowing' entity which is watching each sparrow fall as it were, there's no score keeper. Without the information no one thinks Bob a hero. We have to have the information first to determine whether or not Bob was indeed heroic...or not. And additional information can change our view. Maybe Bob's motives were less than pure, maybe Bob pulled me out of a burning building to rape me. If that was his motive for saving my life...well we wouldn't really consider Bob heroic in that instance either. Even though the fact that he saved my life wouldn't be in dispute. His motivations for doing so play clearly a key role. (And generally the risks one takes also play a key role. A mother running in to save her child with no risk to herself, it's not heroic, it's human. Who wouldn't do such? A stranger rushing in, risking his life to save someone he has no connection to, with no thought of reward...we consider that heroic).

So sorry there's no clear cut answer to your question, it really falls under 'It depends'.

Is there ever a scenario where someone killing someone could be beneficial or seen by most as 'good'? Sure.





There you go.

Not drowning in your secretions as a child.

Already did, numerous times, particularly in the Hell thread. Pick one. Just step over the Crying Children. . . .

You are trying to get out of the implications of evil by redefining it. You can call it "Throatwarbler-Mangrove" all you want, but it is still the same thing.

But, by all means, Justify the Unjust Suffering. For some reason, after all of this time, you have not.

I will have to check for a linkypoo, but I believe the originator of the Bigfoot hoax "confessed" before his death. I believe Joe Nickel has an article on-line regarding it. When I have a more reliable connection, I will see if I can find it.

Just a good example of a rational explanation for an extraordinary belief.

--J.D.

Why? Give me ONE reason that it's unjust.

As above, why? Give me ONE reason that it's unjust.

But the problem is that you still haven't really defined evil because you can't tell me why a child suffering is bad.

Why would I need to justify it if we can't even declare what's unjust about it?

"Just cuz itz bad" is not a reason.

There's more than one, but if you're thinking of famous footage, then yes I think so. Too lazy to look it up. Additionally there was work done 'stabilizing' the footage and when that was done, it became very clear to any viewer it was a guy in an ape suit.

You think it is Just for a child to drown on her own secretions?

How unempathetic.

Then I am sure you can detail what she did to deserve it.

Actually, it rather is a reason, particularly since the child did nothing to Justify it.

You can keep going in circles, but you cannot make a square round.

No, I think it's horrible and unjust.

. . . because *I cannot give a logical reasoning for my position*, just as you can't.

Empathy? I just stepped on a bug, where is your empathy for it? Why do you empathize more with the child?

Then you have only the Five Possible Choices [Tm.--Ed.]

Excellent.

Ipse dixit, but incorrect.

I have already explained, numerous times, on two threads, why the children do not deserve the suffering. If you wish to claim that is false, then you need to rebut that.

You have just admitted that you cannot.

That rather ends it right there.

Negative, for the reason I described above. I cannot claim my view is a correct definition of evil. It is subjective.

Well, I gave a commonly used expansion of the argument "children do not deserve this because..".

If I missed something, let me know and at least give me a brief synopsis of a concrete, logical reason why it is unjust for them to suffer.

I'd have to reconsider my support of the Red Sox, which probably predates your WAAA!!!!!!! BAD MAN!!!! BAD MAN!!!!!

I'd have to reconsider my support of the Red Sox, which probably predates your worthless, self-absorbed, narcissistic existence, were I to learn you're a fan..

I'm not having a temper tantrum, you front-running ignoramus.

God Almighty, I hate people who think they know more than they do. . . .

Regardless of what you think about him, why would you base your support of a team off of how you feel about a certain fan? Those are the words of a true poseur.

Look, there are plenty of fans with whom I disagree--even with some of the players about their beliefs, including Curt Schilling, who is a total fundy and often attributes his wins to "God" instead of his own talent and hard work.

You suffer from self-loathing? Explains a great deal, though one must admit it is justified.

I mean, when you quote a reference--that is mistaken--that also contradicts you trying to pretend an ancient city never existed--well, you have a lot to hate about yourself.

You two buffoons obviously don't have a fucking clue.

It's knuckleheads like you who give Red Sox fans a bad name.

G38 has never said his success wasn't the result of his own talent and hard work. However, he acknowledges that God has helped him, and that his faith has been a major influence in his life. Way to distort facts.

I said that, according to the Bible, the armies of the Antichrist will gather in a valley. Said valley was, at one time, a dump. Big difference.

Rev 3:10 οτι ετηÏ?ησας τον λογον της υπομονης μου καγω σε τηÏ?ησω εκ της ωÏ?ας του πειÏ?ασμου της μελλουσης εÏ?χεσθαι επι της οικουμενης ολης πειÏ?ασαι τους κατοικουντας επι της γης

Because you [John--Ed.] have kept my word of patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial which is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell upon the earth.

Rev 22:12 ιδου εÏ?χομαι ταχυ και ο μισθος μου μετ εμου αποδουναι εκαστω ως το εÏ?γον εστιν αυτου

"Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done."

Rev 22:20 λεγει ο μαÏ?Ï„Ï…Ï?ων ταυτα ναι εÏ?χομαι ταχυ αμην εÏ?χου κυÏ?ιε ιησου

He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

The specific forecasts which the seer was trying to convey to his fellow-Christians all proved mistaken: not one of the events which were supposed to happen around the year 100 [CE--Ed.] came to pass (Cohn).

Curt: I gotta say I . . . ah . . . I became a Christian seven years ago, and I have never in my life been as . . . been touched by Big Daddy [Stop that!--Ed.] by God like I was tonight. Tonight was . . . I tried to go out and do it myself in Game One and . . . and . . . I [shut in?--Ed.] You saw what happened. Tonight was . . . tonight was God's work on the mound tonight, no question.

Curt Schilling interviewed by Kenny Albert at end of Game Six

You would think--as a "Red Sox fan"--he would have the DVDs available so he would not misquote Schilling so horribly.

Now that he is appealing--erroneously again--to text, he may not exactly like that the author intended his "visions" to occur soon.

36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
42"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

for the Yankee comment, I fucking dare you to come within an arm's length of me and say that. You wouldn't live to see the next dawn.

Mt 24:34 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all of these things take place."

Mt 16:28 "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

t3h d34dly int3rw3bs threat!! I would if he "dared" and "double dared". I would even if he had the temerity to "double-dog dare!"

Now see how typical MFY fan descends to an even lower level of discourse. Unable to back any of his claims with evidences--thanks--he now commits argumentum ad baculum--however since given his inadequacies and failure in this intellectual arena, it is clear he could not fight his way out of an oil-soaked paper bag if given a large stick. Thus, I would happily expose his MFY fandom to his face.

Even with a "double-dog dare."

Apparently, the Valley of Hinnom was used as the garbage dump for the city of Jerusalem. Refuse, waste materials, and dead animals were burned here. Fires continually smoldered, and smoke from the burning debris rose day and night. Hinnom thus became a graphic symbol of woe and judgment and of the place of eternal punishment called HELL.

Translated into Greek, the Hebrew “Valley of Hinnom� becomes gehenna, which is used 12 times in the New Testament (11 times by Jesus and once by James), each time translated as “hell� (Matt. 5:22; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6).

Can we merge this in the Hell thread too? It is the same thing here too...

Someone will have to inform me if the MFY Fan posted something relevant to the thread rather than his previous Lies, Empty Threats, and Willful Misrepresentations.

I am not one to believe in miracles, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

In the rain.

--J.D.