From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:25:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.141631.6970@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>>Funny, this is the same claim made in alt.alien.visitors. 
>>
>>So? What does that have to do with anything?
>
>If the claim has nothing to do with anything, why do you make it?

Because I was asked what conclusions could be drawn from a certain premise,
not which unique conclusions...

> 
>And there is no logical way to devine "purpose". What is the value of
>a "purpose" which cannot be proved nor disproved? If you get enough
>people to believe in said "purpose", does it then become reality? I
>can think of a few examples where large followings have been generated,
>one still going strong, and one where you should not drink the kool-aid.

We were talking about scientific proof.  Knowledge by faith does not
require this...

>
>>>>3) <Come on, I know you can fill in the blanks> :)
>>>
>>>There are so many ways to fill in the blanks, all of which are reflections
>>>of what you know and believe. 
>>
>>Wonderful!  Then making the assumption conditionally will allow
>>one to explore avenues that they might not otherwise have
>>explored.  This will allow one to draw certain conclusions if they
>>accept the premise.  BTW, I'm not insinuating at all that everyone
>>will come to the same conclusion that I or anyone else did.
>
>There are an -infinite- number of ways I should imagine. And when one
>starts with an assumption, the results will be no more valid than the
>original assumption. One might waste an infinite amount of time doing 
>this. And suppose you -did- get the correct answer, what then? I do not
>see that it will make any difference.

Now you're asking a totally different question as to the validity of the
assumption.  Did you really think I was trying to prove what I had
assumed?

> 
>>>>My point was to subject everyone to all the conclusions that it meant to me.
>>
>>Sorry, I meant my point was *NOT* to subject everyone, but you probably
>>guessed that.
>
>No, I read it the other way, it seemed you wanted to share[?] what it meant
>to you.

I'm glad that you know what I meant better than I did, but if you reread the
postings, you will see that I did not actually jump in and gladly "share"
this bit of information at all.

>>>How is it that the validity of the claim that 'god answers all prayers'
>>>cannot be tested? I belive this is in the Bible, I will have to check.
>>
>>You wouldn't take a quote out of context, now would you? :)
>
>The claim is often made, regardless of it's source. Perhaps you would like
>to fill in some context? I do not see how this claim could not be tested.

If some religion (none that I'm aware of) made a claim that every
person's unqualified wish and desire expressed as a prayer would
be granted to that person, then you could easily test that and
come to the conclusion that this particular belief of that
religion is correct or incorrect, which could be different than
the religion itself being false.  I am not aware of any such religion, 
are you?

> 
>>>Rich
>>>payner@netcom.com

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729