From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:09:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct10.175852.4814@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.153239.20883@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>>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?
>>
>>I am at a loss right now as to what you are trying to show.
>
>I'm sorry Rich, and maybe I'm not making myself clear to which I
>apologize.  But I truly think that you are confusing what I posted
>with perhaps someone else?  If you go back and read the thread, my
>original contention was that it was impossible to scientifically
>verify the existence of the soul.  

I have been watching that thread. It looks to me like a great deal of
effort went into defining the soul in such a way as to make it scientifically
unverifyable, but still real. The soul as a concept is real. But the
reality of the concept does not require the reality of that which is
conceived. However the fact that the concept seems to have evolved over
time makes me wonder.

>                       I then gave a definition to
>someone who requested it and it was then taken apart as being
>unscientific, etc. 

As I recall, the problem with the definition was that it was untestable
and unfalsifyable.

>                    My intention was never to show a scientific or
>testable definition of the soul, that is exactly the opposite of
>my position.  If you can show me a posting where I have said
>anything to the contrary, then Email me or post here but I truly
>am not out to "get" you...

As I recall this thread started when I asked what the difference between
religion and superstition was. The best answer that I saw was that 
superstition was the 'other guys' religion.
 
>>
>>>>>>>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.
>>
>>I may not know what you mean, but I know what you posted. And I assumed
>>that you had meant what you had posted. Now you seem to be claiming that
>>I am claiming to "know what I meant better than I did", get real. I have
>>made no such silly claim, and I find your claim rather insulting. 
>>
>>Let me re-phrase the above in the hopes of better understanding.
>>
>>I READ IT THE WAY YOU POSTED IT, NO MORE, NO LESS AND NO DIFFERENT. That
>>you claim to have meant differene does -not- mean that I misread what
>>you posted.
>
>Sorry Rich, when you said "I read it the other way" for some reason my mind
>pronounced it as "reed" not "red".  It sounded like you were rejecting my
>correction.  I certainly didn't mean to criticize the fact that you took
>my posting literally; I do intend for people to most of the time. :)
>Again, I sincerlely apologize...

Apology accepted, next goaround I will chop this.
 
>>>>>>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, 
>>
>>I have correctly repeated what I have ehard and read, that "every prayer
>>will be answered". Now you change it to "prayer would be granted to that 
>>person" for no reason, and want to argue that. John, you are going non-linear
>>on me. You ignore what I post, and want to argue silly things which I
>>did not post and that do not follow from what I post. And you claim that
>>I claim to know what you mean better than you do, again for no reason.
>
>What *do* you mean by "every prayer will be answered".  

What do I mean when I repeat what you post for clarification, I mean that
this is what you posted. These are not my words. But when I read them, I
read them like anything else. If I said that your Dad would answer all
questions, would you read that as he will grant all requests? You seem to
be doing exactly that with "god answers all prayers".

What are the possible answers to a prayer...

1) Yes, prayer granted.
2) No, prayer not granted.
3) Prayer ocnditionally granted, you asked for 3, but I will give you one.

I have no idea why you read such a simple statement as 'god grants all
prayers', but it certainly hampers communication.

>                                                      Most
>people take that to mean that their request will be granted,

I disagree, at least for those who speak conversational English. Please
do not take this as a personal slam, it is not intended as such. But your
reading is not normal english usage.

>although I do not subscribe to that definition.  If you mean
>differently, what is your definition? 

See above...
 
>>>                           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?
>>
>>If god granted 10% of all prayers, than that could still be tested
>>by statistical methods. Not that it matters, if you continue as before,
>>you will ignore what I post, make up something silly and argue that.
>
>Hmmm, aren't you now equating answering prayers with granting prayers?  That
>is why a definition would be in order.

Absolutly not. If god answered -any- prayer in the positive, then we have
something potentially testable. If god answers all prayers with a no,
then of course it cannot be tested. And it is also no different than there
being no god.
 
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com

Rich

payner@netcom.com