From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:32:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.022521.14952@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>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...

So given two different conclusions (which can't both be true) and for
which there is no evidence (for both), why choose one over the other?
Why choose either?
 
>>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...

There is no possible "scientific proof" of divine purpose, IMHO. And since
science deals with natural phenomena, it cannot deal with the supernatural.
So there is no bridge from science to faith or religion.

Since you originally claimed that it was possible to figure out gods
purpose given only the starting point that "god created the heavens and
the earth", I would still like to see you show 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?

I am at a loss right now as to what you are trying to show.

>>>>>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.
 
>>>>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.

I guess this discussion ended a few posts ago.

>                           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.


CYA John, have a great life...
 
>>>>Rich
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com

Rich

payner@netcom.com