From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:16:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.025933.29797@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.151101.14176@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct2.224417.23923@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct1.053346.25405@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

[...]

>>>>But knowing only that "(god) created the heavens and the earth" tells
>>>>me nothing of it's purpose or nature. For that, you need to study the
>>>>religious manuals and doctrines. Usually, parents teach this to their
>>>>children before they are old enough to understand it. For most it catches
>>>>on, and they will either belive, or at least go through the motions. Some
>>>>ask questions right off, and never become believers. But this is more
>>>>a measure of human interaction than proof of god, or evidence of purpose
>>>>or the nature of the universe.
>>>
>>>I'll start you off...
>>>
>>>1) We are not alone in this universe.
>>
>>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?
 
>>>2) Someone created us, presumably for a purpose.  Maybe I'll be curious and
>>>try to find out what that purpose is.
>>
>>They also make this claim in alt.alien.visitors.
>
>So?  What does that have to do with anything?
 
Again, you made the claim as well. My point is that we have two different
sets of answers to the same questions, both equally provable and both
equally falsifyable.

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.

>>>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.
 
>>>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 can accept this...
>>
>>>I was only trying to show that just accepting that premise can lead one
>>>to question and search in areas that they might not have otherwise done.
>>
>>I doubt that most netreaders are ignorant of the premise you use. They have
>>either accepted it, or not, or use another premise entirely.
>
>Again, where does this statement come from?  

I typed it in.  :^}

>                                              I thought we were discussing
>whether or not accepting the premise that God created the heavens and
>the earth could lead one to draw *any* logical conclusions.  We were not
>discussing who and who is not ignorant of the premise.

OK, then the answer is, by itself, there are no logical conclusions that
can be drawn. 
 
>>>>>Actually, the superstition can probably be objectively tested.
>>>>>That is, a study could be done to determine if knocking on wood
>>>>>statistically changed the presence of what we think is good luck.
>>>>>The control group would, of course, have an object that felt like
>>>>>wood but was not.  If the study was scientific and conclusive, I'd
>>>>>bet you'd start the practice of knocking on wood... :)
>>>>
>>>>No, I was asking if you had any such proof of the validity of religion.
>>>>And I still do not see what differentiates religion from superstition.
>>>
>>>My point was that a religion is valid irrespective of any scientific proof.  
>>
>>By this do you mean that religion is valid as a personal belief? Or do you
>>mean that it's claims are valid?
>
>By this, I mean that religions are usually unfalsifiable by scientific 
>standards.

How is this a statement of validity? 
 
>>>                           This is quite unlike the superstition in the
>>>example above whose validity can be scientifically tested.
>>
>>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.
 
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com

Rich

payner@netcom.com