[QUOTE=TTn]xilman
Not to argue or debate, but do you disbelieve one or both of the heuristics?
[quote=TTn]Let infinity be true.
Let the equation for intelligent life in the universe/s be infinite.[/quote]
[quote=TTn](Multi-verse)[/quote]

If so, please explain. Anyone?[/QUOTE]
I neither believe nor disbelieve your statements. As far as I can tell, they are either complete gibberish or, more charitably, that you have a message which you find extremely difficult to explain in language as used by the rest of us.

Tell me do you believe or disbelieve the statement "Arthritic cats chew elevators on Sunday's week of persistence"?


Paul

[QUOTE=mfgoode]It was later translated into latin and double dutch to me! :grin:
Mally :coffee:[/QUOTE]
Yes it went to Latin, but much of it went through Arabic first.

Paul

xilman
I believe your an.. Work of GOD too.

Fag

See TTn, calling a post gibberish or undecipherable and asking for clarification isn't a personal attack. Calling people names, however, is.

It strikes me as odd that in many discussions I've witnessed, those who boasted their religiousness the most usually were the first to resort to insults. The faith must be real strong in you.

Alex

[QUOTE]calling a post gibberish isn't a personal attack. [/QUOTE]
Yes it is kid.
Where the hell do you folks come from?
I'll steer clear away from there, and whatever water your drinking.
I never boasted about religeousness, what kind of drugs are you on.

[QUOTE=TTn][quote=akruppa]calling a post gibberish isn't a personal attack.[/quote]Yes it is kid.[/QUOTE]
For some reason I'll probably regret later, I find this argument rather interesting.

For my part, I don't believe that calling a post gibberish is a [b]personal[/b] attack. Note the emphasis on personal. An attack, certainly, but not personal.

A personal attack would be along the lines of "TTn is a blithering idiot who posts gibberish more often than not". Note that I provide this statement merely as an example; I make no claims as to its accuracy in any sense, nor whether I personally believe it to be true or false.

I freely confess: I have posted gibberish. My statement earlier in this thread on the subject of arthritic cats was designed to be gibberish. Whether or not it is a good sample of gibberish I will leave for others to decide.

Hmm, perhaps TTn would describe this post as a personal attack on myself. If so, I can live with that accusation.

TTn: is this post a personal attack on myself? I genuinely welcome your view on the matter and would like to read your response.

Should I call for a poll to decide whether, in the views of the forum participants, calling a post "gibberish" constitutes a personal attack on the poster?


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman]I neither believe nor disbelieve your (...) gibberish (...).

Tell me do you believe or disbelieve the statement "Arthritic cats chew elevators on Sunday's week of persistence"?
[/QUOTE]

Hehe, these fora are almost as fun as usenet! Shame about the lack of killfile functionality though...

I dunno about the cats, but I certainly believe that colourless green ideas sleep furiously:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously[/url]

fatphil,

[QUOTE=fatphil]I don't think that clarifies at all. While LDS may make insinuations to that end, I don't know any Christians who are aware of the works of Smith who would claim that LDS is a branch of Christianity.[/QUOTE]I'm sorry I didn't make my post 5 pages long so that it met your definition of "clarification." :wink: [i]Of course[/i] some other Christians would say that Latter-day Saints don't meet their definition of Christian. Some people also claim we have horns, we worship Joseph Smith, and other ridiculous things. I didn't see a need to bring that up.

The point of my post was to clarify the possible misunderstanding that would come from reading mfgoode's post. Mormons [b]do[/b] believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

[QUOTE]If you want a thoroughly disrespectful overview of Smith, just watch the South Park episode.[/QUOTE]I've heard it was disrespectful, but never seen it myself.

Cheers,
Pace

[QUOTE=xilman]I believe that Jesus of Nazareth very likely existed and that he was a wandering Jewish preacher of somewhat unorthodox views. It's possible, though far from certain, that he was executed for stirring up popular unrest. I think it [b]extremely[/b] unlikely that he was the son of God and had supernatural powers.

I do not believe in "God" in the sense of guardian angels, anthropomorphic intelligent being(s), creator(s) of the universe, and so forth. There is a facet of the universe that perhaps could be described by the epithet "God": the observation that the universe (apparently) makes sense and can be remarkably well described by mathematics and physics. As far as I can tell, this conception has much in common with Spinoza's and Einstein's concept of "God".[/QUOTE]

Although I am a Christian, I meant it from the perspective of Christ's teachings, not his deity. I want my beliefs to stem from what makes logical sense more than faith. In other words, I don't feel it should be necessary to view Christ as God or Son of God in order to be a follower of his teachings. I suppose in my theology I don't need to even believe in God. As I said above, I view God as non-theistic, that is, not as a being to pray to, to be afraid of, or to worship. If God exists, then It's existence is far beyond human comprehension. For anyone to apply any characteristics to God is stupid (IMHO). By defining God (with finite terms), one limits what God is. By defining God (with infinite terms), we cannot have any comprehension of what infinity is (outside of the mathematical concept). BTW, I ask you to pardon my use of "finite", "infinite", and "infinity" here as I am uncertain if it is the correct word to use. I hope that you understand the intention of my statements.

This reminds me of one of my favorite lines:
"But God really exists," said the old man, and my faith was restored for I knew that Santa Claus would never lie.

[QUOTE=akruppa]See TTn, calling a post gibberish or undecipherable and asking for clarification isn't a personal attack. Calling people names, however, is.

It strikes me as odd that in many discussions I've witnessed, those who boasted their religiousness the most usually were the first to resort to insults. The faith must be real strong in you.

Alex[/QUOTE]Alex, you might want to read his posts a little more slowly and carefully. He quoted the Bible as a "[i]humorous anicdote[/i]" and thinks it is "old babbling." His "heuristic" for God was a bit weird, but all he claims is that there is a most intelligent being in the universe and this is God. His religiousity is a function of your reading. Yes, his posts are hard to understand. This might be a function of him not being a native English speaker, being a complete crank, or something else. Hard to tell with people jumping to conclusions all over the place.

Oh, and from what I read you were actually the first one to insult someone on this thread with your post at 4:49 this morning. That is, unless you don't think it is insulting to tell some to "grow a pair."

This post is merely to present to you how someone coming at this thread might view some of the comments made here. I can understand why people might get upset with TTn's lack of English skills. But perhaps you might see, on the other hand, how your own posts (before his apparent name-calling) could be viewed as insulting. (And, of course, that throws into question your personal oberservations about who "starts it" so to speak. Such things are usually two-way.)

Anyway, just trying to calm things down so we can all be respectful.

Cheers,
Zeta-Flux

rogue,

The only (at least partially) reliable record we have of Jesus' teachings were written by his disciples. These same disciples record that the most important aspect of Christ's mission to earth was to bring about the resurrection and eternal life of man, and that we should believe Jesus makes this possible. I find it strange that you would claim to be a Christian in terms of "Christ's teachings" and yet not believe some of those teachings. In other words, how can you follow his teachings and yet deny his godhead when [i]one of those teachings[/i] was his godhead? See the conundrum? (However, you could certainly follow [i]some[/i] of his teachings.)

Maybe I'm just reading into your post a little too deeply, and you implicitly meant that you only follows those teachings of Jesus that you personally agree with. Or, maybe only those teachings with social ramifications. If so, sorry for the mistake.

As far as God being beyond the comprehension of man, I agree. However, I think the greatest thing we can do in life is try to understand exactly who and what God is. "And this is life eternal, to know thee, the only true God." It is just like the fact that understanding all of mathematics is beyond any man. But nevertheless, learning what little of mathematics we can is a wonderful thing. (And, with respect to God, if He communicates with us, it helps in our understanding.)