Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Defiant Heretic · 04-25-2003, 06:27 PM

Minor point: "I will be what I will be" sounds more tautological than circular. It doesn't try to prove anything really, but it doesn't actually say anything, either. "I will be, therefore I will be" would be circular.

malookiemaloo, it's perfectly rational to think that we'll one day be able to write a self aware program. We can already hardwire basic artificial intelligence systems. We can also write programs that are capable of 'learning'. They copy their source code, add modifications, and recompile. We've managed to get this far. All we need to do is combine the two aspects successfully and we'll have a program that effectively teaches itself.

Wyrdsmyth · 04-26-2003, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Priapus
I always thought it was what Popeye used to say, or was that "I yam what I yam"?

Yeah, that's what Popeye used to say.

If Popeye were an Old Jewish sailor, it would come out just like the tetragrammaton.

Popeye, and the god of the Old Testament... both have the same signature phrase.

Felstorm · 04-30-2003, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Noesis
[B]Hello,

My Christian friend continually tells me that my problems with the meaning of "God" are illusory, since the meaning of YHWH provides a definition, namely, "I will be what I will be" (according to him).

The meaning of YHWH--"I will be what I will be"--is not only vague and based on revelation, but is also circular, because one is still left wondering what "I" means. Theists state that "I" is the entity. This, however, is blatant circular reasoning, for one then asks about the nature of the entity, and the meaning of YHWH is provided. The theist has built "I" into the definition of the entity, and thus begs the question.

That is incorrect your christian freind has got his head up his theistic arse. Eh He Yeh means I am what I am. Not the impronouncable YHVH. Which for all intentions and purposed means not one godamned thing in Hebrew.

Quote:

Does anyone know how to swiftly handle this situation, preferably in a way that will convey this insuperable problem? Most Christians I have encountered love to quibble about Biblical veracity, as they can just turn to Geisler or Craig and then skip happily to church, with the feeling that they have won the argument. My objections are more philosophical than philological. Thanks in advance.

Ask him how he knows for certain that he has the right god? There are hundreds of valid gods and religions. How can he be so sure that he has the right one? Because it's all he knows? Tell him that if he wants to talk god tell him to go learn about more than just one. And then come back and talk god.

Rational BAC · 04-30-2003, 05:39 AM

As, seemingly, the only Christian on this thread, here is my take on "I am what I am"-----or in the vernacular---"I yam what I yam"---------

I haven't a clue what that means either.

And don't really care--------that is just one more piece of incomprehensible fluff in the Bible----one of the parts (of which there are many) that I just glaze over when reading. Always to be kept in the back of my mind as something I might really understand someday----Or maybe not.

Not all Christians are fundamentalists you know. The Bible is a very fascinating piece of man made literature of which some might even be divinely inspired.

Cherry picker that I am, I ignore most of the garbage in the Bible and look for the jewels.

Hope this helps some. I have the same problem with fundies that you do.-----------My answer to a fundie would be "Darned if I know what the hell that is all about" "Do you?? "Really?"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-25-2003, 06:27 PM	#11
Defiant Heretic Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,288	Minor point: "I will be what I will be" sounds more tautological than circular. It doesn't try to prove anything really, but it doesn't actually say anything, either. "I will be, therefore I will be" would be circular. malookiemaloo, it's perfectly rational to think that we'll one day be able to write a self aware program. We can already hardwire basic artificial intelligence systems. We can also write programs that are capable of 'learning'. They copy their source code, add modifications, and recompile. We've managed to get this far. All we need to do is combine the two aspects successfully and we'll have a program that effectively teaches itself.

04-30-2003, 05:39 AM	#14
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	As, seemingly, the only Christian on this thread, here is my take on "I am what I am"-----or in the vernacular---"I yam what I yam"--------- I haven't a clue what that means either. And don't really care--------that is just one more piece of incomprehensible fluff in the Bible----one of the parts (of which there are many) that I just glaze over when reading. Always to be kept in the back of my mind as something I might really understand someday----Or maybe not. Not all Christians are fundamentalists you know. The Bible is a very fascinating piece of man made literature of which some might even be divinely inspired. Cherry picker that I am, I ignore most of the garbage in the Bible and look for the jewels. Hope this helps some. I have the same problem with fundies that you do.-----------My answer to a fundie would be "Darned if I know what the hell that is all about" "Do you?? "Really?"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.