Amaranth

Actually, within the show, they are effectively god. They decide who says what, when, why, where it takes place. They are omniscient in that they know how all of it will go ahead of time.

Irrelivent. The point of the OP was to give an analogy as to why errors in biblical story are more meaningful to us, the non-believers, than to them, the xians. It's a good analogy, and works within that realm.

I don't think the OP is making an argument. It's making an observation as to help explain why believers are not conviced by rabbits chewing cud. It certainly in no way supports xianity - it merely gives insight into the workings of the believers mind.

Goliath

Amaranth,

Really? Then perhaps they can create several shows where one of the characters presents a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis. If they can't do this, then they aren't omnipotent--not even in the show.

And since the Buffy show is not a religious belief, and xianity is a religious belief, the analogy fails.

Why do you say this, when I've shown--several times, in fact--that the analogy fails?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Amaranth

I have no idea what that is, nor do I think it's worth learning about. I assume that it is something impossible in reality. If it isn't, define it. If it is, then my reply is as follows:

You do realize that since it is a work of fiction that they can "prove" anything they want, correct? First, they "proved" that vampires exist, and the that magic was real, and on and on. It's their fictional reality, they can do as they wish in it. If they decide 1+1 = 3 in Sunnydale, guess what? I think you get the picture here...

On what bloody grounds? Again - The intent of the analogy is to show how fans of a television fiction defend their story like worshippers of religous fiction. I mean, the very first friggen definition of "analogy" is: Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. This is why I can say things like "Your car looks like a brick on wheels", despite the fact that one is an automobile and the other is a construction material.

Incorrect. You've said it fails a couple times, but all you've shown is what we've already established - It stops working if you take it further. An in kind retort to this might be "How can you say that, Goliath? I've shown it to work several times now."

Mediancat

All I'd have to do is write a script or a story where Giles stands in front of a group and says, "And thus have I proven the Riemann hypothesis," while everyone else stands around and applauds. For the show's characters it will have been proven.


In the minds of some fans, a TV show can be every bit as powerful a belief as religion. But in any event, that's not important to the analogy.

You have not shown this. You have shown that it is not an identity, but an analogy is never supposed to be a one-for-one correspondence, merely a way to understand something you're having trouble grasping in terms of something you already understand.

As a Buffy fan and an atheist I now feel like I understand the mindset of a Christian who believes that everything in the Bible can be reconciled.

And incidentally, I WASN'T making an argument.

Rob aka Mediancat

Goliath

Amaranth,

I didn't expect you to know what it is.

That's nothing more than your uneducated opinion.

As far as I know, it's not. It's merely the most famous unsolved problem in Mathematics.

Well, being a Commutative Algebraist rather than an Analytic Number Theorist, I don't have any books on the Riemann Hypothesis. However, I did find this link, which may be helpful.

You misread what I typed (which is understandable, since I should've made myself more clear). What I wanted to see was one of the characters in Buffy present--from beginning to end, showing each and every step--a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis.

Or, if you don't want to deal with the Riemann Hypothesis, I'll settle for either of these things:

a). A proof that the Axiom of Choice follows from the Zermelo-Frankel axiom of Set Theory (again, a full presentation of the proof, with all the details). <insert evil grin here>

or

b). A way to factor the polynomial x^2+1 over the real numbers.

If I can find one discrepency, then...guess what? The analogy fails. This is why analogies do not make logical arguments.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

Mediancat,

My apologies for not being more clear. See my above post, where I meant to say that I wanted one of the characters to present a full, valid proof, going over all of the nitty-gritty details.

And this is why analogies fail when used as arguments. However, since you admit to not making an argument, I fail to see why you wrote the OP.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Mediancat

They obviously can't do that. But as far as the characters are concerned, once Giles says "and thus I have demonstrated it," it has therefore been demonstrated, as far as everyone in the Buffyverse is concerned. The show's creators have that power. They could say, 2+2 = 4, therefore the Riemann Hypothesis has been validated. Or they could say it doesn't exist, or that it was solved fifteen years ago, or that it had long since been proven unsolvable.

Whether or not Giles chooses to show this to us is irrelevant. It's not our universe, we just get to look at it every once in a while.

I suspect we have a differing definition of argument, then. An analogy is a method of understanding something more clearly. I have already said that thiis analogy helps me understand the mind of a Biblical literalist better than I used to. Where, then, is the argument?

Rob aka Mediancat

Goliath

Mediancat,

Then the writers aren't omnipotent. End of story.

But analogies are never accurate, and, in my experience, rarely give understanding of anything.

I've been wondering the same thing.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Mediancat

Goliath,

We're obviously talking past each other. The writers ARE omnipotent when it comes to their universes. They can decide tomorrow that the Buffyverse disappears in a fiery explosion, or that dinosaurs never became extinct, or that the Riemann hypothesis has been solved. They CAN decide this. They are not then required to show it to you.

Amazingly, none of this is relevant to the main analogy.

As for your last line, that's just being snide. Either explain how I HAVE been making an argument rather than an analogy, or consider my portion of this conversation terminated.

Rob aka Mediancat

Amaranth

Which seems like exactly why you brought it up without reference what the heck it is. A round of applause for Mr. Needs-an-ego-boost.

Having been informed that it is nothing more than some bloody math problem, I can safely state that within the context of this argument, it's absolutely not worth learning about.


Regardless, let me again address this for you: They can provide a proof for it. Hell, they can prove that the sky is purple, up is down, and that cats give birth to dogs. Why? Because they don't have to be correct in the real world, only in the fiction world. It's quite simple, really, and I'll say it again: They can bloody well say 1+1=3 in their world and be correct.

This makes no sense. Do you know what an analogy is? And you are endlessly stuck on this "logical argument" thing. Who cares? There's no logical argument here to be had except for the one you have created, and even that is in serious doubt.

Bah...just bah. Mediancat, good thoughts. Goliath - good luck with that whole stick problem.

Amaranth