Ryanfire

Douglas, I'm not even going to reply to most of that, quit being so petty.

Petty:
Of small importance; trivial: a petty grievance.
Marked by narrowness of mind, ideas, or views.
Marked by meanness or lack of generosity, especially in trifling matters.

You consider their questions meaningless, or you go out of your way to make them just that.. meaningless.

I could give two shits about my statements being assertions, your biblical equation is in the same boat.

You're nothing but a hypocrite.

Pomp

Take it easy, people. Let's keep this one civil and on topic.

I'm going to delete any future sniping at Douglas or his past behavior, as opposed to his equations and his claims that they constitute evidence for his beliefs.

Likewise, I'm going to delete any return fire from Douglas.

Douglas J. Bender

RyanFire,


For your information, my post to you was meant good-naturedly, and in humor, to a large extent. Nothing "petty" about it.


In Christ,

Douglas

Synaesthesia

Douglas,
Where is the statistical analysis that shows that the space of biblical patterns differs in any significant way from the space other arbitrary shuffling of a reasonable number of arbitrary starting numbers operated upon by a reasonable number of arbitrary functions producing to what might be reasonably] interpreted to a reasonable degree of accuracy? I can’t seem to find any such thing.

You have yet to demonstrate that your biblical equations violate the general pattern of numbers any significant way. The onus here is upon you to show significance in your codes, the fact that arbitrary correlations and patterns can be easily found is a well known fact and does not support a uniquely biblical interpretation.

Numerology is, after all, a very ancient practice that has been used to support decidedly non-christian beliefs.

Without such an argument, the best that can be said for the biblical equations is that they are clever manipulations designed by a clever person: You.

I freely admit that I’m not good at finding arbitrary relationships between numbers. I couldn’t prove it and you are perfectly free to argue from ignorance in this respect.

However, the properties or large groups of random data is very well known. A bible-code style analysis of the genes, for instance, would probable turn up both “God Be Praised” and “God did not write this” Moreover, a bible-equation style search of various functions performed UPON patterns in cells would turn up millions upon millions more such messages due to a massive combinatorial explosion.

Simple probability Douglas, you get what you look for if your search methods are sufficiently arbitrary and ad hoc.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

Douglas J. Bender

Synaesthesia,


On the contrary, I have clearly demonstrated that they do. And, by "general pattern of numbers", I take it you mean a "random 'pattern' of numbers".

The rest of your argument is a non-argument, actually, since all it consists of is your assertions with no supporting evidence/reason/justification. I have already shown that the two Biblical Equations are absolutely NOT "ad hoc", as they are both simple solutions to simple, "real-world", word problems. And I've shown that in the context of the "word problem" for the second equation, there are only two values for which the natural logarithm provides a solution, and one of them just happens to be the exact same solution as the solution to the first equation. Of course, I cannot prove that this is a non-random event, anymore than I could prove that "Synaesthesia, allow me to concentrate on Goliath's 'argument'" was "designed", and not a mere random error caused by keyboard problems. In both cases, though, the clear conclusion is "non-randomness" - i.e., intent/design.


In Christ,

Douglas

Goliath

Douglas,

Again, my apologies for not responding sooner.

Then this entire thread was for naught. Oh well.

It makes ALL the difference in the universe! As soon as one begins to claim that a specific piece of evidence points to the supernatural--hell, as long as the supernatural is posited as a cause for anything--the use of our senses goes right out the window, since (by definition of the supernatural) our senses are worthless at detecting anything supernatural.

Let me illustrate with an example. Suppose we are at a murder scene. A man's lifeless body lays dead on the ground. Most of his head has exploded, various parts lying all over the place--very gory. If the police just look for naturalistic evidence, they would probably look for a bullet (figuring that the man was shot in the head with a high-caliber rifle). But, if supernatural causes are taken into account--say the hypothesis that "Satan did it!"--then the following scenarios (along with infinitely many more) have to be shown to be incorrect:

1. Since everyone obviously has an ethereal block of cheese hovering one foot above their head, the cheese above this man's head decided to quickly materialize and gain infinite density. Thus the now material cheese became more dense than lead, crushed the man's skull, and then became ethereal again.

2. Seventeen invisible goblins appeared and--using their goblin magic--killed the man.

3. The IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorn) used Her amazing mental powers to make this man's head explode.

etc.

etc.

etc.

Get the picture? If the supernatural is brought into hypotheses for evidence, we may as well throw our senses--and everything else, for that matter--out of the window. After you posit the IPU and invisible goblins as a cause, you may as well regress to a universe that only exists in your mind.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant yet again. That does not make them exactly the same thing.

For the second time, Douglas, STOP putting words in my mouth! We both agreed to act civil towards each other in this thread, remember? Is it civil to stuff words in another person's mouth, Douglas?

ROFL! Go right ahead, Douglas. I'll guarantee you this: such an argument couldn't even be construed as an "Argument from Authority," since I am anything but an authority on evolution.

My apologies for accidentally taking the word "proof" out of context. Yes, "proof" can be used in an evidential context as well.

In the sense of a logical proof? No. In the sense of evidenial arguments? Yes. Have you heard of the scientific method, Douglas? I ask not to sound condescending, but because I actually don't know.

Since science only deals with the natural and observable, your assertion that science is able to conclude that no natural process could occur for a fixed event is an unsupported (let alone unproven) assertion.

And to claim that such an ability is in any way, shape, or form supernatural would be to make an unproven assertion.

Good. You now seem to understand.

The challenge that I have set forth in no way, shape, or form precludes any possibility of your success. If you claim that it would be impossible for you to succeed at such a challenge, then you have made an unproven assertion.

Keep stuffing that strawman, Douglas!

I would, Douglas. Now, tell me why such an ability is in any way, shape, or form supernatural (odd? yes. superhuman? yes. supernatural? ....?).

Unproven assertion.

No, my challenge is--in so many words--a request for you to put up or shut up regarding your claim that your functions prove that your god exists. Clearly, you are either unwilling or unable to do either.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

Douglas,

Agreed.

Again, agreed.

Specifically the assumption that our five senses model reality.

I do not see how seeing such a message and assuming that the five senses model reality would in any way, shape, or form imply that a god exists.

Correct. Note that you said nature, NOT supernature.

Unproven assertion that Jesus has ever existed.

Sincerely,

Goliath