I don't understand why David started the "Can God" thread.

[felson]

While thinking about David's "Can God..." thread, I came to an unappealing conclusion. Since David has not answered my previous inquiries, I am trying again here. This post may lead to controversy, so I am phrasing it as politely as possible. If someone can show me a serious error in my reasoning, I am willing to retract my conclusion.

(For the sake of argument, let us assume that "no" is the only rational answer to David's "CG" question, since that is how he feels. Some of you feel differently, but his thread was clearly aimed at people who would agree with his answer.)

In the thread, David showed that some Christians have an irrational belief about God. I found this conclusion underwhelming: why is this worth our time? Christians are no different in this regard than anyone else. (Judging from the thread, it appears that even many atheists and agnostics would answer David's question in the affirmative: that God, if He existed, "should" be able to perform such tasks.)

David would not start a thread just to reach such an unimpressive conclusion. What else could he have had in mind? He did not explain. Well, maybe the intent was to suggest that since some Christians harbor irrational beliefs, then the core beliefs of Christianity must therefore be irrational. Now, that would be interesting.

1. This is a logically indefensible conclusion.
2. Some readers would likely draw that conclusion anyway.

David is too smart not to have realized both 1 and 2 while writing his posts. (And I spelled number 1 out for him anyway.) David hates illogic, so why didn't he include some caveat in his posts or acknowledge my repeated queries? It is not characteristic of a good teacher that he knowingly allow his readers to make logic errors.

If my reasoning thus far is correct, the conclusion is that (in the CG thread) David would rather ridicule Christians than be a good teacher. Since David takes great pride in his teaching ability, I find this surprising and disappointing.

[spamuell]

If you're suggesting that intelligent people should not write about complicated topics for fear that less intelligent people will misunderstand these topics and draw an incorrect or unintended conclusion from the writing, I think you are very wrong.

If you are suggesting that DS started the thread with the explicit intention of attacking Christians, I would say that you are obsessed with Christianity. He didn't even mention it in the first post and as your mind and DS's as clearly so different, I don't see how you can purport to knowing what his intentions were.

[felson]

David doesn't have to do anything, as far as I am concerned.

However, I believe that a good teacher would attempt to prevent his readers from making obvious logical errors. If you think that a good teacher would not make this attempt, then this is where you and I disagree.

Whether or not I am obsessed with Christianity has no bearing on whether my argument is correct.

David did not mention Christians in his first post. But they were mentioned in the second question, which led to his "punch line" about Cheney. Still, it doesn't matter. Feel free to substitute "believers in any specific God."

EDITED to add: the first sentence of your post is a serious mischaracterization of what I said.

[felson]

I don't need to know David's intentions in order to show that he did not act as a good teacher. I only need to know that he is smart enough to foresee points 1 and 2.

However, I do need to know his intentions for the last paragraph of my first post. Thank you for the correction. Let me rephrase it as:

"If my reasoning thus far is correct, the conclusion is that (in the CG thread) David is not very concerned with being a good teacher. Since David takes great pride in his teaching ability, I find this surprising and disappointing."

[felson]

I have rephrased my argument to accommodate one of spamuell's objections, that I cannot know David's intent. (On the other hand, David has speculated on the working of my subconscious. But I have changed my argument so as not to reciprocate.)

===

While thinking about David's "Can God..." thread, I came to an unappealing conclusion. Since David has not answered my previous inquiries, I am trying again here. This post may lead to controversy, so I am phrasing it as politely as possible. If someone can show me a serious error in my reasoning, I am willing to retract my conclusion.

(For the sake of argument, let us assume that "no" is the only rational answer to David's "CG" question, since that is how he feels. Some of you feel differently, but his thread was clearly aimed at people who would agree with his answer.)

In the thread, David showed that some Christians have an irrational belief about God. I found this conclusion underwhelming: why is this worth our time? Christians are no different in this regard than anyone else. (Judging from the thread, it appears that even many atheists and agnostics would answer David's question in the affirmative: that God, if He existed, "should" be able to perform such tasks.)

David would not start a thread just to reach such an unimpressive conclusion. What else could he have had in mind? He did not explain, and I wish he would.

Regardless of his intent, one possible inference is as follows: since some Christians harbor irrational beliefs, then the core beliefs of Christianity must therefore be irrational.

1. This is a logically indefensible conclusion.
2. Some readers would likely draw that conclusion anyway.

David is too smart not to have realized both 1 and 2 while writing his posts. (And I spelled number 1 out for him anyway.) David hates illogic, so why didn't he include some caveat in his posts or acknowledge my repeated queries? It is not characteristic of a good teacher that he knowingly allow his readers to make logic errors.

If my reasoning thus far is correct, the conclusion is that (in the CG thread) David is not very concerned with being a good teacher. Since David takes great pride in his teaching ability, I find this surprising and disappointing.

[David Sklansky]

Believe it or not the question was not really about God or religion at all. As felson points out many atheists say God could do it if he existed. Yet felson and I think Kopefire (I say "I think" because I usually have no idea what he is talking about) know better.

The reason for my post was rather to show how people do not put summing cubes into the same category as making a four sided triangle. I just put up a post on the other thread aksing what people think about God producing two even numbers that add up to an odd one. I believe some people will think that he can't do it while maintaining he can do the cube problem.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
...one possible inference is as follows: since some Christians harbor irrational beliefs, then the core beliefs of Christianity must therefore be irrational.

1. This is a logically indefensible conclusion.
2. Some readers would likely draw that conclusion anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
David, did think some people would come to this indefensible conclusion (or reinforce their predrawn conclusion) because of your post? If not, you didn't think it through very well, because it's an obvious inference.

[felson]

David, I was wondering why you chose to post using the sum-of-cubes example rather than something which is more clearly impossible. Now I know.

Incidentally, if the question was not about God or religion, why did you ask for a percentage of mistaken Christians, rather than mistaken Americans?

In any case, David, I am interested to hear your response to the other parts of my reasoning.

EDITED to add: Also, thanks for explaining why you started the other thread. I appreciate it.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, if the question was not about God or religion, why did you ask for a percentage of mistaken Christians, rather than mistaken Americans?


[/ QUOTE ]
The reason he just gave you is not the real reason he made the post, methinks.

[NLSoldier]

methinkssotoo