The Anguish of Semi Believers.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you realize how silly you and chezlaw sound? Are you snowden's cousins? Everybody else knows what I am talking about. Everybody else understands that it is neccesary to Define "God" before they place a degree of certainty on his existence. Two more guys who got seven hundred something on their math SAT.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you read what I said (or at least meant to say). The point about god being a metaphysical concept is that some silly people with very high sat scoring potential think it is meaningless and hence you cannot assign probabilities to it.

The other point is that people who say they have some degree of belief in god have no real conception of what god means and hence are wrong about their certainty of belief.

Nothing about needing to define god. This was not the pedantry issue that you used to guess sat scores in a previous thread.

chez

[scalf]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] it's a jelly do-nut:

actually it does not really matter if you are aware of yourself as soul; and your relationship to g*d;

just as it does not really matter if you know or understand the laws (or principles) of physics..

however.... lol

the laws of spirit and laws of physics are still there; and will affect you; you just will be ignorant as to why certain phenomena occur:

if you know f = ma then you will be better able to invent a machine that will go faster;

if you know as soul; you have caused every action in your life;....

but being ignorant of key principles alone do not damn you; it just makes life harder..

jmho

gl

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Two more guys who got seven hundred something on their math SAT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being English I don't understand SAT scores so I don't know how big an insult that is, it may well be a compliment [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Can you translate maths SAT scores into (UK) maths degree equivilents.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
...a hypothetical religion eventually labeled Sklanskyanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

In another forum, Sklansky has written that he is "surprisingly strong" and that he could easily handle a basketball court full of 30 determined 5 year old marauders trained to attack him en masse.

All we need to do is to garble this to "inhumanly strong," forget to transmit the part about the kids being 5, and lose sight of the fact that this was originally a hypothetical question, and it sounds like we have the making of a great religion. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[RJT]

SATs (scholastic aptitude test) are standardized test used for college admissions. One gets scored on verbal and math parts. 800 on both or 1600 is a perfect score. So, anything over 700 on the math part (either, too) is pretty good when considered in and of itself. How it translates into other areas was obviously the point - so take it with a cup of coffee, or tea in your case. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

You can convert the numbers to Sterling from here.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
SATs (scholastic aptitude test) are standardized test used for college admissions. One gets scored on verbal and math parts. 800 on both or 1600 is a perfect score. So, anything over 700 on the math part (either, too) is pretty good when considered in and of itself. How it translates into other areas was obviously the point - so take it with a cup of coffee, or tea in your case. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

You can convert the numbers to Sterling from here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, so 700+ isn't bad - thanks David

I suppose once he reads my last post he will realise I hadn't made the mistake he thought I made and will downgrade my score - oh well it was nice whilst it lasted.

chez

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you realize how silly you and chezlaw sound?

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess anyone who discusses a topic like religion should expect to sound silly to someone who disagrees with them.

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody else knows what I am talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]
They know what they would mean if they used your words, maybe.

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody else understands that it is neccesary to Define "God" before they place a degree of certainty on his existence.


[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt it, however everyone who does define God, is likely to end up with different things. Which is why the word is not well formed.

I have no problem with people being certain that God exists.

What is dodgy is assigning probabilities to God existing. Where God is being used as some sort of unassigned variable. Once you start claiming your using probability theory you have to follow the rules.

[ QUOTE ]
DS Original post. Exactly how these statements should be interpreted is a technical mathematical question. But everybody instinctively knows what I mean.

It is silly to think that the subject of whether there is a God is somehow in a different category.


[/ QUOTE ]

The point is the technical mathematical question of how to interpret the God question is non trivial. Instinctive understanding will probably be wrong unlike the OJ & Nicole question.

You could define set of possible interpretation of God, and a function that gives the probability that a given interpretation of God as being true. The sum of all probabilities must equal exactly one. So how many interpretations of God do you have? What is the chance that any specified one of them is correct? Are you sure the set of interpretations is complete?

Is that what you are talking about? Looks like a huge can of worms to me.

Personally I think anyone who believes in God, would be well advised to claim probability theory can not be applied to the existence of God. You know God exists that’s all that’s important.

[ QUOTE ]
Two more guys who got seven hundred something on their math SAT.
.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being English I don’t have much idea what a SAT is. Perhaps you should reword your insult, or compliment or whatever so I can appreciate it properly.


Edit: Thanks RJT. so 700+ is good then. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[RJT]

Don’t mean to burst your bubble, but he meant it this way: even though you might have gotten, for example, over 700 on SAT it doesn’t mean diddly. My words not his.

I can’t help you about your updated post as I only read my own posts. - Just kidding, of course.

But, your post reminds me of the old joke:

I never make mistakes.
Oh, actually I have made one in my life - The time I thought I was wrong (but actually I wasn’t wrong).

I ruined the joke with my delivery. See the thread regarding comedians and high IQ for reference what that might mean - lol.

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
Just for the record, I know--not believe--that God doesn't exist in the same way--and for the same reasons (almost)--that I know neither Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know? Prove it.

Sklansky, you said "It is silly to think that the subject of whether there is a God is somehow in a different category."
It's not silly, and it should be in a different category than "The chance OJ killed Nicole".
You can give a probability( although I don't know how you could accurately do this) of O.J. killing Nicole, because those two people exist, first of all, and there's evidence, testimony,etc.

The probability of the invisible man is something you can't analyze. There's no proof that such a being exists.
Giving a probability for something that there's not a shred of evidence for is like giving odds on the existence of a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.


Anyways, I don't know why I respond to these, no one ever gets it anyway. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Sad.
Shooby