Happy Easter!
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: Nick Naym on 5 Apr 2010 16:50 In article michelle-72DE18.10044705042010(a)news.eternal-september.org, Michelle Steiner at michelle(a)michelle.org wrote on 4/5/10 1:04 PM: > In article <m2hbnp6gbe.fsf(a)shermpendley.com>, > Sherm Pendley <spamtrap(a)shermpendley.com> wrote: > >>> There is no "other side", a fact which >> >> ... is a belief, not a fact. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. > > The fact is that in all of recorded and oral histories, there has been no > evidence of an other side. It's a human concept, invented to "explain" and "comfort." > Occam's Razor leads me to conclude that there is no other side. Occam's Razor is, however, no more a "fact" than is "the other side." > However, if there is an other side, we have no idea of which religion's > version of the other side it is, nor do we have any way of finding out. Even if there is, I seriously doubt that _any_ religion "has it right." How could it, unless its origins were based on "divine intervention." (Which brings us back to "explain" and "comfort.") In the meantime, the Western religions have a history of creating much human misery battling each other and converting the Heathens "in the name of God." And the other religions -- especially those of the "primitive" societies -- are laughed at and dismissed out of hand as being the product of simple peoples' imaginations. > Then there's Pascal's wager. If there isn't an other side, but we act as > if there were one, what harm has happened? But if there is an other side, > and we act as if there weren't, what will happen to use when we get there? > The folks who regularly play the Lottery use similar reasoning: "Since 'someone' has to win, why not buy a ticket?" > Considering Occam's Razor, though, I'll take that wager because I doubt > that God is the spoiled brat that's portrayed in the Bible. He (hmmm..."She?") sure has a massive ego, and (at one time, at least) expected Sacrificial Lambs in return for good favor. -- iMac (27", 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD) � OS X (10.6.3)
From: Nick Naym on 5 Apr 2010 16:50 In article slrnhrk7hl.2udv.ianji33(a)zenatode.org.uk, Ian Gregory at ianji33(a)googlemail.com wrote on 4/5/10 1:30 PM: > On 2010-04-05, Sherm Pendley <spamtrap(a)shermpendley.com> wrote: >> Ian Gregory <ianji33(a)googlemail.com> writes: >> >>> There is no "other side", a fact which >> >> ... is a belief, not a fact. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. > > Whatever. I believe that it is a fact. > > Ian Do you also believe in angels? -- iMac (27", 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD) � OS X (10.6.3)
From: Nick Naym on 5 Apr 2010 16:51 In article m2mxxhaiqy.fsf(a)shermpendley.com, Sherm Pendley at spamtrap(a)shermpendley.com wrote on 4/5/10 1:53 PM: > Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> writes: > >> In article <m2hbnp6gbe.fsf(a)shermpendley.com>, >> Sherm Pendley <spamtrap(a)shermpendley.com> wrote: >> >>>> There is no "other side", a fact which >>> >>> ... is a belief, not a fact. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. >> >> The fact is that in all of recorded and oral histories, there has been no >> evidence of an other side. > > As I said - absence of proof is not proof of absence. "Proof" conjures up the notion of a mathematical proof. It really doesn't apply here. > You believe that > there is no "other side," and as it happens I also believe that - but > that's belief, not fact. A fact, by definition, can be tested and proven > to be true. The absence of an afterlife is no more testable than the > presence of one. > There is very little "fact" that can be determined as such by testing. Those that can are what we would call "Nature's Laws." But even those are limited by our testing apparatus, and, therefore, not "absolute." > sherm-- -- iMac (27", 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD) � OS X (10.6.3)
From: Nick Naym on 5 Apr 2010 16:51 In article michelle-72C0D7.11025705042010(a)news.eternal-september.org, Michelle Steiner at michelle(a)michelle.org wrote on 4/5/10 2:02 PM: > In article <m2mxxhaiqy.fsf(a)shermpendley.com>, > Sherm Pendley <spamtrap(a)shermpendley.com> wrote: > >>> The fact is that in all of recorded and oral histories, there has been >>> no evidence of an other side. >> >> As I said - absence of proof is not proof of absence. You believe that >> there is no "other side," and as it happens I also believe that - but >> that's belief, not fact. A fact, by definition, can be tested and proven >> to be true. The absence of an afterlife is no more testable than the >> presence of one. > > You're apparently forgetting about Occam's Razor. When something can > neither be proven nor disproven, there are other methods to determine which > is more likely. Or in this case, extemely likely. "Occam's Razor" was invented by a human being and, hence, strictly speaking is a prima facie principle. -- iMac (27", 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD) � OS X (10.6.3)
From: Nick Naym on 5 Apr 2010 16:51
In article m2bpdxah4z.fsf(a)shermpendley.com, Sherm Pendley at spamtrap(a)shermpendley.com wrote on 4/5/10 2:28 PM: > Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> writes: > >> In article <m2mxxhaiqy.fsf(a)shermpendley.com>, >> Sherm Pendley <spamtrap(a)shermpendley.com> wrote: >> >>>> The fact is that in all of recorded and oral histories, there has been >>>> no evidence of an other side. >>> >>> As I said - absence of proof is not proof of absence. You believe that >>> there is no "other side," and as it happens I also believe that - but >>> that's belief, not fact. A fact, by definition, can be tested and proven >>> to be true. The absence of an afterlife is no more testable than the >>> presence of one. >> >> You're apparently forgetting about Occam's Razor. > > No, just remembering the correct definition of the words "fact" and > "belief." > >> When something can >> neither be proven nor disproven > > ... that's when it becomes a question of belief, rather than fact. > > >> there are other methods to determine which >> is more likely. Or in this case, extemely likely. > > Occam's is a very reasonable basis upon which to form a belief, but > odds (no matter how high) are not proof. What would constitute "proof?" > > sherm-- -- iMac (27", 3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD) � OS X (10.6.3) |