How do you plan to measure complexity?

[AlNg]

I don’t mind “rational” because they are the ratio of the numerator and denominator. I agree that irrational is not a good description.

In mathematics, irrational simply means a number which cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers.

 

[Gorgias]

Orders to undertake a pre-emptive strike? Given by an omnipotent God? Seriously?

Wouldn’t He be precisely the only one to know that an attack is coming from them? Anybody else would just be guessing… but God would know.

Nope. You’ve lost me. Sorry. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Seems to make perfect sense.

 

[Gorgias]

Except that none of those disprove the claim that it was due to the inattention of the guardian angels.

Rather, they prove that other, empirically measurable events caused it.

The enumeration of the physical events does not say anything about the underlying causative principles, which provide the “explanation” for the event.

Is this coming from your ideas about there being no such thing as volitional actions being causative? If so, I can safely ignore your rebuttal. If not, then I’m not sure how you can say (outside of some sort of Hume-esque denial of cause and effect – which would destroy your whole argument here about the value of measuring complexity!) that there’s no demonstration of cause…

Moreover, it was YOU, who asserted that the expression “let there be light” provides an explanation for the world. Now you wish to change this phrase to an allegory - and no allegory can provide an explanation for a physical event. Just getting deeper into your hole?

No. It’s just that I can defend against both of your arguments. Claim one, and I have a defense. Claim the other, and I have a defense. If you’re playing both ends, you can’t castigate someone for defending both…

I am not interested in some nebulous “context”

Clearly. Then, please, leave literary interpretation to those who are.

I am happy to accept Jesus’ words at their face value.

Yes: your approach is called ‘proof-texting’, and is well-known to be a poor approach to understanding Scripture.

If we commit a genocide, that is evil, if God does it, it is not evil… it is the expression of his love toward the drowned ones.

hahahahahaha!

You might want to re-read your playbook. Usually, this case is made in order to disprove claims about God’s goodness, not to make assertions for it! Talk about “all hat, no cattle!”

 

[Gorgias]

Are you telling me that your omnipotent God has less mercy for the unborn

Umm… which ‘unborn’ are you talking about?

 

[Gorgias]

o_mlly:

Wait a minute! Plants are living things. If the quote is correct, a good Buddhist can only be a scavenger.

Milk.

rossum

So, milking a cow does no injury to it?

 

[rossum]

Umm… which ‘unborn’ are you talking about?

The unborn children of all the pregnant women drowned in the flood. The unborn children of all the pregnant women slaughtered in the conquests of Jericho, Ai and the other Canaanite cities on the orders of God. The unborn children of all the pregnant Amalekite and Midianite women slaughtered on the orders of God.

Those unborn children.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Leave a cow unmilked and it will be in pain. Why do you think women use breast pumps?

rossum

 

[o_mlly]

Milk.

Yes, a dairy cow’s life ends in slaughter, just as the beef cow’s does. … Given how much longer the dairy cow lives, and that cows raised for beef do not have their babies stolen from them every year: it would seem, in fact, there is more cruelty in a glass of milk. Aug 26, 2014
Is There More Cruelty in a Glass of Milk or Pound of Beef? - One …
www.onegreenplanet.org/.../is-there-more-cruelty-in-a-glass-of-milk-or-pound-of-beef/

 

[o_mlly]

Leave a cow unmilked and it will be in pain. Why do you think women use breast pumps?

The pain is caused by man, not nature. To exploit the animal’s reproductive products, the cow is artificially inseminated annually. A non-pregnant cow gives no milk.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Orders to undertake a pre-emptive strike? Given by an omnipotent God? Seriously?

Wouldn’t He be precisely the only one to know that an attack is coming from them? Anybody else would just be guessing… but God would know.

Nope. You’ve lost me. Sorry. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Seems to make perfect sense.

That He would undoubtedly have known is a function of his omnicience. That He is omnipotent means He could have solved the problem literally any way He wanted. He could have turned their weapons to dust. He could have turned anyone leaving their town to a pillar of salt. He could have surrounded their forces with burning bushes.

Yet the solution the all loving God came up with was to have women and children hacked to death.

I’ve been to Cambodia. I’ve been to the killing fields. I’ve stood in a place where this type of thing happenened. They called that a solution too. Just like they did in Sarajevo. Just like Nanking. Just like Treblinka.

 

[o_mlly]

I wonder what you mean by the word “real and unreal” in this context. The two words: “real” and “imaginary” are the two worst expressions ever invented in mathematics. Right next to the “rational” and “irrational” numbers.

Still, the child’s “imaginary” friend remains unreal. And everything the “imaginary” friend does is also unreal.

 

[Gorgias]

Leave a cow unmilked and it will be in pain. Why do you think women use breast pumps?

My point exactly. So… turn a cow into a dairy farm animal, requiring constant milking, and then, if you’re late in milking, it’s in pain. What was that again about “avoiding injury to living things”, that becomess the peril a Buddhist dairy farmer places his cows in?

(Oh… and let’s not forget where veal comes from: the male calves born to dairy farmers, who have no need for them. So, the by-product of our happy Buddhist’s dairy farm is much, much veal. So… )

Yet the solution the all loving God came up with was to have women and children hacked to death.

Except… did that really happen? The example usually trotted out is of a people who, after having been “ethnically cleansed”, show up again in the time of David, so… it never happened.

 

[Bradskii]

rossum:

Leave a cow unmilked and it will be in pain. Why do you think women use breast pumps?

My point exactly. So… turn a cow into a dairy farm animal, requiring constant milking, and then, if you’re late in milking, it’s in pain. What was that again about “avoiding injury to living things”, that becomess the peril a Buddhist dairy farmer places his cows in?

(Oh… and let’s not forget where veal comes from: the male calves born to dairy farmers, who have no need for them. So, the by-product of our happy Buddhist’s dairy farm is much, much veal. So… )

Yet the solution the all loving God came up with was to have women and children hacked to death.

Except… did that really happen? The example usually trotted out is of a people who, after having been “ethnically cleansed”, show up again in the time of David, so… it never happened.

So it never happened? Yet made perfect sense to you just a few minutes ago?

Stop digging…

 

[rossum]

So it never happened? Yet made perfect sense to you just a few minutes ago?

Stop digging…

I wish some people would make their minds up. Do we file the Bible under Fiction or Non-fiction? uzzled:

rossum

 

[Gorgias]

So it never happened? Yet made perfect sense to you just a few minutes ago?

The ethnic cleansing that so enrages you never happened.

The battle? Yes, it happened… and it seems to have had the desired effect – they aren’t recorded as having waged war on Israel subsequently.

I wish some people would make their minds up. Do we file the Bible under Fiction or Non-fiction?

We file it under “collection of books of various genres.” Glad I could clear that up for you…

 

[Sophia]

Not true because science studies viruses and there is no clear and unambiguous definition of living being which will determine whether a virus is living or not.

All that proves is that the living-inanimate distinction is an imprecise, hazy dichotomy. Just like the “simple-complicated” distinction.

It is simple. The definition is simple and easy to understand.

Only for those who are familiar with mathematics. And that is the whole point. I met some people who were unable to comprehend the concept of “percent”. Or the concept of “negative numbers”. “Minus one pound of meat”? What is that, they said…

Rather, they prove that other, empirically measurable events caused it.

Nonsense. Empirical methods cannot DISPROVE the supernatural “explanation”, however, they can make the supernatural “explanation” unnecessary, superfluous.

Clearly. Then, please, leave literary interpretation to those who are.

Why should I? If the church is silent on a matter, then the literal interpretation “wins” over the unsupported speculations.

You might want to re-read your playbook. Usually, this case is made in order to disprove claims about God’s goodness, not to make assertions for it!

That is right. With the correct “interpretation” and quote-mining technique anything and its opposite can be proven based upon the Bible. Some apologists argued that allowing small children to die is the sign of God’s mercy, because - had they been allowed to grow up, they (probably, likely, certainly) would have committed some mortal sins and would have condemned themselves to eternal damnation.

You really should educate yourself about the intricacies of Catholicism, because your ignorance is appalling.

Still, the child’s “imaginary” friend remains unreal. And everything the “imaginary” friend does is also unreal.

I was talking about mathematics. The words “real” and “imaginary” (along with “rational” and “irrational”) have a very specific, and well defined meaning in mathematics.

I wish some people would make their minds up. Do we file the Bible under Fiction or Non-fiction? uzzled:

In the libraries they are under the “fiction”, though using a euphemism instead the real word. Why are you surprised about their wishy-washy approach. Standard “explanation” method of those who are so uninformed that they believe that everyone else is also uneducated.

 

[Gorgias]

Why should I? If the church is silent on a matter, then the literal interpretation “wins” over the unsupported speculations.

Except that the Church isn’t silent on the matter.

You really should educate yourself about the intricacies of Catholicism, because your ignorance is appalling.

Oh, the irony…

 

[Sophia]

Except that the Church isn’t silent on the matter.

But it is. The church cannot even tell the fate of the unbaptized children, or the fate of all those who were born before Jesus.

Oh, the irony…

And your self-adulation is hilarious. This "Glad I could clear that up for you… " (which you keep on repeating like a broken record), is like all the Pharisees banging their chest with a half-brick and shouting: “Do you see how humble I am? Do you see how pious I am?” I suggest you follow the teachings of Jesus, where he spoke about the mote and the plank in your eye.

 

[Vonsalza]

Bradskii:

So it never happened? Yet made perfect sense to you just a few minutes ago?

Stop digging…

I wish some people would make their minds up. Do we file the Bible under Fiction or Non-fiction? uzzled:

rossum

I’d stick it right next to wherever you file your copy of The Tripitaka.

As an additional thought, don’t your eastern schools of logic also allow “neither” and “both” as answers to dichotomy?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So it never happened? Yet made perfect sense to you just a few minutes ago?

The ethnic cleansing that so enrages you never happened.

You need to read Samuel 15. Saul killed everyone except some sheep and oxen. And God was really, really annoyed. He wanted everything killed, as well as women and children.

But as you say, you can’t trust anything in the bible to be true.