Dear Dan,

>>You say that a programmer can create an algorithm that can create an output by itself while the programmer sits in the background. Yet you do not want to imply any parallel with this and deism.<<
There is a parallel, however my post was not about that but about the “if … then” part of your claim. I just gave a metaphor indicating that a counterexample to your “then” is thinkable, the deist model being just one of them. To avoid this kind of misunderstanding I added that “this is NOT TO CLAIM that its Author “just sits in the background” (deism)”.

Had you claimed that nobody in Melbourne speaks Turkish, producing a Melbournian who speaks Turkish would be a counterexample. If he happens to be left-handed that would not imply that all Turkish-speaking Melbournians are left-handed. Not all those who do not share Sagan’s belief are deist, I am one example.

>>Are we saying that God made the world in such as a way as to make it look as if he wasn’t involved?<<
No, but He wants us to THINK - read and contemplate not only His Book of Scripture but also His Book of Nature, a distinction (between bible and science) that became clear perhaps only since Galileo.

Another metaphor: The angels announced DIRECTLY the birth of the Messiah to the simple-minded shepherds, whereas the three wise men had to learn to READ THE SIGNS (to follow a star) to know Whom to look for and how to find Him.

You ask me what St. Paul “was looking at or referring to”. Maybe just what I wrote in the paragraph above.

AJ Philips,

>> the belief in Something that is not reducible to the physical. That’s fine. I don’t see a problem with that, and I agree that asking for evidence could be seen as tautological here<<
This is what I was repeatedly trying to say on this thread.

>> “I believe that Something not reducible to the physical exists, therefore Jesus.”<<
I don’t know who said that, not I.

thats ok aj/p...i often fail to grasp your replies/too

but i cant do anything about your's..
but can about mine/
but generally those..who dain to give me any reply...
say they dont get..'it'...either

yet fail say/..or define..
specificly what they fail to grasp

what..the it is/
they are claiming..to be failing/to get

take your loss of faith..[at 22/23]...
after being raised...'in'..the faith...
was begat of questions...that you couldnt get reply too

i had much the same conundrum...[at arround 35]...
but i was the oppisite to yours...

see i was raised/sans...without faith...
i was told all my life..there is no god...
if you want certainty...know the science/
confirm..reaffirm..'it'..for yourself

well i knew the science was flawed/
in fact had huge gaps...realised science was a sham...

much like you presumed your parental decree a sham...
the trouble is i was of science mind...
and your mind was built of faith/unquestioning

see i been raised from birth with the questioning...
you nessisarilly had to develop it much later...
but such is simply the fact of the matter

i suppose that explains..a bit of the root of our divergence/

i have been more into the actual/doing of experiments...
you/presumably more of the studious/book learning...
as is clearly revealed in our means of corrispondance

you look at words and see concepts
i look at words and see words...i dont know the meaning of/

this nesitates my reading/anything..to be laborious...
ie...with one eye on the book..
the other in the dictionary...
seeing what the word means

where you can imagine a certain shorthand meaning of a word or concept...like say marxism..or polyanna...or proof...
i need look at the dictionary...and often the thesorus...

just to get a visualisation
approximating what the auther
is trying to help us picture in our mind

see..we have a divergent way of seeing..the words

my mind does it scientificly/labouriously..
needing to confirm and affirm..every word of every line

yours can grasp a concept..with just one word

but what if this precondition is flawed?

continues

or has changed over time...

or the writer
means/intended..a divergent visualisation/meaning/context
than the word presented has given..maybe even beyond that intended

so much is relitive/...even..time specific..
and who is specificlly is conveying/what/to who...and why

only the words chosen/can give us a clue..or learning
often we look at simplifying this conundrum by the selecting/believing..via ongoing theme/or the standing of the auther

you to who name is everything...
must see that authority/believability varies between auther's
or even the topic speciality...a physicyst..is not an evolutionist

an accopuntant is not a global warming expert

and such is much that you trust/as science
wruitten by clever/writers..fopr outside reason

who payed for their authered petition/commision...work

some would say it is gods will
/and be in error

im the way i am because of the conditioning of my parentals..
as you must be...

then modified by society/peers
[of which i am outcast/and have none]..

but lets not make this a poor/me

i read/digested/tasted/seen
the words of the bible/torah/koran/bagda-vita..iching..swedenberg...
as well as the many other books i have labouriously read...

you may only have read the words..
with preconcieved/pre-conditioned eyes

i saw god in-between the gaps...thus may see differently..that you call science/or fact or evidence..but thats ok...

we each chose our life's incarnattion/specificlly...
though you may not know it

we all have life after death...
though you may chose to not think it so

see were different...
i envey you your certainty
you pity my ignorance...

i labouriously read your every uttering
and you cant allow yourself to comprehend
a single word i say

but thats ok...
i was born this way
so were you..just like god intended

in the end it only matters where we incarnate into next/time
i think i will return/rebirth..into your line...it has such certainty

Dear George,

Welcome to a new day.

In police shows sometimes the good guy returns fire at night fire at night with touch in hand. I understand that real police are very careful about doing this, as the crook can make the prima facie assumption that the police officer will be near the light. He/she will think there is a stronger likelihood of hitting the police officer by shotting near/at the (evidence) of the light, rather than shooting into the dark. That said, I agree matching God and non-God as equivalencies is compatible, yet would quickly add, “to be tested”:

Instead, if we were to say God, non-God or Mary Poppins. Only, with evidence can say that Mary is a fictional character: An investigator can show that she was authored and scores people have played Ms Poppins. This why I think comparison between Zeus (scriptural gods) and cosmology is in error.

On the other hand, self-creation without intervention and self-creation with intervention (sorry Dan) and a simple mechanical watchmaker designer are true competitors. Of the three, for me, the last is too anthropomorphic. So, I would stay with other two. I see neither to be good or bad; rather, tentative hypthotheses.

Regarding complexity, I was thinking of Gell-Man not Dawkins, wherein, comparing nothing to nothing is a simple rule (he didn’t use this case), comparing everything to everything is a simple rule. Having assumptions about what is connected to what is more complex: If we have twenty dots, having rules, where only 2/3rds of the dots are connected, this case is more complex than connecting all the dots, even though in the last case we have more paths.

Thanks for the maths correction. One can line-up rational and irrational numbers on the number line and count them. I was thinking of the rules governing the sets themselves: Where {all rational numbers} + {some irrational numbers} has a {set} on both sides of the operator: thus, more being complex in my naïve understanding. You are correct; I do not claim to have advanced expertise.
More later.

Dear AJ Phillips

>> You have asked what age I stopped believing before - when we were talking about creationism - but there’s no need to apologise. I’m actually glad you asked the question again because some theists may be wondering to themselves, “Ahhh, but what age were you when you stopped believing?” - as if such an important and powerful being would require maturity, intellect or sophistication to know them.

I was in my early 20’s. It’s hard to pin-point an exact time, as you would know, no one just wakes up and realises, “Hang on! God doesn’t actually exist!” But if I had to pin-point it, I would say I was 22-23. <<

I knew as soon as I started reading your post we were retreading the same ground. I appreciate your patience - as I have stated due to health my thinking is not of the precise clarity I aspire to. However, for newcomers to OLO it is helpful.

I find your posts interesting because you managed to retain a belief into the supernatural into early adulthood, therefore, your theological knowledge extends beyond my Sunday school classes and Religious Instruction I had to attend in both Primary and Secondary schools (secular schools). I have endeavoured to further my understanding of theology but in broader scope than just Christianity. Enough to know that all religions claim the one and only "truth". They can't all be right. And it is as far from humble as it is from compassionate to claim otherwise. I really don't see Jesus making such arrogant claims, he must be turning in his tomb as to where his teachings lead - would Jesus (if he ever existed) approve of the Nicean Creed drawn up over 3 centuries after his death?

Dear George

As I read these pages, I despair that you find more interest in corresponding with the brilliant and engaging Oliver rather than spending some time with your brethren who take a literalist interpretation of Christianity, for example the 6000 Y.O. Earth (which is very O.T.) along with belief in a resurrected preacher. While the exchanges between yourself and Oliver make for thoughtful reading, there is nothing to enlighten the more fundamentalist to an understanding of science. I know that science and religion can co-exist, however as science is the discipline that evolves, it behoves religion to keep up or become meaningless.