# Polycarp did you forget to take you pills? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 3, 2003, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640 "2003-12-03T03:54:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/281 "2003-12-05T02:00:33Z")
> [@](#): > > In the case of supernatural events, though, we are talking about subjects with truth values of absolute zero. …. Neither belief has any probability at all of being true. Can we please see the calculations you used to come to this conclusion? I mean, how do you even start to calculate the probability of a supernatural event, like God manifesting tommorow? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/282 "2003-12-05T02:19:37Z")
**Truth** : the supernatural is by definition impossible. If it were possible it wouldn’t be supernatural. It’s not a low probability, it’s a zero probability. The reason we know that turning water into wine is impossible is not because we haven’t observed it but because it is impossible to create matter out of nothing (and the water-into-wine trick would involve the actual creation of new molecules not present in mere water. It’s not just a transformation it’s an act of _ex nihilo_ creation…among other things). matter cannot be created or destroyed. That is an inviolable law of physics. It can’t be done. Ever. **Blake** : That’s just my point. There is no statistical or mathematical way to calculate relative probabilities of impossible events. If something is impossible then _by definition_ it has zero chance of being possible. All such hypothetical phenomena are _equally_ impossible. There are no degrees of impossible. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/283 "2003-12-05T02:22:07Z")
Yes there is! The ultimate degree of impossible would be Diogenes voting for Bush in 2004. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/284 "2003-12-05T02:25:32Z")
Hmm…is there such a thing as a _negative_ probaility value? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/285 "2003-12-05T02:58:07Z")
You know, something can have a probability of zero and nonetheless happen, or a probability of one and nonetheless not happen. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/286 "2003-12-05T03:02:25Z")
Jesus will return on May 33rd. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/287 "2003-12-05T03:38:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > **Truth: > the supernatural is by definition impossible. If it were possible it wouldn’t be supernatural. It’s not a low probability, it’s a zero probability. The reason we know that turning water into wine is impossible is not because we haven’t observed it but because it is impossible to create matter out of nothing (and the water-into-wine trick would involve the actual creation of new molecules not present in mere water. It’s not just a transformation it’s an act of _ex nihilo_ creation…among other things). matter cannot be created or destroyed. That is an inviolable law of physics. It can’t be done. Ever.** There is more in heaven and earth, Diogenese, than is dreamt of in your philosophy. It’s hard to say what’s more impressive, your cluesnesses regarding physics, chemistry or logic. It’s like a trifecta of ignorance. I guess I’d have to go with “logic.” Your definition of “supernatural” simply creates a tautology. Using your definition, the statement “X is supernatural” never has a truth value of one. Look, try, just try, reading those cites I gave you. See if you can follow them. Admitedly, the second is a bit stiff but you ought to be able to handle the first one. You might even actually learn something, thereby proving for yourself that miracles really are possible. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Zahn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e0b2c6/32.png) [@John\_Zahn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Zahn)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/288 "2003-12-05T03:39:46Z")
> [@](#): > > I have a hunch that you really understand what he meant but are in fact being deliberately dense on this matter, John. > > Did I just say that it was a fact that you were being deliberately dense? Of course not. I said that was my hunch; by saying it was a hunch, I was admitting I could be wrong. > > A fact isn’t a fact “to whom”; it’s either true or it ain’t. “In fact” is an intensifier, a little bit of verbal detritus that creeps into language. It’s an adverbial phrase modifying the word “is” to mean, essentially, “really” or “very much”. I can agree with much of this, but not the part about either it’s true or it isn’t because it does matter to whom. A truth to a **lekatt** is different to him than a truth to James Randi, and it’s often going to be different for each person and even epistemologist’s, I’m sure, are going to have varying degrees of strong opinions on what it constitutes. Since the OP addresses some of Polycarp’s statements, I’m particularly interested in how much all of this is truth according to him. Says Polycarp: > [@](#): > > IMHO, He will make Himself known fairly soon, and in a way that nobody, including me, expects. Those who believe in Him will recognize Him from His teachings – but a lot of those who claim the Christian faith will reject Him because He will contradict the dogma they hold more precious than following Him. > > I have a very strong hunch that I do in fact know his identity – and his surname is already a household word. If I am correct, he is fairly short, a very handsome young man with dusky blonde hair and beautiful-but-insightful blue-green eyes, slightly disabled by a chronic heart-valve problem, in his late teens today. He will probably be accompanied by a companion since childhood, a dark-haired young man whose heart is given to him. Polycarp does give enough qualifiers in the quoted material from the OP to realize it isn’t some absolute fact or truth to him, but it is of little consequence to me for someone to admit that he might be mistaken, when he writes all of the stuff that was presented here. Just the thought that anyone would half-ass think they might be right with some of these statements of what reads like some prophetic vision, is still something I find bizarre. What he calls a “strong hunch” doesn’t give it any more respectability to me, and I fail to see how that would give anyone consolation either, after he went into some detail with this person’s features, to which he says he is going to name his identity soon. I know that if anyone else had written the same, many would have been accusing that person of being about 51 cards short of a full deck. And no, I’m not picking on Polycarp. Perish the thought. Did I fail to roll out the red carpet? Hell, I come here for the entertainment value. I’m sure Polycarp is every bit the fine person many people think he is that have met him. I only know what he writes here, and his opinions on religious or supernatural matters doesn’t cause me any harm in the least; nor does it cause me to dislike him even if I think some of what he writes is tommyrot. It is little concern for me if some skeptics want to give Polycarp veneration for his strong hunches, visions, or whatever one would like to call them. It is all fine and dandy with me, but I’ve seen this before, and guess I’m not as easily amused and intrigued as others. Perhaps, twenty years ago, I would have been. JZ ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/289 "2003-12-05T03:41:06Z")
> [@](#): > > You know, something can have a probability of zero and nonetheless happen Cite? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/290 "2003-12-05T04:18:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Truth Seeker \* > **There is more in heaven and earth, Diogenese, than is dreamt of in your philosophy.** Cite 🙂 > [@](#): > > **It’s hard to say what’s more impressive, your cluesnesses regarding physics, chemistry or logic. It’s like a trifecta of ignorance.** Tell me anything I’ve said which is incorrect about either physics or chemistry or logic. > [@](#): > > **I guess I’d have to go with “logic.” Your definition of “supernatural” simply creates a tautology. Using your definition, the statement “X is supernatural” never has a truth value of one.** It’s not a tautology so much as a truism. By empirical standards all “supernatural” events are impossible. The statement “X is supernatural” never _does_ have a truth value of one. That’s my point. Maybe, the problem is with the language here as the word “supernatural” is somewhat of a null term. If something exists, it is natural. The question is what is the probability that an event will disobey the normal laws of nature. Since the laws of physics can never be disobeyed (or they wouldn’t be laws) there is a prior probability of zero for any such hypothesized event. Look, is it safe to say that there is a zero probability that 2+2 will ever = 169? It’s the same principle. > [@](#): > > \*\*Look, try, just try, reading those cites I gave you. See if you can follow them. Admitedly, the second is a bit stiff but you ought to be able to handle the first one. You might even actually learn something, thereby proving for yourself that miracles really are possible. \*\* I read the first and tried to read the second. It seems to me like they’re talking about probabilities for events which obey the laws of physics. I didn’t see or at least didn’t comprehend anything about probabilities for events which violate those laws. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/291 "2003-12-05T04:24:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*Cite? 😉 \*\* Look at it this way. Supposing I throw a fair die. The odds that it will turn up six are one in six. If I throw it again, the odds that it will turn up six are one in thirty-six. The longer I throw it, the odds that the string of sixes will be unbroken approach zero. If I continue to throw it forever, the odds that the string of sixes will be unbroken is zero. However, it would violate no physical law for me to continue getting sixes forever. It is possible, even though the probability is zero. (Well, except for the part of me eventually losing interest or dying, but let’s not that get in the way of anything.) ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/292 "2003-12-05T04:25:33Z")
> [@](#): > > If I throw it again, the odds that it will turn up six are one in thirty-six. To be precise, I should have said, “The odds that it will turn up six twice in a row are one in thirty-six.” ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/293 "2003-12-05T04:26:43Z")
> [@](#): > > Since the laws of physics can never be disobeyed (or they wouldn’t be laws) there is a prior probability of zero for any such hypothesized event. Well, that’s a bit circular, isn’t it? Nothing can disobey a law of physics, because a law of physics is something that cannot be disobeyed. ---
**Author:** ![Scotticher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Scotticher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scotticher)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/294 "2003-12-05T04:31:16Z")
Well. I admit, when I stumbled upon this thread last night, I was stunned speechless right along with **DuckDuckGoose.** I, however, REMAINED stunned speechless. And to my shame, I was inclined to “weasel” out of it since no one had actually _asked_ for my opinion. It would have been easy to pretend that I never ever SAW this thread. Never have I EVER had to actually confront the fact that I am a wuss and so forth. I confronted it today. I would prefer to NOT be here. However, I don’t feel I can actually NOT say what I believe. I know that no one really cares about my opinion, but I don’t feel that I can sit here and shut up. First of all, here is an explanation of my belief system, originally expressed on the UnaBoard. > [@](#): > > The best description I can come up with for my faith is…I am a “Liberal Fundamentalist Christian.” [sub]quit lookin’ at me funny.[/sub] > > By which I mean, I do believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, written down by men, but by men directly inspired by God (sort of like dictation.) > > I also believe that God gave us a mind and a heart and some very direct commandments. I believe we are to use all of those things in intrepreting scripture that is not extremely clear and without ambiguity. And basically, until I can read the Bible in it’s original form, I will continue to use the greatest commandments to interpret the things I am not clear on. “And the greatest of these is…Love the Lord Your God with all your heart…” and…“Love thy neighbor as thyself.” (I don’t have time to get the chapter and verse, and I am probably misquoting…sorry.) And my own third greatest commandment “Judge NOT that ye be not judged.” Christ reiterated THAT one enough, and it is clear enough to ME, that I consider THAT one of the greatest commandments also. > > I struggle with all three, and until I am living them perfectly in my own life,\* I try not to be attempting to “remove the splinter from anyone else’s eye.” So to speak. > > \*and unfortunately, this isn’t going to happen any time soon. Or EVER, for that matter! Not 'til I get to Heaven. So, that is my “theology”. As to this thread…I love **Polycarp**. He is my friend, and I would do almost anything for him. I have a great deal of respect for him. He is a marvelous person, and a good friend. He exhibits a lot of the attributes that I would expect a Christian to have. However, I do not agree with him, apparently, on some very basic points. I thought we were in sync on most things…if this isn’t a “whoosh,” I was apparently very wrong. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I believe that He DID fulfil the Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament as the Messiah…in ways that are real and understandable…also, I understand why these Messianic prophecies were misunderstood by the people who were looking for an earthly King instead of a spiritual King. I DON’T however, find any ambiguity in the New Testament accounts that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. John the Baptist proclaimed that Jesus Christ was the son of God. When Christ was crucified, God Himself said “This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Now, if you don’t believe that the Bible is the word of God, of course you don’t believe this, …and that is your right, of course. So you can pretty much discount anything I have to say. Sobeit. But since I DO believe it is the Word of God, I take issue with my friend’s belief that Christ is living among us and just waiting for the right time to reveal himself. I find nothing ambiguous in the Bible in reference to the Second Coming of Christ. I find nothing that supports the notion that Christ will live among us THIS TIME until He finds the time right to reveal Himself. Everything I find in the Scripture says that the Second Coming of Christ will be a descent from the clouds, a very public descent from Heaven involving VERY obvious and spectacular pyrotechnics. Thunder and lightning, I suppose. I also, regretfully, agree with the poster who said that this person who **Polycarp** “has a hunch” is Christ is more likely the “antichrist” than the Christ. Well, I KNOW he isn’t the Christ, so I guess that leaves the antichrist. I know you all are going to jump all over me, but according to Scripture, the antichrist is going to appear to a LOT of people as Christ. I wouldn’t have thought it would be my friend who would be deceived, but then I am still stunned by his post to begin with, and I don’t have any idea what to say about that. So, I guess I have to say that although I wouldn’t have worded things exactly the way **DDG** did, I am essentially in agreement with her. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/295 "2003-12-05T04:32:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, I KNOW he isn’t the Christ, so I guess that leaves the antichrist. What about an average joe? ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/296 "2003-12-05T04:47:08Z")
Um, as much fun as the Polycarp pile-on must be for some of you, I’m curious. What extraordinary claim did he make? That he suspects something? Um. “have a hunch” isn’t a claim. It’s a gut level feeling. An emotion. If he said that Jesus made him happy, would he need a cite that he felt happy? Really, I expect this sort of behavior from Badchad, an obvious troll who has nothing better to do than follow his betters around, nipping at their ankles, but from some of the rest of you, I’m pretty surprised. ---
**Author:** ![Scotticher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Scotticher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scotticher)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/297 "2003-12-05T04:48:06Z")
Could very well be…some average joe who **Polycarp** sees as someone other than who he actually is. All I was saying is, if **Poly** thinks he is the Christ, and this person appears to BE the Christ, the only other thing that occurs to me is that this person might actually be the antichrist. I don’t know. I am still stunned, quite frankly, so I don’t really have an opinion. ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/298 "2003-12-05T04:53:26Z")
I find it fascinating that people who hear someone they trust suspect that someone is Christ immediately assume that he’s the Antichrist. I mean, seriously… is either one really more likely than the other? It’s like claiming that the moon is really made of Gorgonzola, and not green cheese as certain heretics would assert. Talk about quibbling. ---
**Author:** ![Scotticher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Scotticher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scotticher)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/299 "2003-12-05T04:55:05Z")
I’m sorry you feel that way, **Fenris.** I love **Polycarp.** I would NEVER support a “pile-on”. I love him, he is my friend. I just think he is wrong. Unless, after all, it was a “whoosh.” Oh, and my last post was in answer to Matt, not Fenris. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/300 "2003-12-05T04:58:02Z")
PS: ( **Scotti** and **DDG** and those who are expressing doctrinal differences are, of course, not what I was talking about in my earlier post.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640.md?page=16)