Polycarp did you forget to take you pills?

[Fenris]

Simulpost Scotti!

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

*Originally posted by matt_mcl *
**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.) **

Your probabilities are incorrect. Your odds are one in six every single time you throw the die. The die doesn’t care how many times you already threw it. Every time you throw it the odds are the same.

Even if the odds approached zero over an infinite amount of throws (which they wouldn’t) they could never actually reach zero. They could only get closer by infinite increments (think of it as infinite penalities in the red zone on a football field. You keep going half the distance infinitely without ever reaching the endzone.

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.

It’s a tautology the way you phrased it but since I was talking about calculating probabilities I had no other way to articulate what I meant. The fact that it is a tautolgy to say that there is zero probability that laws of physics can be disobeyed simply makes my point for me. Trying to calculate the probability of an impossible event is, in itself, irrational. It’s like trying to find out how many zeros will add up to one.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Scotti, you’re criticizing Poly for what you see as an unBiblical viewpoint yet you expressed at least two beliefs of your own that are not supported by the Bible. The first is that you think that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament expectations of the messiah. He did not. I don’t mean to be rude but I wonder if you actually know what the OT expectations were.

Secondly, you have speculated on that spectre known as the “antichrist,” yet you seem to be unaware of what that term actually meant in its Biblical context.

Maybe someone needs to do a little beam clearing here.

[Scotticher]

*Originally posted by MrVisible *
**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. **

Did you read what anyone actually SAID? NO ONE “immediately” assumed ANYTHING. Some of us applied what we know about the Bible to what was said. I know you don’t believe in the Bible, and that is your right. But since you don’t BELIEVE in the Bible, and since you don’t have a clue, apparently, about what Scripture SAYS… I would respectfully ask you to at LEAST read things here a bit more carefully before you express an opinion.

A) It doesn’t matter that a person we respect has stated a belief we don’t feel is Biblical.

B) We still respect our friend.

C) We don’t agree with him.

Is that clear enough?

[Scotticher]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**Scotti, you’re criticizing Poly for what you see as an unBiblical viewpoint yet you expressed at least two beliefs of your own that are not supported by the Bible. The first is that you think that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament expectations of the messiah. He did not. I don’t mean to be rude but I wonder if you actually know what the OT expectations were.

Secondly, you have speculated on that spectre known as the “antichrist,” yet you seem to be unaware of what that term actually meant in its Biblical context.

Maybe someone needs to do a little beam clearing here. **

I did NOT criticize Poly…I said I do not agree with him.

Perhaps you might want to point out to me what “beam” I need to clear?

And, I am VERY clear on both:

A) What the OT expectations of the Messiah were and why they weren’t seen to have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ

and

B) What the “antichrist” means.

If you have a differning opinion, which you apparently do… in either instance, I would be happy to hear it.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Scotti:

I don’t mean to be contentious about this, I really don’t. If you don’t like me cahracterizing uour post as “critical” I will at least say that I perceived a tone of disappointment. I will also say that the grounds for your disagreement (unBiblical beliefs) are a little disingenuous.

Here are the OT expectations for the Messiah with corresponding chapters and verses:

1.) He must be Jewish (Deut. 17:15).

2.) He must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10)

3.) He must be a direct male descendant of David. (2 Sam. 7:12-13)

4.) He will return all exiled Jews to Israel (Isaiah. 11:12)

5.) He will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. (Ezek. 37:26 - 27)

6.) He will bring world peace. (Micah 4:3)

7.) All Jews will follow God’s commandments. (Ezek, 37: 24)

8.) The world will acknowledge one God. (Isaiah 66:23)

Of all these conditions, Jesus meets the first one for sure and maybe the second. That’s it, unless you disbelieve the Virgin Birth in which case he might meet condition 3 (but that would be un Biblical, wouldn’t it?)

Let’s just add that there was no expectation that he would be divine, that he would be murdered or that he would be a redeemer of sins. None of that is in the OT.

As for the antichrist. The word appears in the Bible four times, all in the Epistles of John. Here they are:

1 John 2:18
Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.
1 John 2:22
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist–he denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 4:3
but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
2 John 1:7
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
The antichrist is not to be confused with the Beast of revelation and the word “antichrist” does not even appear in that book.

“Antichrist” was a decsriptor, not a title, and it was John’s way of referring either to apostates or to anyone who was perceived as an enemy of Christ. It has no supernatural or futuristic connotations and there is no prophesy anywhere in scripture about a diabolical supervillain called the “antichrist” who will pop up at the endtimes. To speculate that a living person is “the” antichrist is just as unBiblical as speculating that he is Christ.

[matt_mcl]

Your probabilities are incorrect. Your odds are one in six every single time you throw the die. The die doesn’t care how many times you already threw it. Every time you throw it the odds are the same.

You are not thinking in terms of rolling a given sequence of numbers, which is what we are trying to do here (6, 6, 6, 6…) You do not have a one in six chance of rolling your phone number. Likewise, you do not have a one in six chance of rolling 6-6-6-6-6-6-6.

The odds of rolling any single given combination of numbers is six to the power of how many numbers there are in the combination.

Consequently, the limit of the probability of rolling 6 x times in succession is 0, as x approaches infinity; if x is infinity (I said, “what are the odds of rolling 6 forever?”), then the odds are zero. But it could still happen.

It’s a tautology the way you phrased it but since I was talking about calculating probabilities I had no other way to articulate what I meant. The fact that it is a tautolgy to say that there is zero probability that laws of physics can be disobeyed simply makes my point for me. Trying to calculate the probability of an impossible event is, in itself, irrational. It’s like trying to find out how many zeros will add up to one.

You are saying that a physical law is a law that can’t be broken. Fine. But then we have to go on to identify a number of statements as physical laws. X is a physical law is a claim that could either be true or false.

That’s why “physical laws” are still falsifiable. “X may or may not be always true” and “X may or may not be a physical law” are equivalent statements, if you are saying, “X is a physical law iff X is always true.” So really, all you’re doing is saying that if I thought X is a physical law, and I observe a counter-instance, X must not be a physical law in the first place.

You don’t want to admit, “We can’t know that physical law X is always true.” You say, “Physical laws are always true.” But how do you know that a given one of what we call physical laws is indeed a bona fide “physical law” by your definition?

The question can still be posed.

[litost]

Truth Seeker

In Bayesian statistics, can an user assign a non-zero prior probability that 2 + 2 can turn out to be 5? Or that aliens have existed? Or that Bush is an alien?

If yes, where is the evidence/event for any of the above that allows for their posterior probabilities to be different?

I guess Diogenes is assigning a zero prior probability to each of the events. A prob. of zero is allowed, isn’t it? (trivial, yes but allowed)

[matt_mcl]

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.

The person could be an exceptionally Christlike ordinary person, right? Aren’t all Christians called to imitate Christ? Why would it be unexpected that the young man (assuming he is Christian) could possibly attain a striking success in that regard, without being either Christ or the/an Antichrist?

[matt_mcl]

In Bayesian statistics, can an user assign a non-zero prior probability that 2 + 2 can turn out to be 5? Or that aliens have existed? Or that Bush is an alien?

It seems to me that “2+2=5” is a horse of a different colour, because in this case it treats not of verifiable facts about the world, but rather of our definitions of things. I would argue that there is a non-zero probability that aliens have landed or that Bush is an alien, but there is no probability (not “a probability of 0”) that 2+2=4 for the same reason that there is no probability that a bachelor is married.

[litost]

*Originally posted by matt_mcl *
It seems to me that “2+2=5” is a horse of a different colour, because in this case it treats not of verifiable facts about the world, but rather of our definitions of things. I would argue that there is a non-zero probability that aliens have landed or that Bush is an alien, but there is no probability (not “a probability of 0”) that 2+2=4 for the same reason that there is no probability that a bachelor is married.

Fine. Leave out the 2+2=5 for now. Why can’t I assign a zero probability to both the alien scenarios. As a Bayesian, that could be my best subjective guesses for the priors.

[matt_mcl]

Sorry, that was a little oracular. What I meant was that AFAIK, only things that could be facts have probabilities. I don’t think you can really discuss probabilities for a definition, which is what 2+2=4 is.

[matt_mcl]

Fine. Leave out the 2+2=5 for now. Why can’t I assign a zero probability to both the alien scenarios. As a Bayesian, that could be my best subjective guesses for the priors.

I have to admit, I’m talking out of my ass w.r.t. Bayes, whom I don’t know from Adam’s off ox. It seems to me, though, in a layman-ish sort of way, that there is a non-trivial, non-zero probability that aliens have existed (given the size of the universe, yadda yadda yadda). I would guess the probability of Bush’s being an alien substantially lower. (The same does not go for certain members of the Canadian Alliance.)

[MrVisible]

*Originally posted by Scotticher *
A) It doesn’t matter that a person we respect has stated a belief we don’t feel is Biblical.

B) We still respect our friend.

C) We don’t agree with him.

Is that clear enough?

Perfectly clear. You’re saying that he’s not following the rulebook when he claims the moon is Gorgonzola, because your interpretation of the rulebook insists it’s green cheese.

Me, I just don’t like your rulebook.

[litost]

matt_mcl,

Precisely. Those are your subjective numbers which differ from DtC’s. (You have to account for the latter’s cynicism).

I see Truth Seeker as arguing two different points:

1. That there can be varying degrees of belief.
2. That the alien scenarios have non-zero probs.

IMH interpretation, in Diogenes’s subjective world, both alien scenarios have zero prob. Trivial, yet allowed as per the basic laws of probability. Thus, to him, there is no varying degree of belief with regard to the scenarios posed.

[moriah]

The OT prophecy of the Messiah did not accurately predict how Jesus would fulfill that prophecy, therefore, the NT prophecies of Jesus’ return are not reliable guides.

That’s a convincing argument if it weren’t for this: The NT prophecies of how “The Son of Man will come in glory” are from Jesus himself, not some OT prophet. You think Jesus would be a little more accurate about his return than the prophets were at his first appearance.

Polycarp is not a fundamentalist. At least he does not come across as one. As a mainline Christian who keeps up on his scriptural scholarship, he should know that OT prophecy of the the coming of the Messiah was not really meant to accurately predict the details of Jesus’ coming half a millenium in the future. And he should know that Jesus’ own words call for a higher trust-level in their veracity than the OT prophets’.

What are the NT prophecies of the ‘Second Coming’?

There is nothing, absolutely nothing about reincarnation. The Son of Man comes in glory, not as a child. Only a fundamentalist (and again, Polycarp isn’t supposed to be a fundie) reading of the birth in Revelation would apply that to a reincarnation of the Christ.

Only the eschatological mythology of fundamentalism dreams up incarnations for the second coming Christ and the anti-Christ. And as Diogenes points out, only a fundie could warp scripture to superimpose the enemies of the Christ (therefore, ‘anti-’ ‘christs’) with the mythical Beast of Revelation.

From the eschatological remarks of Jesus already quoted in this thread, we hear that there will be rumors of war and people saying “It is I!” but that will not be the end. Therefore, Poly’s assessment that he sees the world-wide signs of imminent parousia are suspect, OK, they’re just plain wrong.

Jesus makes it very clear that the signs at the end will be unmistakeable and he’ll appear in glory, not secretively.

Re-incarnation

Poly, are you freaking insane? Teenage Jesus all over again? And I suppose you are one of the elders of the Temple astounded at the boy’s wisdom and understanding? And from that alone you deduce he’s the re-incarnated Son of God? Remember, Jesus’s neighbors were unimpressed with the son of the carpenter growing up in their midst. But you’ve spotted him even before his time to reveal himself? Right.

What the hell happened to his first body. You know, the resurrected one in hypostatic union with the Godhead? Did the Second Person of the Trinity just slough it off to take up a new body, a new human mind, a new human soul, a new human will?

So now, instead of two natures in one Person, we now have two natures in two Persons? Should we add another Person to the Trinity? Or is it two human natures and one divine nature in one divine Person? Is the Second Person simply jumping from body to body and you are now a Docetist?

Polycarp is a good man.

You most certainly are. I’ve respected everything you’ve ever posted in the past. But this thing is lunacy.

badchad has finally vindicated himself.

No, badchad is still a dick whose jones for persecuting Polycarp makes him look like a fucking moron, even when he’s finally right for a change.

Peace.

[moriah]

Oh, two more things:

1. Perhaps Polycarp had a really bad cold a few years ago, and while under the effects of cough medicine, saw this movie. where we find that: “Second Coming” focuses on a biracial gay teenager named Carlos, who joins a group of youths challenging the fundamentalist Christian regime. Carlos owes his political awakening to a bright Jewish classmate, Ben, who also becomes his boyfriend.
2. You thread hijackers who are getting off on epistemological arguments of arithmetical logistics… get the hell out and start your own GD thread. (And by GD, I don’t mean Great Debates.)
   Peace.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

*Originally posted by matt_mcl *
**You are not thinking in terms of rolling a given sequence of numbers, which is what we are trying to do here (6, 6, 6, 6…) You do not have a one in six chance of rolling your phone number. Likewise, you do not have a one in six chance of rolling 6-6-6-6-6-6-6.

The odds of rolling any single given combination of numbers is six to the power of how many numbers there are in the combination.

Consequently, the limit of the probability of rolling 6 x times in succession is 0, as x approaches infinity; if x is infinity (I said, “what are the odds of rolling 6 forever?”), then the odds are zero. But it could still happen.**

You’re imposing an artificial sequence on the die tossing. No amount of prior tossing can effect the results of a subsequent toss. The probability always “resets” to one in 6 each time you flip it. The die has no memory. If you flip a coin a million times and get a millions heads, the next time you flip it you still have a fifty-fifty chance of getting heads.

This still doesn’t matter because we’re talking about events with zero probablity. The odds of flipping a million heads in arow is astronomocally low but there will never be a zero chance of flipping it again.

**You are saying that a physical law is a law that can’t be broken. Fine. But then we have to go on to identify a number of statements as physical laws. X is a physical law is a claim that could either be true or false.

That’s why “physical laws” are still falsifiable. “X may or may not be always true” and “X may or may not be a physical law” are equivalent statements, if you are saying, “X is a physical law iff X is always true.” So really, all you’re doing is saying that if I thought X is a physical law, and I observe a counter-instance, X must not be a physical law in the first place.

You don’t want to admit, “We can’t know that physical law X is always true.” You say, “Physical laws are always true.” But how do you know that a given one of what we call physical laws is indeed a bona fide “physical law” by your definition?

The question can still be posed. **

I agree, sort of. “Impossibility” is only defined by physical laws, but we are talking about relative degrees of impossibility and if two events are both precluded by physical laws, then they both have to start with the same prior probability. I say the prior is zero but even if you want to say that it’s non-zero there is still no way to calculate a difference in the posterior probabilities. The events are equally impossible, that is, they are equally precluded by physical laws and since there is no way to know which physical laws have a non-zero chance of being “absolute” as it were, there is no process by which we can say that one event is more or less “plausible” than the other event.

Jesus in the sky has the same prior probability as Jesus as Timberlake, whether you assign that probality as zero or non-zero (the only choices available to us) there is no way to rationally conclude that one is more likely to be true than the other through Bayesian statistics.

[iampunha]

Someone somewhere (I think it was badchad. Just a hunch;)) asked what the difference was between “I think this is the guy” and “if the guy’s down here, i think it’s this guy” … and even a difference between “I think this guy could do it” and “I think it’s this guy”, though I’m not sure I can explain what I see as the difference between the last two.

There is a substantial difference between the first two, I think, but one that can easily be missed if one is mentally preoccupied. Because “if the guy’s not down here, then nevermind” is the other side we can draw (again, assuming I grokked Poly’s post correctly) from the second statement. There is less room for error in “this is the guy”.

The difference between “I think it’s this guy” and “I think this guy could do it” is most noticeable in the area of potential.

I am rather eager to see Poly’s subsequent posts on this.

[matt_mcl]

What are the NT prophecies of the ‘Second Coming’?

There is nothing, absolutely nothing about reincarnation. The Son of Man comes in glory, not as a child.

You don’t find children glorious? </ha-ha-only-serious>

Jesus makes it very clear that the signs at the end will be unmistakeable and he’ll appear in glory, not secretively.

Um, if I go into a nightclub through the back entrance, slink to my dressing room swathed in a large black trenchcoat without anyone seeing me, put on my skin-tight dress and feathered wig, and then burst onto stage lip-synching to 99 Luftballons with every spotlight on me, one could argue that I have both come secretly and, later, appeared in glory.

But you’ve spotted him even before his time to reveal himself? Right.

No, he said he thought he had.

What the hell happened to his first body. You know, the resurrected one in hypostatic union with the Godhead? Did the Second Person of the Trinity just slough it off to take up a new body, a new human mind, a new human soul, a new human will?

Who says he couldn’t have a different body with the same mind, soul, and will? We are talking God here, right?

Or is it two human natures and one divine nature in one divine Person? Is the Second Person simply jumping from body to body and you are now a Docetist?

Why couldn’t the kid actually have Christ’s body, with which the current mother’s womb would have been seeded, allowing the same body to grow anew? (Hell, we’ve gotten this far for the sake of argument… why stop? I’m having a good time.)