Key word here is “presumed”. Once you are presuming things, you have a value on the strength of that presumption, which is not identical in all cases.
(My position here is summed up excellently by LHoD in his post of 9:21 AM - except, of course, his penultimate paragraph ;))
FTR - now that I see that it has become an issue - I don’t think Polycarp’s belief, strange as it is, calls his sanity into question in the slightest way. Everyone is entitled to a strange belief or two (as long as it’s not too strange).
Kalhoun, not meaning to jump your butt here, too, but, really, your post WAS kind of hard to read, all those hyphens and things, makes it hard to figure out where the person you’re quoting leaves off and your own personal two cents begins.
Just put the text you want to quote in between [ quote] at the beginning of it and [ /quote] at the end (slash quote meaning “end quote”). (And leave out the couple of extra spaces I put in after the first brackets, in this example, so it wouldn’t make a quote.)
It’s not absolutely graven in stone that you have to have all that “Originally posted by” italicized stuff. It helps, especially in multi-page threads, but just do whatever you can by way of quoting code, we’ll all thank you for it.
Then use Preview to make sure the coding “made”.
Also, if you’re in the regular Reply window that you get when you click on Reply (Note: it’s not the Quick Reply window at the bottom of the thread), you can click on the Quote button, up at the top of the window, underneath BIU SIZE FONT COLOR and next to http:// @ IMG # PHP List–see where it says Quote? Click on that and it’ll bring up a window for you to Copy and Paste your text into. And if it annoyingly doesn’t all turn out to fit (use Preview to check), just Delete whatever size chunk it DID copy and hit Control-V again, to paste it all in there properly.
Oh yeah, right; everybody always says “the sun’s always there for you” but just try washing your car or putting out laundry and see what happens!
::bitterly:: There is no sun…
If you’re not going to declare a “black or white” as to Biblical authority then you’re in the realm of cherry picking and arbitrary assertions. These “very good scholarly reasons” which you allude to for putting more stock in the words of Jesus are, in fact, not very good at all if you really examine them. There are decent scholarly reasons to designate some of Jesus’ words as authentic (about 20-25%) there are better reasons to regard the bulk of them as inauthentic. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, Jesus didn’t say half the stuff he said (or in this case about three quarters). Some of the most unreliable words attributed to Jesus are those in which he seems to declare his own divinity.
To examine your “…Son of Man will come in glory…” quote, it should be pointed out that the use of the phrase “Son of Man” as a designator for the Messiah is anachronistic. “Son of man” did not mean Messiah in first century Hebrew or Aramaic idiom. That was a reinterpretation made by Greek Christians. The fact that “Son of Man” did not mean “Messiah” at the time and place that Jesus is said to have used it puts it out of play as an authentic saying.
That means the Gospels, and the claims made by their authors as to the words of Jesus, are no more inherently reliable than anything in the OT.
The sun has changed my life. It helped nurture the crops I ate. It grew the hamburger plant, the Free French fry,* and the hot dog. Without the sun, our planet would just zing off into space. Sure, that’s cool in a special effects sort of way. I don’t think I have enough warm clothes.
*We don’t eat Vichy or Ba’athist sympathizing fries around here, mister.
Even if you want to assign a prior probability of non-zero, my point is that there is no way to calculate a difference in probabilties between two hypothetical “supernatural” events. How does one conclude that one event which violates the laws of physics (whether they are absolute or not) has any better or worse chance of occuring than another? By what process can we determine different priors?
Once again, how do you calculate a difference in the presumptions. You can say that the value of the presumption is not the same (and I’m not quite sure how you quantify a “presumption” but you can’t say what those values are.
Simple: the more of our guesses about the universe we’d have to throw out, the less likely the scenario is.
Proposition A: The messiah walks amongst us.
What do we have to toss? We have to toss the idea that there’s no omnipotent being in the universe who meddles in human affairs.
Proposition B: The messiah walks amongst us, and that dude with the flashing text on his website is the messiah.
What do we have to toss? We have to toss the idea that there’s no omnipotent being in the universe who meddles in human affairs, AND the idea that an omnipotent being would know better than to use flashing text on His website.
Proposition B is therefore less likely, even though proposition A also requires us to reorganize our thoughts about the universe.
It’s sort of a reverse Occam’s razor.
That said, while I may disagree with you on the general principle (or maybe not – this may just be semantics), I agree with you on the specific: once a person’s reorganized their understanding of the universe to accommodate an omnipotent being who interferes in human affairs, it doesn’t seem to me like much of a step to say that a particular person is an incarnation of said omnipotent being. And it’s a much smaller step to suspect that a person is such an incarnation.
Izzy, it’s a strange day when I’m mostly agreeing with an ultra-Orthodox Jew on metaphysics :). That said, my penultimate paragraph is referring to MY best guess; on such matters, our best guesses are bound to diverge, and I’ve got no problem with that. I ain’t, after all, omniscient, and Could Very Well Be Wrong.
Don’t see your point here. Of course you can’t calculate the likelihood of either being true, let alone the difference between them. But this applies to all sorts of things, of varying degrees of likelihood.
I am reasonably certain that it’s more likely that my older car will break down than that my newer one will, but I couldn’t tell you the likelihood of either happening, or the difference between them.
What you seem to be getting confused with is that you are taking the fact that as a practical matter you treat very unlikely scenarios as being zero probability to be the equivalent of actual zero probability. It is not.
I’m only talking about calculating different probabilities for events which are prima facia impossible (“impossible” being defined as that which violates the laws of physics, such as they are) or if you’d rather, different probabilities for hypothetical supernatural events.
Whether or not they have zero probability is not the issue. What I’m saying is that there is no way to determine if they have different probabilities.
