Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:35:00 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, tlambert@primenet.com, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal) Message-ID: <199711111935.MAA17390@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199711111836.TAA22576@bitbox.follo.net> References: <199711110620.XAA15169@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199711110645.XAA02334@usr03.primenet.com> <199711111652.JAA16566@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199711111836.TAA22576@bitbox.follo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > If you weren't predictive, I might claim you were schitzophernic until > > > you became predictive... any factually based model is predictive. > > > > Hearing from God != foretelling the future. > > However, if it isn't predictive, it is more-or-less uninteresting. I don't know, lots of people consider it pretty interesting when people know things about them that can't be ascertained except by 'divine insight'. (Not that it happens alot, but it does happen.) > It > doesn't give you information - information is predictive. It does give information, just not information that is completely predictable. Asking for 'scientific' provable information from human beings, let alone God (or gods) is asking for a chaotic system to become non-chaotic. You simply can't use scientific methods for systems who don't have predictable or consistant behavior. Claiming that something doesn't exist because it's not predictable is too simplistic of a model for the problem at hand. > OTOH, I believe information on India to be predictive - so far, no > country I've been told about as personal experience by more than 20 > people have failed to be there when I tried to visit it :-) I can give you hundreds of thousands of people who will give you personal experiences about God and his reality, yet will you choose to believe them? > I don't feel the need for a god to be able to describe the world, this > I don't introduce one. Just because your not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. *grin* Aka, just because you don't have a 'felt need' for God/gods doesn't mean he/she/it doesn't exist. That simple foolishness. > There are obvious changes in brain-chemistry that explain religious > ecstasy and other verifiable religious effects. There are also things that are completely beyond the realm of scientific understanding as well, that cannot be 'explained away'. For example, a recent "scientific" study on 'prayer' was given. There were two groups of 'ill/sick' patients, one the control group, the other group needs were given to a group of people who had no contact with the group, and the results were astonishing. The people who were prayed for had a significant better recovery rate than the control group, yet there was absolutely no contact between any of the members in the entire 'experiment'. How do you explain that? Bad testing, not a big enough experiment group, co-incidence, etc...? Not everything can be explained by scientific reasoning, hence the need for 'FAITH'. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711111935.MAA17390>