Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 01:02:25 +0100 (MET) From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no> To: "Pedro Giffuni S." <pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> Cc: perhaps@yes.no, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal) Message-ID: <199711120002.BAA23398@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: "Pedro Giffuni S."'s message of Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:54:17 %2B0000 References: <199711110620.XAA15169@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199711110645.XAA02334@usr03.primenet.com> <199711111652.JAA16566@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199711111836.TAA22576@bitbox.follo.net> <3468B7E9.5FB8A39D@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Eivind Eklund wrote: > > > > > > 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. It > > doesn't give you information - information is predictive. It might > > give you good feelings and "solutions to your problems", but noting > > that is relevant to the rest of the world. > > > I would consider the predictive part interesting...If you know you will > die betrayed and you will go to hell, but you can't avoid it...why > should you want to know in the first place? I wouldn't - but that isn't the level of prediction I'm talking about :-) If we should at all consider God as something to have as part of a scientific world-view, we need to be able to get a better model of the world from including Him - we need to be able to create better predictions on how the world will behave. Unless we can do that, whether to believe in Him is a purely personal question - there is nothing in the world to indicate that He exists. I'm not denying anybody's faith - I'm just saying that unless it can be used to create better predictions of the world, it is purely that - faith. Predictions is the only form of evidence that exists, for all of science, and all of our (true) perception. The belief in God is likely to go outside proof - He can't be disproved, but it seems unlikely that He will be proved anytime soon :-) > > I don't feel the need for a god to be able to describe the world, this > > I don't introduce one. > > Of course...God doesn't exist to describe the world !...He only created > it, we were left with the problem of keeping it working :-). ... which leaves us with the existence of God and mass psychosis being equally likely from the evidence of our senses, and mass psychosis explaining MORE, as it include all religions ;-) Eivind.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711120002.BAA23398>