Re: ICR/AIG claims

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (
Date: Wed Sep 10 2003 - 00:32:55 EDT

  • Next message: Sarah Berel-Harrop: "Re: An interesting Poll from Zogby"

    If you read what I posted you will find that I said nothing about finding
    God. I referred to deliberate misleading as not being truthful (AKA
    lying), whether by human beings or by a purported deity. (Sorry that I
    had a problem and could not include the relevant statement from Burgy. It
    would have helped.) At to "finding God," "The heavens declare..." and
    "The fool hath said..." strongly indicate that there is no sure evidence
    for the deity in nature. Further, I firmly believe in fallibilism and
    recognize that, even apart from Goedel's Theorem, our finitude precludes
    our finding many answers, most of them tentative. Consequently, THE
    source for information about the deity is revelation, especially the Word
    revealed in the canonical scriptures.

    On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 23:52:14 -0400 "Jay Willingham"
    <> writes:
    > We see through a glass darkly...
    > This position seems to assume that current perception devices and
    > the
    > interpretations of the data from them parse creation thin enough to
    > "find
    > God" if he's there.
    > Man's technological development was thought to have reached its
    > zenith in
    > Queen Victoria's day as well.
    > To me, even our most impressive technological developments are just
    > scratching the surface of the physical realm, to say nothing of the
    > spiritual. Remember the East Indian parable of the blind men and
    > the
    > elephant?
    > Jay Willingham
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <>
    > To: <>
    > Cc: <>
    > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 7:43 PM
    > Subject: Re: ICR/AIG claims
    > > Burgy,
    > > Sorry to be so slow in responding. I tried to clean some things
    > from my
    > > e-mail program and lost some things that I had put in a folder to
    > save.
    > > Regarding falsification, consider a couple scenarios.
    > >
    > > First, imagine that I am clever enough, finding a crime committed,
    > to
    > > manipulate the evidence so as to incriminate you. That may require
    > more
    > > imagination than anyone possesses, but let that pass. I figure out
    > how to
    > > deprive you of believable alibis and produce circumstantial
    > evidence so
    > > that you are convicted. I had nothing to do with the commission of
    > the
    > > crime: I just want the headline, "Burgy convicted."
    > >
    > > Second, imagine that I am a good enough hacker to break into the
    > files of
    > > some banks so that I secretly put a half-million bucks into your
    > account
    > > and then, indicating that it came from you, transfer it to a
    > worthy
    > > cause. Now you are acclaimed as a philanthropist, given various
    > honors,
    > > and receive a slew of requests for donations from other causes.
    > >
    > > In the first scenario, I had nothing to do with the crime, just
    > the
    > > manipulation of evidence so that you get blamed. In the second,
    > mine is
    > > the crime. In either, can I be credited with truthfulness?
    > Similarly,
    > > however God created the universe, if he makes it seem that the
    > deed was
    > > accomplished by totally other means than actually involved, do we
    > have a
    > > truthful deity. Seems to me such a deity is as crooked as I in my
    > > scenarios, whether I plan ill or good.
    > > Dave

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 10 2003 - 00:38:36 EDT