Subject:
|
Re: WMD, again...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:45:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
245 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler
> I appreciate you trying to create an analogy that you think I might find
> relevant:-) But if you claimed this, how exactly could I expect to get
> "independent confirmation" of your claim?
You could just ask me two different times... 8^)
Anyway, you've given a nice summary of the problem of Revelation as
evidence. Well said.
> Personally, I'd use 2 criteria in consideration of your hypothetical claim.
> First, I'd take into consideration you as a person. Are you truthful? But
> even in that case, I'd be limiting God by not believing that God could chose
> to appear to even a compulsive liar, so even that consideration is suspect.
> The best way I'd have to assess your claim would be to consider the message
> itself. Does it jibe with the message of the Gospel? Without more
> information as to the contents of the epiphany, I wouldn't be able to say one
> way or the other whether I would believe you.
To let you (and myself) somewhat off the hook--part of my hypothetical
situation was that Jesus would be telling me that the Gospels are also wrong
(along with the ~2000 years of stuff I mentioned) so I don't need to be
compatible with any existing works.
Anyway, I'd say that, no matter who I am, given the scope of my message,
you'd be ill-advised to accept it at all without supporting evidence.
That's the old "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" idea at
work.
> It doesn't sound as if *anyone* is assuming that this 1 person's account is
> Gospel-- it is merely a "lead" which requires more investigation.
I'll buy that--but I've heard this put forth (not by you, but elsewhere)
as a de facto smoking gun. Great, if it's true, but until then we have to
assess the evidence on its own merits.
> It seemed to me, however, that RM has taken a rather biased view towards the
> story. Since he has no faith in Bush or his administration, any evidence that
> would support that administration is suspect, or even "planted". His cynicism
> prejudges *any* evidence found--why else even assert that *any* evidence would
> be fabricated?
In Richard's defense, Dubya hasn't done anything (at all, really) to
foster a sense of trust. Although the net result of the Iraq war may turn
out to be the liberation of the Iraqi people, the fact remains that Dubya
started the war on very shaky (possibly false) pretenses: there was no
credible al Qaeda/Saddam link; Iraq did not have a credible nuclear program;
Saddam was not an immediate threat to his neighbors or the US. Even if we
find WoMD, then we have to admit that Dubya forced us into a
shoot-first-justify-it-later scenario.
I for one would be happy to be proven wrong! I would love to find out
that we were just minutes from receiving an anthrax/sarin bomb from Saddam
himself, and that only Dubya's heroic cowboyism saved us from doom. It
doesn't seem that this will be the case, and it becomes less likely each
minute that independent inspectors are kept out of the region. That's the
sad part; Bush is more or less guaranteeing that any evidence, if found,
will be tainted.
> I suspect that *any* amount of evidence will be insufficient for RM, because
> he has already concluded that Bush et al are wrong and deceitful,
Similarly, no amount of evidence could have proven to Dubya that Saddam
did *not* have WoMD. Even if we don't find them after a search under every
pebble in the country, Bush will claim that Saddam destroyed them. Then
Bush will claim that Saddam destroyed the evidence that the WoMD were
destroyed. Then Bush will claim that Saddam destroyed the evidence has been
destroyed that would have proven that the WoMD were destroyed.
My name is Yon Yonson, I live in Wisconsin.
For that matter, the very criteria for compliance were either impossible or
so difficult to meet as to be effectively impossible.
> Given: Bush is wrong and deceitful
> Hypothesis: Evidence is found to support that Bush is truthful and correct
> Conclusion: Evidence is wrong or planted.
Let's be fair to Richard and use the following argument instead:
Given: Bush has acted with equivocation on the matter of WoMD
Hypothesis: Evidence is found to support Bush's claims re: WoMD
Conclusion: Evidence must be confirmed by independent analysis before it
can be accepted
That's how scientific proof should work in any case!
> much in the same way that no amount of evidence would prove to you that God
> exists (your epipany included):
Hey, I've said all along that if God appeared to me and made a convincing
case, I'd believe that He exists. I wouldn't necessarily worship him (ie;
proof of His existence does not violate my free will), but I'd accept his
existence [1].
Dave!
[1] Especially if He wiped away my student loans with a wave of His divine Hand.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) <snipped stuff with which I am not necessarily in disagreement> (...) "convincing case" Do I detect a caveat? (...) lol An example of a "convincing case"? So what if after having read this, I, being a Christian man of substantial means (though (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) I appreciate you trying to create an analogy that you think I might find relevant:-) But if you claimed this, how exactly could I expect to get "independent confirmation" of your claim? Personally, I'd use 2 criteria in consideration of your (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
35 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
