John Smithson wrote:
>There is a difference, David, between assertion
>and explanation. You made an assertion with
>no viable explanation
You have asked me to keep my posts short. That is what keeps lengthy
explanations out of my posts to you. If you want more explanation, you now
need to ask for it. Nevertheless, I did give you a short explanation, you
just did not recognize it. The explanation was so short, you considered it
to be an assertion. Just ask for more explanation like Lance does.
I just printed out this post. Nearly 2 and 1/2 pages. As comparative posts go, this fails the test of keeping it short. But that's o.k.
More than that, Daddy David wants me to "learn to ask, just like your brother does, and I will give you the answer you seek." Try again, pops. Lets do this -- give me the difference between an explanation and an assertion. You might be right. I might be wrong. As I look at it, the statement "Maybe she is more perceptive than you" is an assertion. Why in the world would you choose to debate that point. Such a statment is offered without any reasoning -- it is an assertion.
John Smithson wrote:
>As I see it, there is no good reason for changing
>subjects in the middle of a discussion.
The subject wasn't changed. The subject was related to similar terminology
in a disparate discipline.
Tonight, I shall attempt to sleep with one who is similar to my wife -- no problem since the subject matter (a soon to be extremly happy woman) bares similarity to my woman. I could be wrong. Maybe the word "similar" implies "different" (or, a change of topic). What do you think?
John Smithson wrote:
>You would disagree, of course, because that is
>an important part of your debate tactic.
I have no such debate tactic as you describe here. I am not here to win any
debate. I am here to discuss truth. What I do is find the underlying
assumptions in an argument and focus the discussion there in order to try
and resolve the differences. You view that as changing the subject, but it
is not.
"Perhaps she is more perceptive than you" is an underlying assumption of what aspect in the concept of "dynamic theologies?"
Are you here to win a debate? Try to be here to discuss truth. Be a team
player. We are not your enemies. It does no good for you to make out like
Izzy and I are your enemies. We are your buddies.
Thanks, pal, for this statement. Since you do not malign the motives of righteous men, where did I speak of you and Iz as enemies. In fact, I very recently told Iz that I cared for her (context is important, here).
John Smithson wrote:
>A good example is "Maybe she is more
>perceptive than you are."
This was a tongue-in-cheek statement meant to cause you to reconsider
whether or not you have all the answers. You attacked Izzy personally,
saying that she was blinded by bias and a lazy student of the Biblical
message. My perspective of the exchange was that Izzy perceived
relationships between concepts that you could not.
Ahh. Too bad we were not talking about comparative relationships. We had a discussion, brief as it was, in which I used the term "dynamic" in association with
"theology." My observation regarding Izzy as a lazy student was made because she rejected the book references (esp "Beyond the Bible") out of hand, with absolutely no familiarity with the book. She resents our quoting scripture without giving the quote in the post -- so that does not have to take time to look it up. By "lazy," I was not saying that she was worthless nor was I saying that she was some kind of enemy. Rather, it is precisely the same kind of thing you might say, given different circumstances.
So who do you think that
I see as being blinded by bias in this exchange you had with her? Hence, my
tongue-in-cheek statement that maybe she is more perceptive than you are.
Tongue in cheek? Hmmmm. Does that mean she is not more perceptive than me? Or could it be that you were expressing a truth, as you saw it, no "tongue in cheek" until you got called on the carpet for it? Possible?
Try at the least to consider the possibility, then relate how this might
help you continue the discussion by asking questions that might help you see
what it is that she sees that is hidden from you.
O.K. My question is this -- Why does one think they can know anything about a book one has not read? Whoa -- we are back on subject. It works. Thanks Dave.
John Smithson wrote:
>Although this might be an accurate assessment,
>this observation has nothing to do with the discussion.
It has everything to do with the discussion. You gave up on the discussion
because she perceived things you did not and would not try to perceive.
Instead, you resulted to calling her names and blaming her for the failure
of the discussion. She is still willing to discuss and you are not. You
should contemplate why that is.
Hey, white knight, your obeservation of Izzy's perceptiveness has nothing to do with my discussion with her. Your discussion with me? Well that is different. But I could care less if anyone is more perceptive that I. Actually, there are times when I feel pretty much out classed by most on this forum -- just not in this case.
John Smithson wrote:
>Suddenly, we have completely lost tract of the
>original discussion and have moved into the phase
>where the respondent must defend against the
>accusations of the plantif.
You dropped the discussion and so I spoke up about why the discussion
failed. Now you blame me for causing you to lose track of the original
discussion?
Here is the fact of the matter -- Iz and I were talking about "dynamic theology" and your past several posts have done absoletly nothing to bring us back to that point.
John Smithson wrote:
>>>there is a TOE but it is not a mathmatical equation.
David Miller wrote:
>>How do you know that? Without math, Einstein
>>never would have developed his theories of relativity.
>>I think any TOE would have to be mathematical in
>>order to be predictive, which is the goal of every theory.
John Smithson wrote:
>I do not "know." Neither do you. It is just that
>some very good men (Einstien and Hawkins [sic] for
>example) could not come up with the "solution."
>Einstein was a believer of sorts in God. And that
>is why he continued his search for a mathmatical [sic]
>and unifying solution. If such were discovered, an
>equation showing a relationship between the world
>of the large and the world of the very small, it could
>be argued that nothing was proven except that one
>came from the other -- a progression and extension
>of evolutionary theory. And, although we might
>argue this philosophical claim -- the "fact" of the
>matter is, IMO, the TOE will be found in the postulated
>and philosophical truth that God is the only consideration
>that unifies Relativity to Quandum [sic] Dynamics -
>or man to man or man to Himself or love to hate or that
>which is reducible to that which is not. Do I dare
>critsize [sic] Eistein [sic]? Oh, you betcha. If for no other
>reason than the fact that he had such pathetic hair.
So we start talking about TOE and you end by talking about Einstein's hair?
LOL. Next time you criticize someone for changing the subject, try looking
in the mirror. Don't forget to have your comb handy. :-)
Seriously, though, you have done here exactly what rationalists and
scientists hate the most. When a problem appears to be tough to resolve,
the researcher resorts to the old "God did it" hypothesis, which really
tells us nothing at all. This is one reason that many philosophers have
suggested that if something cannot be described mathematically, then it is
not a source of truth. Although I would disagree with that assertion, I
think you might learn something by considering why many philosophers have
taken this position.
So, you do not believe that God is the unifying principle - that in spite of continued failure on the part of rationalists and scientist, somehow my paragraph above is wrong? Somehow, I know that you do agree with what I have said about God and the TOE. You are only arguing the point because I am the one making the presentation. If you were not so busy grading the paper for spelling errors, you would probably see that what I assert is true, whether there is an unifying equation or not.
John
