Chris
Hi. I visited your sites, and looked at a couple of the pieces. I'm
impressed with the sheer amount of stuff you have, but not with its claimed
evidentiary value. This is because this sort of thing can be done with
almost *anything*. You could easily "prove" the truth of the "Lord of the
Rings" trilogy by this means, or you could *prove* that the claims of the
Koran are true by the same method. It's just too easy for a person with a
little familiarity with mathematics to come up with these kinds of
"evidence." Since the same method can just as easily be used to "prove"
things that are clearly false or even nonsensical, as well as things one
might think true, I conclude that it's not a valid method of proving
things, or of validating them at all.
One of my epistemological "meta-rules" is: If a method of establishing the
truth of some proposition can also be used to establish falsehoods, it's
not a valid method of establishing the truth. The point of such methods is
to *distinguish* between truth and falsehood, not merely to be able to
pseudo-validate any idea someone comes up with.
If we accept that coin-flips prove the truth of unrelated propositions,
such as whether the Bible is true, then, if we flip a coin and it lands
heads, we might claim to have proven the truth of the Bible. But, of
course, the same method can be used by someone to claim to have proven the
*falsehood* of the Bible. Since it apparently "proves" both sides of a
contradiction, the coin-flip method cannot be valid. Your *method* is
indiscriminate with respect to what you can seemingly validate with it, and
indiscriminate with respect to truth, so, for the same reason that I reject
coin-flipping as a valid method of proving things, I reject numerical
twiddling. It doesn't *really* prove what it purports to prove.
Vernon
>Chris:
>
>I gather from your posting of 23 Sep that you have a low view of
>theists, and of Christians in particular; apparently, we have lost
>'cognitive contact with reality', and exhibit a 'willingness to abandon
>reason'.
>
>It was the late Carl Sagan - creator-host of the television series
>'Cosmos' - who famously declared, "...we will follow the truth, no
>matter where it leads!" What could be more reasonable? So, setting aside
>those inner convictions (which are the basis of 'faith') and focusing
>only on the empirical evidences we find around us, what, in particular,
>do we find to be relevant and, undoubtedly, true?
>
>Some years ago, I had a paper published in a reputable journal - its
>title, 'The Ultimate Assertion: Evidence of Supernatural Design in the
>Divine Prologue' (CEN Tech.J.,vol.7(2), 1993, pp184-196). Here is a
>summary of its content: "Some alternative views of Genesis 1:1 that
>explain why this first verse of the Hebrew Scriptures must be regarded
>as the most remarkable combination of words ever written."
>
>Since its publication, no one has come forward to challenge the facts
>presented, and the body of supporting evidence has now grown to such
>proportions that it can be fairly claimed that the numerical structure
>associated with these opening words represents a 'standing miracle'!
>
>Chris, I am wondering whether you would be prepared to undertake the
>task of assessing this evidence? I will gladly send you (and whoever
>else may be interested!) a copy of the original paper, at no cost (just
>provide me with your postal address privately.)
>
>Regards,
>
>Vernon
>
>Vernon Jenkins MSc
>[musician, mining engineer, and formerly Senior Lecturer in Maths and
>Computing, the Polytechnic of Wales (now the University of Glamorgan)]
>
>http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
>http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 27 2000 - 09:30:02 EDT