151 reputation
4
bio website uofr.net/~jdrake
location
age
visits member for 3 years, 3 months
seen Jul 10 at 15:05

May
4
comment Where does the Bible stand on vegetarianism?
+1 How did I miss 1 Timothy 4.
Apr
10
comment The Fig Tree of Matthew 24 and prophecy
Although not a significant one, I have a specific issue with item B itself. The quote When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves... many scholars do believe that this refers to Israel becoming a nation again. But to me this analogy makes little sense. Why would Jesus not have used a planting analogy for such an event nation? Putting forth leaves refers to new growth, doesn't it make more sense that this would refer to something more like the Six Day War? I know it only puts the estimate out another decade, but...
Apr
10
awarded  Commentator
Apr
10
comment The Fig Tree of Matthew 24 and prophecy
Simply stating that the Bible has meaning (A), the idea that the fig tree prophecy refers to Israel in the specific way stated in the article (B) does not, in any way, follow.
Apr
10
comment How can the logical impossibility of infinite self reference be reconciled in the case of God?
@danpalmer If knowing relies on 'previous data' then no author could write a story, and for that matter wouldn't the Big Bang have the same issue? Everything that we know about, either hard science or the most remote religious signifier must have come from somewhere. You appear to be applying self reference in a very strange way.
Apr
9
comment How can the logical impossibility of infinite self reference be reconciled in the case of God?
^ or more concisely how do you know that the Universe isn't trivially decidable? These are both in relation to your response to 1 and 2.
Apr
9
comment How can the logical impossibility of infinite self reference be reconciled in the case of God?
@danpalmer but why must he work it out? He knew the outcome before he "tweaked" it, otherwise you cannot claim an omniscient God. I'm personally not convinced that He has to tweak anything, but I'm trying to play by the rules of the question.
Apr
9
comment How can the logical impossibility of infinite self reference be reconciled in the case of God?
You state that one "only [needs] one conceivable input" that could fail. (You did mean one instance that could be shown to be undecidable might disprove God?) My argument is that proof of non-existence actually has a higher bar. See the black swan, for more about proof by induction. Just because you've found one undecidable program doesn't mean that a decidable solution for the same problem does not exist.
Apr
9
comment How can the logical impossibility of infinite self reference be reconciled in the case of God?
One item of general note, the Halting problem was given for a mechanical computer and the programs run on it. There are some reasonable arguments regarding non-physical, or at least non-classical computers that may behave in a fundamentally different manner. Non-classical computing: feasible versus infeasible
Apr
9
comment How can the logical impossibility of infinite self reference be reconciled in the case of God?
@danpalmer I would argue instead that one must prove that the universe is not say written "use[ing] only for loops, for example, with fixed bounds"... at least from God's point of view. If on were going to apply the Halting problem to disprove His existence.
Apr
9
awarded  Teacher
Apr
9
awarded  Editor
Apr
9
revised How can the logical impossibility of infinite self reference be reconciled in the case of God?
Additional link added to point 1
Apr
9
answered How can the logical impossibility of infinite self reference be reconciled in the case of God?
Sep
1
awarded  Supporter