tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post7386194657029132397..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Show #572: A Missed OpportunityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-36722890239551473602008-10-09T02:23:00.000-05:002008-10-09T02:23:00.000-05:00The only point I have been trying to make (and I t...The only point I have been trying to make (and I thought this would be uncontroversial) is that it is <I>possible</I> to state "God exists" and have that statement mean something. I completely agree that many theists fail to do this. I certainly share Tracie's frustration with the fact that many theists simply ignore or shrug off evidence that does not fit their model of God, and/or hold their model of God to be impervious to any evidence-based challenge (or any challenge, for that matter). Although I could quibble with the semantics, I will agree that when people like this say "God exists", it is a meaningless statement. However, that does not disprove my point.<BR/><BR/>So Tracie, are you therefore saying that it is <I>impossible</I> for anyone to meaningfully state "God exists"? If not, I think we agree.Eric Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15922202712275593959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-55996665968367624642008-10-08T19:24:00.000-05:002008-10-08T19:24:00.000-05:00Virtual particles are interesting things that do e...<B>Virtual particles are interesting things that do exactly what you're describing--pop into and out of existence.</B><BR/><BR/>True enough, at least to some degree. When two electrons exchange virtual photons, though, I'm not entirely sure that I'd say they're tossing the same photons back and forth. In other words, I'm not sure that I'd agree that a single virtual particle exists, then ceases to exist, then exists again, when it seems equally likely that it's one virtual particle popping into existence and then out of existence again, then a second virtual particle popping into existence, and then a third, and so on. Each virtual particle then exists briefly--as most things in the universe do--and then ceases to exist thereafter. I'm not sure how you'd even test to see if it's the same virtual particle popping back and forth, since they tend not to stick around long enough to be measured. <BR/><BR/>But I'll admit that it's been awhile since I took a quantum class, and longer still since I really looked into the mechanics of virtual particles (other than on Wikipedia), so I'm not sure.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59508617001391307492008-10-08T13:29:00.000-05:002008-10-08T13:29:00.000-05:00Thanks Roger. I appreciate the whimsical nature of...Thanks Roger. I appreciate the whimsical nature of your post. But I do want to point out, again, that I work as a project manager, so I'm familiar with process efficiency. And _sometimes_ there is a "most efficient" path to a goal--but sometimes, really, not.<BR/><BR/>During the show where the one person was putting forward god as ultimate strategy or like ultimate strategy (as one commenter claims I misunderstood the point)--he was making an assumption that an ultimate strategy for "everything" or "the universe" exists. And I refused to concede that. When I insisted that there can be equally efficient strategies for achieving the same goal (same level of resources and same timeline, but different process), he simply disagreed that was a possibility--but I've seen it, so he's just flat wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87436028133126593742008-10-07T01:19:00.000-05:002008-10-07T01:19:00.000-05:00Good show. And for your troubles, I give you a gif...Good show. And for your troubles, I give you a gift!<BR/><BR/>"is there an existent god that actually is 'ultimate strategy'?"<BR/><BR/>Ask, and you shall <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God's_algorithm" REL="nofollow">receive</A>.rogerdrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13872517878457201488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-34240702609981569012008-10-06T15:29:00.000-05:002008-10-06T15:29:00.000-05:00Tom:Virtual particles are interesting things that ...Tom:<BR/><BR/>Virtual particles are interesting things that do exactly what you're describing--pop into and out of existence.<BR/><BR/>That terminology is highly relevant, because while they do not manifest they ARE described as _not existing_--and I agree.<BR/><BR/>Now this is the current model for these things, and maybe they aren't doing what they appear to be doing. My only point would be that if they do "sometimes manifest"--then they also, by necessity "sometimes exist."<BR/><BR/>And I would hold god to that same standard. If god is not manifest god does not exist. If god is manifest, god exists. So, if we have a sometimes manifesting god, we also have a sometimes existing god. But we still need to define and identify and verify that manifestation--just like we have done for virtual particles up to this point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-4534144746871428582008-10-06T11:45:00.000-05:002008-10-06T11:45:00.000-05:00Eric:You are missing a highly important and very f...Eric:<BR/><BR/>You are missing a highly important and very fundamental difference between things like "dark matter" and "god."<BR/><BR/>I have clearly indicated it, but you're not understanding the significance for some reason. So here's an example that hopefully will help. There is a WORLD of difference between these two views:<BR/><BR/>Situation 1. The universe exists. I wonder if it has a cause? Let's see if we can establish an age to the universe. Ah, we can--it turns out that when we test for it, we can see it's 100 billion years old (I haven't looked up the actual age--so this is just a convenient placeholder at the moment). So, prior to 100 billion years ago, there was no universe. I don't know what caused it to start, but I'll call it "Event X." All I can say about Event X at the moment is that it occurred 100 billion years ago.<BR/><BR/>Event X exists--no matter what it is. It is only defined as the cause of an observable event that is established reality. Event X is a model that MUST conform to data. And if the data changes, so will Event X change to conform to the data. Event X is a model--a placeholder while more data is gathered to more fully explain the cause of the universe (the effect of Event X). The effect is examined and tested to define the cause.<BR/><BR/>Situation 2: The universe exists. It must have a cause. The cause is god. And god did it 6,000 years ago. Someone else tests and determines that the age of the universe is 100 billion years. But that conflicts with my belief about god, so the data must be rejected as untrustworthy, because my model requires a 6,000 year old universe.<BR/><BR/>THIS is the difference. Dark Matter is a model that serves an explanatory function. God serves no explanatory function, because the model god exists independently of any actual data. Whatever the data--the data MUST conform to the model. And that's not how science works. The model MUST conform to the data.<BR/><BR/>When the universe proves to be 100 billion years old, the scientific model must be one that accounts for a 100 billion year old universe. God does not work that way. The model god is held as infallible--even if data contradicts the model.<BR/><BR/>When someone holds to a belief even though data contradicts it--that is defined as a "delusion."<BR/><BR/>But that is the main difference between the models. I, personally, based on my lack of knowledge of Dark Matter, cannot say it exists. I can only say it offers the best model to fit the current facts/needs. If a better model comes along and requires that Dark Matter be redefined or even abandoned--I have no doubt that science will comply. Religion, on the other hand, insists that the data should be rejected and the model held. That's a huge difference in the paradigms of religion and science. "Dark Matter" "exists" in a tentative state in science--not in the same way god "exists"--as a reality that cannot be questioned.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if you can grasp that or not--but if not, I'm at a loss as to how to make the problem any more clear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-34686219789410535962008-10-05T12:23:00.000-05:002008-10-05T12:23:00.000-05:00This youtube video does a great job going over th...<A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IyJp5dak9M" REL="nofollow"> This youtube video </A> does a great job going over the argument of God's ontology. He has two follow up videos also. Check it outUncle Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05434565548595883943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1408011677483578972008-10-05T12:18:00.000-05:002008-10-05T12:18:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Uncle Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05434565548595883943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-22421412308496150932008-10-02T20:35:00.000-05:002008-10-02T20:35:00.000-05:00I don't understand how something can "occasionally...I don't understand how something can "occasionally" manifest. We're not sure what dark matter is, but it certainly doesn't spend its time blinking in and out of existence. A thing exists, or it does not; I know of no entity in the universe which exists, then ceases to exist, then manifests again, and I can't see how you could meaningfully claim that such a thing "exists" during those times when it is not manifesting.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-9302720345895850262008-10-02T15:12:00.000-05:002008-10-02T15:12:00.000-05:00I agree that my previous post said little, if anyt...I agree that my previous post said little, if anything, about what God is. However, for the narrow point that I am addressing -- that it is possible to meaningfully claim "God exists" -- I do not need to.<BR/><BR/>By way of analogy, physicists claim that dark matter exists without knowing what dark matter actually is. They simply observe that dark matter manifests as gravity and conclude that dark matter exists, with the important caveat that whatever dark matter is, it must be fundamentally separate from everything we already know about. If the gravity now attributed to dark matter were shown to be caused by "ordinary" matter or energy, for example, the claim "dark matter exists" would be refuted.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, if the theist claims that God occasionally manifests as miracles, for example, he has made a meaningful claim that "God exits", providing that he adds that miracles are violations of the laws of physics and thus cannot be manifestations of anything natural. He does not need to say anything more about what God is. Now, I certainly believe that the theist is incorrect, but I cannot say that his claim is meaningless.Eric Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15922202712275593959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1234663670656816522008-10-01T20:53:00.000-05:002008-10-01T20:53:00.000-05:00Wow great post, which I mused over and then expand...Wow great post, which I mused over and then expanded-on using the proxy 'God is an Idea'(full article on my blog)Thought provoking stuff, well done.Canterbury Atheistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09900223059660267657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-78668683379268449782008-10-01T17:44:00.000-05:002008-10-01T17:44:00.000-05:00Regarding the request for posts relegated to shows...Regarding the request for posts relegated to shows, it might help alleviate the tons of mails you guys get, as we can answer some questions among ourselves. With the new time slot I expect you are hoping for more viewers / listeners, so this could be beneficial for both sides.Cafeeine Addictedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02011016176276511661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-2116033253736402602008-10-01T08:20:00.000-05:002008-10-01T08:20:00.000-05:00Just to make it clear, I should add that if we plu...Just to make it clear, I should add that if we plug in Jesus, it works like this: If we examine Jesus and determine he was just a normal man--will the theist still accept that "Jesus is the manifestation of god?"<BR/><BR/>No, he will most likely not. So, his definition of Jesus as god is not actually genuine. He has a preconceived model of god, and Jesus can only be that god if Jesus fits that model. Jesus does not dictate the model--so to say "Jesus is god" does not fly--since the god model does not rely on Jesus, but rather Jesus would have to be redefined to suit the model for this to work. And that's not how reality operates. The theist presupposes a god model and imposes it onto Jesus--then declares "Jesus is god." But whatever Jesus is, is not god to the theist. Jesus is only god if Jesus was, in fact, the cause of the existent god the theist asserts. So, the theist is presupposing god exists before he uses "Jesus" as his evidence for god's existence.<BR/><BR/>It really is a case of:<BR/><BR/>>Does a divine god exist?<BR/><BR/>>Jesus is a divine god.<BR/><BR/>>Jesus existed.<BR/><BR/>>Therefore god exists.<BR/><BR/>If Jesus was not a divinity--this line of reasoning falls flat. And for Jesus to have been a divinity--god must first exist.<BR/><BR/>It's no different than saying:<BR/><BR/>1. God wrote the bible<BR/><BR/>2. The bible exists.<BR/><BR/>3. Therefore, god exists.<BR/><BR/>I can't presuppose my conclusion within my argument in order to prove my conclusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-16969702337726110182008-10-01T08:11:00.000-05:002008-10-01T08:11:00.000-05:00Cafeeine:Right answer.Eric:What you are decribing ...Cafeeine:<BR/><BR/>Right answer.<BR/><BR/>Eric:<BR/><BR/>What you are decribing is not a response to the question "What is god?" but a response to the question "What does god do?"<BR/><BR/>Saying the sun heats the earth does not answer the question "What is the sun?"<BR/><BR/>The attempt to say that "god manifests as Jesus" is really just a restatement that god was the cause of Jesus' existence on earth.<BR/><BR/>The problem is this: Things that do not exist cannot be the cause of other things.<BR/><BR/>This is not a presupposition that god exists, but a point that we cannot use circular evidence.<BR/><BR/>That is: Jesus was a rare manifestation of fairies. Jesus existed. Ergo, fairies exist.<BR/><BR/>I think you can see the problem there.<BR/><BR/>Same with miracles. Any event that god "causes" can only really be caused by a god if there is an existent god. So, we're back to square one: Is there a god that could even be responsible for these events?<BR/><BR/>In order to answer that, we must identify "god"--not a god effect. And to do that, we have to have some idea of what we're actually looking for--which we don't. And we're faced with the original dilemma agian: How do we define god?<BR/><BR/>Until we can answer the question "What is god?" It is not logical to assert that god "does" anything. We have no god to examine, so we have no way to test any claims about what god "does."<BR/><BR/>What if we find a god and we determine it does not manifest as people--like Jesus? Then our assessment as Jesus as an effect of the cause god was a misinterpretation of the data.<BR/><BR/>We cannot assume an effect is the result of cause god without any verification of the existence of a god.<BR/><BR/>This was addressed my paragraph in the blog about god creating the universe:<BR/><BR/>"Meanwhile, there are attempts to "define" god by putting god forward as the cause of particular effects. "God is the creator of the universe," is one common example (but "the Bible" or "manifestation as Jesus" would work just as well). Ask this theist, "if we examine the universe to determine the cause, and it turns out to be a singularity--is that god to you?" You will find that is not god to the theist. So, "god" is not whatever the evidence asserts is the cause of the universe. God, to this theist is a preconceived concept that exists regardless of the actual cause of the universe. If a singularity turns out to be the best model of what caused the universe, but god, I am told, is not a singularity--then this helps me not at all to understand what it is this theist is calling god. And I am only confused now by his claim that god is what caused the universe. Going back to an earlier point, without a god to examine, I have no idea whether a god is at all connected to the production of any universe, holy books, manifestations of Jesus or prophets, miraculous events, or anything else we can drum up. What is this theist calling god, then? I have no idea."<BR/><BR/>That's pretty much my response to that line of reasoning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85565332834201427792008-10-01T02:46:00.000-05:002008-10-01T02:46:00.000-05:00Eric, while I agree that this is a common occurren...Eric, while I agree that this is a common occurrence with apologists, it still does not address the questions of what 'god' is, or by what meaning the word 'existence' applied to Him/It has.Cafeeine Addictedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02011016176276511661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-74184878740856376422008-10-01T02:31:00.000-05:002008-10-01T02:31:00.000-05:00Eric, I've heard that many a time. Thing is, this ...Eric, <BR/><BR/>I've heard that many a time. Thing is, this is no different from what ANY adherent of ANY religion could say - including those whom more conventional theists (the Big Three) would find outrageous. <BR/><BR/>Christians retreating to such a position have no grounds to protest when a druid, say, makes the exact same claim.<BR/><BR/>"Well sure, most trees are just... you know... trees. But some are in fact magical and they speak ancient wisdom to me during sacred rites.<BR/><BR/>No, I can't make them talk to you. <BR/><BR/>No, you're not invited to the next sacred rite."TheBrainFromPlanetAroushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04656561052157326830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-62289473714426078132008-10-01T02:16:00.000-05:002008-10-01T02:16:00.000-05:00Tracie,If you will permit me to role-play theist's...Tracie,<BR/><BR/>If you will permit me to role-play theist's advocate for a moment ... I would think the theist's argument would be that God <I>occasionally</I> manifests. For the most part, God leaves the universe to its own laws, but from time to time, subject to his inscrutable will, he intervenes. He manifested as Jesus about 2000 years ago, of course, but also manifests in modern times by occasionally communicating with people, providing guidance, answering prayers, and performing miracles. The theist might add that God's manifestations are so sporadic and unpredictable (from the point of view of "limited" beings like humans), that any attempt to detect him will fail.<BR/><BR/>Now I can think of several responses to this. I might point out, for example, that this is a sly attempt to have it both ways -- claiming that God does manifest, but only occasionally, and only in ways that are unverifiable. However, I would be interested in knowing your response, Tracie.Eric Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15922202712275593959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-54883316715689479922008-09-30T19:33:00.000-05:002008-09-30T19:33:00.000-05:00Brainfromarous: This "switching" trick is sheer ba...Brainfromarous: <B>This "switching" trick is sheer bad faith; outright sleight of hand.<BR/><BR/>I suspect the believers know, or fear, that their arguments are houses of cards.</B><BR/><BR/>I don't know if it's quite so well-thought-out. It seems to me that many believers, especially of the less skilled or thoughtful sort, work with an evangelical script. They've heard from the pulpit, or they've read online, lists of common criticisms of religion and the pat apologetic responses to them--or, more frequently, lists of things to ask or say to nonbelievers (a la the Ray Comfort tracts). In those scripts, everything is laid out in such a way that there is one question, one response, and one winner--the evangelist. Atheists rarely stick to the script, and often (I think) expose problems in the original question. The theist is left with three options: repeat the question until receiving the desired response, move on to the next point on the list and hope for a better outcome, or move off-script and into unfamiliar territory. <BR/><BR/>It may not be quite so simple, but I'm convinced that quite a lot of believers are expecting particular responses to their questions, and particular reactions to their arguments. When they don't get what they expect, they're left in a sort of panic. In my experience online, and in hearing callers to the show, I'm pretty sure I've heard all three responses.<BR/><BR/>sparrowhawk: <B>It's a form of "prestige" that they feel. They get it!</B><BR/><BR/>Or at least pretend to. They know all the right words to say, whether or not they know what they mean--much like how I could recite the Lord's Prayer as a kid, but had no idea what I was actually saying. It is, quite simply, the Emperor's new clothes. They can pretend to that prestige, even if they can't actually describe what the clothes look like. <BR/><BR/>And then there's that class of evangelist who make the roundabout claim that it's true <I>because</I> it's so unbelievable, contradictory, and incoherent, and so forth. I've <I>never</I> understood that one. <BR/><BR/>Great show; I wish Diane had let you get a word in edgewise, though. She might have put some thought into her claims if she could have stopped spouting apologetics and anecdotes and declaring premature victory for a second. <BR/><BR/>Incidentally, it's been awhile since I was in a Physics class, but I couldn't stop shaking my head during Alisha's tirade. First, "void" to me isn't a set of anything--it's a set of <I>nothing</I>. It sounded to me like she was talking rather confusedly about vacuum fluctuations, where particle-antiparticle pairs spontaneously appear and subsequently annihilate even in a complete vacuum, according to quantum mechanics. The net energy is still zero, so there's no violation of thermodynamics, and I think this is at the heart of Vic Stenger's hypothesis about the origins of the universe (though I could be mistaken about that, and I know there's some contention about his hypothesis besides), but it's certainly nothing mystical. <BR/><BR/>The Biblical quote she referenced at the beginning was Gen. 1:2: "And the earth was without form, <B>and void</B>; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."<BR/>She's naturally just quote-mining the word "void," trying to map it onto physical concepts, and ignoring that "the earth was without form, and void" simply meant that the world was shapeless and empty.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-46847758184623507552008-09-30T16:54:00.000-05:002008-09-30T16:54:00.000-05:00I too thought it was a great topic - good work, Tr...I too thought it was a great topic - good work, Tracie.<BR/><BR/>May I defend the guy who came up with the "ultimate strategy" bit a couple of months ago? My impression was that he was using that as an example of something that we know exists (the best possible strategy in some situation), without our necessarily knowing what it is. I don't think he was defining God as "the ultimate strategy."<BR/><BR/>In light of this week's show, he was also comparing God to a concept which has no actual manifestation. Tracie would have pinned him on the "exists" part of his analogy.Curt Cameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08048312089881459521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-90445841801567917122008-09-30T13:49:00.000-05:002008-09-30T13:49:00.000-05:00Just to add that I appreciate the further comments...Just to add that I appreciate the further comments on bullshit. And I think they are entirely appropriate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21198056610710909572008-09-30T13:27:00.000-05:002008-09-30T13:27:00.000-05:00The most pertinent part, I think, is this:"When an...The most pertinent part, I think, is this:<BR/><BR/>"When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose."<BR/><BR/>The callers arguing with Tracy seem to fit this category, especially when challenged by someone who disagrees. Their "answers" must be defended at all costs, and the question of whether the answers they have are - deep down - the correct ones don't ultimately matter. They aren't really interested in what's true, only defending what they find comfortable in their minds.Kingasaurushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08458810855208904790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-76877022310808709152008-09-30T12:57:00.000-05:002008-09-30T12:57:00.000-05:00"This is a perfect illustration of the concepts ou..."This is a perfect illustration of the concepts outlined in Harry Frankfurt's essay On Bullshit."<BR/><BR/>Is <A HREF="http://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/articleB5BD6D4417AF444DBD8F9770AA729B26.asp" REL="nofollow">this</A> it?<BR/><BR/>I don't have the time to read that tonight, but I hope thats a good thing.Cafeeine Addictedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02011016176276511661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37672233119261389092008-09-30T12:40:00.000-05:002008-09-30T12:40:00.000-05:00"A further point is that people do not actually ca..."A further point is that people do not actually care that their god concept makes sense, or has internal consistency, as long as it provides them with answers."<BR/><BR/>This is a perfect illustration of the concepts outlined in Harry Frankfurt's essay <I>On Bullshit</I>.Kingasaurushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08458810855208904790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-60567184781377272982008-09-30T12:24:00.000-05:002008-09-30T12:24:00.000-05:00The show sounds fascinating! And I wants to watch ...The show sounds fascinating! And I wants to watch its, but it's not yet on google video. :(-Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07423776253697799481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-66090890027938576032008-09-30T08:41:00.000-05:002008-09-30T08:41:00.000-05:00I just want to thank the commentors for your feedb...I just want to thank the commentors for your feedback and insights. I appreciate them. I don't have much to add. I agree with mostly everything stated so far in this section. One response I would make is to this comment:<BR/><BR/>>Obviously, if it felt better to us, we'd do it...but it isn't enough.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your caveat, Sparrow, that you were writing on the fly and thinking out loud here. I take the post with that grain of salt. That being said, I would revise that line to say that I wouldn't believe a thing necessarily because it felt better. If I suspected my spouse was lying to me, it certainly would feel better to believe he was not--but I wouldn't disregard my suspicions and not consider the possibility of lying simply because it feels better to have an honest spouse.<BR/><BR/>I don't think you'd disagree. I just thought that clarification should be communicated. Perhaps that is what you meant by "it isn't enough" (that it isn't enough for a belief to feel good)? I couldn't actually tell.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com