An Alternative to Manmade Elixirs

Originally posted by CalJust
But back to twhitehead and his IPU. I would suggest ( and this is my personal position) that if he according to his own testimony had this religious experience, which connected him with the divine, I would respect that view.

What does respecting a view consist of? I for one have no intention of putting anyone here in the loony bin, not even dasa - unless his genocidal tendencies get too extreme.
But I have to point out that even personal experiences are not an open and shut case. We had one regular poster (I forget his name) who had had experiences that he interpreted as an encounter with aliens. I do not doubt that he had those experiences. However he had a tendency of drawing far too many conclusions off his experiences. For example, if he read about someone else who mentioned aliens, then he would take it far more seriously than was warranted - and he used his own experience as an excuse for this irrationality.
Similarly, we often see theists too readily jump from 'I have reason to believe a God exists' to 'everything I claim about God is therefore true'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What does respecting a view consist of? I for one have no intention of putting anyone here in the loony bin, not even dasa - unless his genocidal tendencies get too extreme.
But I have to point out that even personal experiences are not an open and shut case.

I added one Edit which must have appeared after you posted your response. (See second to last paragraph in my post).

This may address the point you make here.

Originally posted by Agerg
For the reason which they are used they don't need to be convincing to anybody - there is no category error here. If Alice were to argue that 39[hidden]purposely not choosing 37 btw[/hidden]is the best number between 1-100 because it is odd, and less than 50 then Bob would need no person to believe that 9 is the best such number before putting it forward as a ...[text shortened]... eatment afforded to those of a religious persuasion, but typically that is not there usage here.

I did notice without the hidden hint. Although 39 is three lots of thirteen, both significant numbers 😉.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I did notice without the hidden hint. Although 39 is three lots of thirteen, both significant numbers 😉.

All numbers are significant if you know how to look. If you pick a random number between 1 and 100, there will be someone somewhere who will go 'wow, what a coincidence that it was that exact special number!'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
All numbers are significant if you know how to look. If you pick a random number between 1 and 100, there will be someone somewhere who will go 'wow, what a coincidence that it was that exact special number!'.

This is a total aside, but do you know the proof that there is NO number that is not special?

Reveal Hidden Content

Originally posted by CalJust
An issue to watch closely (vis a vie the looney bin) was whether twhitehead was prepared to keep his "vision" quiet and personal or not.

In this thread, my introduction of the IPU was not, as Suzzy interpreted it, an attack on other peoples religious beliefs, but rather a defense of my right to not believe everything and anything that some other person believes.

Grampy suggested that considering the offer in the OP was to be expected by someone with an open mind, so I demonstrated that when a similar offer is made in the reverse direction, he was not willing to consider it despite claiming to be open minded himself.

Everyone immediately realized that if I am to convince anyone that to consider the IPUs offer, I must first do some ground work in convincing them that the offer itself is genuine and coming from a genuine entity - or at least an entity that has a reasonable chance of being genuine.
Yet oddly enough, many theists fail to see this need when it comes to the offers that they themselves are promoting. In fact I see no indication whatsoever that either Grampy or Suzzy have got the point yet.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not particularly interested in details of your personal life. I would like to hear your responses to thread related topics as and when they come up.
You have so far not acknowledged that you have understood the content of my first post in this thread. Do you understand it? Do you need clarification?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
An Alternative to Manmade Elixirs

"Miraculous, magical, and maybe a little mysterious, an elixir is a sweet substance or solution that cures the problem at hand. Elixir is a word often used with a knowing wink — a sort of overstatement of a product's effectiveness, or a decision maker's policy. With linguistic roots in the long-ago alchemists' search for the philosophers' stone, the word has an element of fantasy to spice up anything, like a remedy for the common cold. The mythic fountain of youth is certainly an elixir, but it can also refer to a real liquid, concept, or plan." http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/elixir Please see John 4: 1-42:

Jesus Goes to Galilee: John 4:1-42 "1 Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were), 3 He left Judea and went away again into Galilee. 4 And He had to pass through Samaria. 5 So He came to a city of Samaria called Sychar, near the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph; 6 and Jacob’s well was there. So Jesus, being wearied from His journey, was sitting thus by the well. It was about the sixth hour.

The Woman of Samaria: 7 There came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give Me a drink.” 8 For His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food. 9 Therefore the Samaritan woman said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) 10 Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” 11 She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water? 12 You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?” 13 Jesus answered and said to her, “* Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.”

15 The woman said to Him, “Sir, give me this water, so I will not be thirsty nor come all the way here to draw.” 16 He said to her, “Go, call your husband and come here.” 17 The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.” 19 The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” 21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” 25 The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.” 26 Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.”

27 At this point His disciples came, and they were amazed that He had been speaking with a woman, yet no one said, “What do You seek?” or, “Why do You speak with her?” 28 So the woman left her water pot, and went into the city and said to the men, 29 “Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done; this is not the Christ, is it?” 30 They went out of the city, and were coming to Him.

31 Meanwhile the disciples were urging Him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.” 32 But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” 33 So the disciples were saying to one another, “No one brought Him anything to eat, did he?” 34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work. 35 Do you not say, ‘There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest’? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look on the fields, that they are white for harvest. 36 Already he who reaps is receiving wages and is gathering fruit for life eternal; so that he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together. 37 For in this case the saying is true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ 38 I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored and you have entered into their labor.”

The Samaritans: 39 From that city many of the Samaritans believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, “He told me all the things that I have done.” 40 So when the Samaritans came to Jesus, they were asking Him to stay with them; and He stayed there two days. 41 Many more believed because of His word; 42 and they were saying to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world.” (New American Standard Bible)

John 3:16-21 16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten [uniquely born] Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” (New American Standard Bible)

Question: Will you consider the drink Jesus describes in *John 4:13-14 "Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” as an alternative to manmade elixirs?[/b]
________________________

Originally posted by twhitehead (First reply)
"No, I will not, for the simple reason that I do not think either you or Jesus' claims about the drinks effects are real. The thing about such offers is that the vast majority of people have already accepted the drink, or think its no better than an alchemists elixir. You will not find too many people that believe your claims but have chosen not to drink."

Originally posted by twhitehead
"I am not particularly interested in details of your personal life. I would like to hear your responses to thread related topics as and when they come up.
You have so far not acknowledged that you have understood the content of my first post in this thread. Do you understand it? Do you need clarification?" .... Yes, please.

Originally posted by CalJust
This is a total aside, but do you know the proof that there is NO number that is not special?

[hidden] If you divide all numbers into two group, those that are "special" and those that are not, then immediately the lowest (and highest) number in the "not special" group must move across to the other side, by virtue of it being the lowest (or highest) "non-special" number, and hence definitely special! Etc etc [/hidden]

That proof only works if there is a largest and smallest number, and there ain't.

Edit: What's more since the numbers in any given interval are uncountably infinite one can't even find an algorithm for selecting all numbers in an interval where there is a largest and smallest member.

Edit 2: Obviously it will work for integers between 1 and 100 though.

Edit 3: Also any number you've ever heard of is special just because there are so many others...

Originally posted by DeepThought
That proof only works if there is a largest and smallest number, and there ain't.

One can proceed instead as follows:

Let L be the set of all integers (i.e. positive, negative, and zero). From L construct two sets L1 and L2 of special and none special numbers respectively.
Divide L2 into two further sets L3 and L4 of the negative and non-negative numbers in L2 respectively.

We'll first establish Base cases for L3 and L4:
Consider the least element (in absolute value) of L3, this is special by having the property of being least of all abs(x) for x in L3, and so it belongs in L1.
Next consider the least element of L4, this is special by having the property of being the least x in L4 and so it belongs in L1 also.

Now we argue inductively, assume that for the first N integers of L3, k <= N -> N is special. Consider k = N + 1. Either k is special or it isn't.
a) If k is special we are done, and appealing to the base case we establish all x in L3 are in fact special
b) If k is not special then since k = N is special, then k+1 is the smallest non-special number ... which is pretty damned special!

Apply the same inductive argument to L4.

By the inductive arguments above we establish that there exists no element of L3 or L4 that are not special, and furthermore, by taking the union L1 U L3 U L4 we get our original L. And as such, all integers are special as required.

QED

Originally posted by DeepThought
That proof only works if there is a largest and smallest number, and there ain't.

Edit: What's more since the numbers in any given interval are uncountably infinite one can't even find an algorithm for selecting all numbers in an interval where there is a largest and smallest member.

Edit 2: Obviously it will work for integers between 1 and 100 though.

Well I think the domain of discourse here is the integers, and they most certainly are countable!, as are the rationals. All bets are off for the reals though.

Originally posted by DeepThought
That proof only works if there is a largest and smallest number, and there ain't.

Edit 2: Obviously it will work for integers between 1 and 100 though.

I shouldn't have included the "largest number" of the "non-interesting" group, I agree.

But it does work with the smallest number being moved across.

And we ARE talking about integers.

Agergs' explanation makes me tired by just looking at it!😀

Originally posted by Agerg
Well I think the domain of discourse here is the integers, and they most certainly are countable!, as are the rationals. All bets are off for the reals though.

DeepThought and Agerg, I'm thoroughly impressed with your applicable knowledge in this realm of academic endeavour.
Guess it's true, as someone observed, that we're all teachers and students in different areas of human inquiry. Thanks.

Edit Note: And thanks to CalJust for his previous and ongoing contributions.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Everyone immediately realized that if I am to convince anyone that to consider the IPUs offer, I must first do some ground work in convincing them that the offer itself is genuine and coming from a genuine entity - or at least an entity that has a reasonable chance of being genuine.
Yet oddly enough, many theists fail to see this need when it comes to th ...[text shortened]... ting. In fact I see no indication whatsoever that either Grampy or Suzzy have got the point yet.

I must apologise to you for calling your reference to the IPU insulting and confrontational. I realise ( as I mentioned earlier) that it was meant as a construct for your argument.

I totally agree that anybody who wants to convince somebody else of a particular point of view, has the burden of proof on THEM, and it is senseless (apart from being a waste of everybody's time) merely to quote from documents which are a part of that belief system itself (as has again been done by GB).

This does NOT promote any discussion, but merely goes around in circles.

Edit: For example, if your daughter wrote an essay about your IPU, which you profess to be the Sacred Scripture of the IPU, you could then not use that document as proof of its existence, since its validity would be disputed by your hearers. One would need third party corroberation back to something that is accepted by both parties - something that I have previously called "common ground".

Originally posted by CalJust
I must apologise to you for calling your reference to the IPU insulting and confrontational. I realise ( as I mentioned earlier) that it was meant as a construct for your argument.

I totally agree that anybody who wants to convince somebody else of a particular point of view, has the burden of proof on THEM, and it is senseless (apart from being a waste o ...[text shortened]... n been done by GB).

This does NOT promote any discussion, but merely goes around in circles.

CalJust, speaking for myself alone, my motivation within this forum has always been to provide accurate biblical information;
not to "convince" or coerce you or twhitehead or anyone else. This information either stimulates curiosity and interest or rejection. God the Holy Spirit is the Executor of Salvation. He alone makes it understandable to those with positive volition.

Originally posted by Agerg
All bets are off for the reals though.

Except that the moment you pick one, it must be pretty special to have gotten picked out of those uncountably infinite others. Just to even be able to define it makes it pretty special. The vast majority of reals can only be distinguished from each other by listing the infinite string of digits that makes them up, or by some other method requiring infinite time to communicate the information.