|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Saturday, March 06, 2010
I’m going to print this out and hang it in the bar right next to the leggy Christine McIntyre pic.
It’s true that the stats-vs.-scouts debate has lost its luster and Sabermetrics has become much more mainstream in baseball, essentially winning the fight if there ever was one. However, with casual fans, I think Sabermetrics is still making baby steps. Casual fans aren’t going to make the effort to learn a new perspective from which to view baseball; they are not going to memorize more acronyms and their respective formulas; and they are not going to take the time to apply them on an everyday basis. These fans have grown up on the game, have experienced no drawbacks from using AVG/HR/RBI, and see no reason to change.
I am not saying that that mindset is wrong. Making the switch from AVG/HR/RBI to OPS or EQA or wOBA isn’t anywhere near as important as making the switch from double bacon cheeseburgers to salads, or from one medication to another. The need to understand these new stats is much less important than it is to be well-educated in other areas.
That said, I think that the answer to “why do casual fans aim such vitriol at Sabermetrics?” is ego. Of scientists whose research could reasonably go unquestioned (I’m not saying that they should), Sabermetricians would be found among the first on the list. Yet, presumably due to the ego of the lifelong baseball fan, their feet are constantly held to the flame because these fans have adopted a mindset that has worked for many, many years. They can ask (usually unanswerable or irrelevant) questions and fashion competitive (often logically fallacious) arguments which essentially ensures that they will not change their mind no matter what. For similar reasons, most creationists will never accept evolution as a viable theory.
Repoz
Posted: March 06, 2010 at 12:54 PM | 171 comment(s)
| Login to Bookmark
Related News: General, Sabermetrics
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Sources: Cubs’ Starlin Castro Accused Of Sexual Assault (6116 - 5:26pm, Feb 10)Last: ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris?Newsblog: Curt Schilling Says Manny 'Quit on the Field,' Teammates Stopped Him From Confronting Slugger (11 - 5:25pm, Feb 10)Last: tfbg9Newsblog: 'Duk: Tim Lincecum slims down with swim routine, loses appetite for McDonald’s (292 - 5:23pm, Feb 10)Last: Moe GreeneNewsblog: Mets owners knew about Maddoff (21 - 5:22pm, Feb 10)Last: Dan The MediocreTransaction Oracle: 2012 ZiPS Projections - Oakland A's (51 - 5:19pm, Feb 10)Last: Davo the MagnificentNewsblog: FSKC announces on-air lineup for Royals - Rex Hudler and Steve Physioc to join (8 - 5:08pm, Feb 10)Last: Chris NeedhamNewsblog: MLB: Hall of Fame worthy? Furthest thing from Schilling's mind (38 - 5:04pm, Feb 10)Last: The Good FaceNewsblog: Bluetales blog: JetBlue’s 605 Wears Red Sox Colors! (6 - 4:51pm, Feb 10)Last: The Yankee ClapperNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, February 2012 (408 - 4:46pm, Feb 10)Last: channeling my inner STEAGLESNewsblog: Tom Brady getting new bro-in-law: Red Sox’ Kevin Youkilis! (17 - 4:43pm, Feb 10)Last: The Yankee ClapperSox Therapy: Offseason Minor League Thread (2 - 4:39pm, Feb 10)Last: ellsbury my heart at wounded kneeNewsblog: Knobler: Stay away from steroids -- but vote how you want (23 - 4:36pm, Feb 10)Last: Something OtherNewsblog: ESPN: Law: Top 100 Prospects (paywalled) (8 - 4:27pm, Feb 10)Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)Newsblog: Whatever Happened to the Spitball? (25 - 4:21pm, Feb 10)Last: Something OtherNewsblog: Grantland/Bill James: An Open Letter to the Hall of Fame About Dwight Evans (42 - 4:20pm, Feb 10)Last: Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
If announcer ____ and writer ____ and player ____ all thought that RBI were more important than the negative value of outs made, how can it suddenly be wrong?
Some of the progress made can be attributed to evidence that things work; hey, Cashman and Espstein both believe in OBP, and their teams won, maybe it's not so stoopid after all. Teams with managers who value 35 yr old gamers over run prodcuers continue to stink, hmm, maybe there's something there. The unfortunate AL DIV series 5th game woes of Billy B's A's have sadly given more gunpowder to the unbelievers.
People do come around; welfare reform in the 1990s U.S.A. was thought among some to be the death knell for poor people. Evidence came in to suggest that prophecy was largely inaccurate, and today it is accepted as a good thing. While hubris exists in both sides of debates of politics, creation/evolution, steroids, Mike Piazza and any other subject we'd like to argue about for the 999th sequel (I TOLD YOU A MILLION TIMES NOT TO EXAGGERATE!), evidence over the long haul brings people around. With exceptions :)
YAY! Creation vs Evolution thread. Go, go, go!
Is this fellow serious? I think not.
I will, however, defend indifference to those advances.
Take Crashburn's examples above. In recent years, OPS (and OPS+) has made significant inroads in the public consciousness. More people understand it. More people use it. For some, understanding and using it after years of using the traditional metrics probably took some effort. But if suddenly, just as they've become versed in this fancy new metric, a bunch of stathead types are quick to point out that EQA or wOBA do a slightly better job at measuring performance than OPS+, and that this new acronymed beauty is the language of choice among knowledgable fans (and from my vantage point, there is a little too much of that attitude in our community) I fully understand (and, in some ways, subscribe to) the idea of throwing up your hands and saying "#### it, I give up."
I like and appreciate the big-picture concepts that have arisen out of sabermetrics, particularly those those that apply to how the game is played (rather than how the individual players are measured). But the latest advances in player evaluation that represent fine-grain improvements over the previous latest advances in player evaluation do little to enhance my enjoyment or understanding of the game.
The truly advanced metrics are very useful when you are trying to compare 50 different players playing 6 different positions across 7 different eras, and similar exercises. But for the great run of fans who are not as anal about these types of things as the HOM, or even BBTF lurkers, the basics of OBP, SLG, SB/CS will do nicely.
From what I've read, fast food salads are even worse!
Literally.
But they could if they felt like it.
People are very conservative about their enertainment past a certain age. Not too many adults over 30 will give ear to new music. You have to wait for a new generation to make its way to adulthood.
Yeah, I agree.
Especially since my parents were about 80 at that time. :-)
While that's true, rock 'n roll created a quantum divide. Someone born in 1940 has more common pop and rock music tastes with someone born in 1990 than with someone born in 1930. The only other great divide since then has been with respect to hip-hop. Some of the most vehement hip-hop haters I know are older African-Americans who grew up on soul and Motown.
You have to think things and people are a hell of a lot better than they actually are to believe in intelligent design. As someone said, "Arthritis, head lice, rich people? What's so ####### intelligent about it?"
Yet it's not bizarre (and awkward) that 'kids' like some music from thirty-five years ago. Thirty-five years ago, if one had confessed to liking Glenn Miller, one could have been beaten up!
Something fundamental has shifted. Old popular music that was written for its time, as throwaway guff, has become 'classic' and tolerated by the young. I don't like it, but I'm an old fuddy-duddy who thinks Oedipal dangers go beyond simply killing your father and marrying your mother.
Well, don't overdo it. I was in high school 35 years ago, and classic big band stuff like Glenn Miller or Count Basie or Duke Ellington was considered reasonably cool.
Now, if one had confessed to liking Pat Boone or Patti Page or some such, well, that would surely have been a beating-worthy offense.
I don't think so. I listened to old music (60s and 70s "classic rock") when I was in high school 25 years ago. I've listened to new music since then. And many of the fellow message boarders at the online indie radio station I listen to are over 40 as well.
Sonic Youth and Pavement aren't anything close to "new music" these days.
My sons and I listen to a lot of the same music these days. We all like the Beatles, and we all like MGMT. It's nice how that works out. I never listened to the same music as my father when I was younger, but as I've gotten older I've come to appreciate some of the people he likes, like Sinatra. It's nice how that works out.
Even though this thread has moved on to music, I don't mind going back and outing myself by answering this question in the affirmative. Incidentally, I also believe in the Biblical accounts of the miracles that Jesus performed, so if I'm to be mocked for my beliefs, I would think that it makes more sense to point my belief in those things (the miracles of Jesus), rather than my belief in creationism. I mean, which is relatively easier to believe: that an Almighty being created all that can be seen, or that a man walked on water and fed thousands of people with a few fish and a couple of loaves of bread (and that's without even getting to the real good stuff, like raising people from the dead, and then rising from the dead himself)? So, for those who always wanted to know, mark me down as someone who believes in a God created universe.
Turning back towards music, my first love will probably always be The Beatles; but I also love the early Rock and Roll and Doo-Wop sounds of the '50s; the Big Band music of the 40s; Easy Listening Vocalists of most any era; the New Wave sounds of the '80s; and Country music of pretty much any age. I guess that I was fortunate in that I learned at a young age that there's really only two types of music: it's either good or it ain't.
DB
Well, personally, I think you should be mocked more for liking New Wave...
Thinking about George Will, and McDonald's bottom line, I almost stopped reading right there. But then I got to this:
And there's your answer to the public acceptance problem. But the catch is that you have to publicize these predictions IN ADVANCE. And in a prominent public place. Maybe even with a little rhyme; think Cassius Clay's boxing predictions---which sounded like braggadocio until he backed them up, and then he was taken seriously.
It doesn't do a bleeping bit of good to brag about how well your 2009 predictions panned out if at the beginning of the 2009 season nobody but a handful of sabermetricians knew you were making these predictions. Shout them from the rooftops, and keep them front and center all year. Beginning today.
Then when your predictions leave the mainstream commentators in the dust, start mocking them and reminding them of their pathetic lack of understanding. After a while, you'll get their attention, and after a few years of that, they might even start to agree you might be onto something.
Of course to do this you have to be willing to stick your neck out, and be willing to be the butt of ridicule if your predictions leave you looking stupid, which they often will. But if you want to (a) become better known to the public, and (b) become better respected, that's the only way to do it. Otherwise as far as the casual fan is concerned, you're little different from all those tout sheets that brag about how they did when they win in order to get your money, but quickly go on to the next subject when they lose.
If nutritionists didn't have a history of just making #### up (hell, in Sweden it has been official advice that fatty foods should be avoided, scientific content of that: zero) and always doing their best to get on the news with yet another food scare maybe he would have a point.
But he does have a point. People will often accept those statements at face value, because they come from an "expert". The problem with baseball, is that most people think of the likes of Steve Phillips as experts...
1) there are many flavors, just like there are flavors of evolutionism
2) given this board's focus & the tenor of many comments in this group, it isn't the place to debate; I have productive conversations in other places with more thoughtfulness and less acid
Forget the future, these times are such a mess
Tune out the past, and just say yes
it's 1963
it's 1964
it's 1957
it's 1962
Kim Gordon turns 57 next month.
it's either good or it ain't.
prob is when people forget this is largely a subjective judgement..and no knock on you, but most people saying this have extremely narrow tastes.
Admittedly, I'm a music slut.
When people use the term Creationist, they specifically mean the variety that believes that the Earth is 6000 years old.
Do you believe he created in 7 days 5,000-6,000 years ago or do you have a more loose interpretation of the bible? I've never found evolution or the big bang theory to be at serious odds with creationism unless you want to take the literal words of the bible as the final truth on the issue.
I hope you added espn.com in the blocked sites under your parental controls. I can just see your son sneeking on their message boards in the middle of the night...
it's either good or it ain't.
prob is when people forget this is largely a subjective judgement..and no knock on you, but most people saying this have extremely narrow tastes.
Admittedly, I'm a music slut.
Strange, I see it the other way. I have a pretty wide taste in music, from R&B;to New Metal, I often get mocked for it. But "it's either good or it ain't" fits me pretty well, too. There's good pop music, and bad pop music, good classical, and bad classical. As long as it's in the "good" section, I can listen to it regarless of type...
-- Douglas Adams
I'm not much for arguing religion, either, because it's so difficult to have an honest discussion about it..and atheist fundies are more annoying than Xian ones..the deeper issues never get touched upon, how religious need is inherently human - the ncessity of believing some vital lie to keep going, as simple as thinking all one's suffering has served a purpose, that your life is guided by a higher mind.
And how even people who reject religion accept it's premises, Puritanism and Calvinism engrained in American thought. Almost everyone seems to accept the notion of a fallen world, original sin, the necessity of repressing natural human energies starting from birth unless evil prevail. If by fallible you mean limited in knowledge and perception and ability, of course. But that's not usually what people mean.
If you think carefully about it all for long, the pretty horrifying truth of evolution and all it's implications of biological determinism can paralyze you. So I'm not too judgemental about other peoples belief systems.
My atheism is rooted in this quote from Brecht:
Someone asked Herr Keuner if there is a god. Herr Keuner said: I advise you to think about how your behavior would change with regard to the answer to this question. If it would not change, then we can drop the question. If it would change, then I can help you at least insofar as I can tell you: Youve already decided - you need a god.
Your quote makes no sense to me, an observant RC. If you discover that you, and everybody else, has an immortal soul from conception, that cannot help but change everything.
It will certainly no longer be enough to simply satisfy some vauge standard of being an OK person with regard to the other life forms you bump into in your eighty-odd years.
And you'd realize that you are not just a blob of random cells, but owe your very existense to God.
The saber stats clearly value the former, but is that because the former is easier to statistically define, or because it really is more valuable?
Here is a thought game that highlights the tension between those options. You have two first basement of equal defensive skill, one walks 5 times a game, the saber-Baseball Jesus, if you will. The other player strikes out 4 times a game but also hits a homerun every game. Both guys are valuable, but who is more valuable? Who would you rather have, who is more likely to win the MVP? I am sure that based on advanced statistics Mr. Baseball Jesus adds more value but does he really add more actual value, or is it more virtual value?
I believe, you could say have faith, that Mr. 162 HR and 162++ RBI's adds more actual value than 810 walks and 810 saved outs, and I don't think it is even close. Although, if I could have a team of one or the other, I also know which I would take, of course that would quickly relegate the popularity of baseball to something below the professional marble tour.
If I were a GM/owner, I'd construct a really really big park. My team would have to play defense and run a lot in the OF. I think they woudl draw well. Oh, and the pitchers would learn to throw strikes!
Why should it? The Bible (and practically every other religious text) is completely silent on partial birth abortions. It's the same weighing process as before: does the fetus represent a "life" or something of the same moral value as a "life"; what are the consequences of regulation vs. the consequences of the lack thereof; etc.
Your quote makes no sense to me, an observant RC. If you discover that you, and everybody else, has an immortal soul from conception, that cannot help but change everything. It will certainly no longer be enough to simply satisfy some vauge standard of being an OK person with regard to the other life forms you bump into in your eighty-odd years.
I don't consider my standard to be particularly vague. In the overwhelming majority of situations, I behave no differently than a devout Catholic would. I don't rape, murder, or steal from people, and I doubt that would change. I try not to do anything with the deliberate purpose of causing harm to another person, and that wouldn't change either.
I strongly suspect that outside of relatively minor ritualistic behavior (example: not eating meat on Fridays during Lent), we would be relatively morally indistinguishable in a social setting. I take the liberty of assuming that you are a good Christian, of course, in the not judging and the loving thy neighbor aspects of Christ's teachings.
There is a large difference between the confirmation of the God mentioned in, say, the King James Bible, and the confirmation of all of the things men have professed to be true on His behalf. I think that if I believed in God, I would be even more disgusted with the terrible things that people say and do in His name. The behavior of someone like Fred Phelps does not resonate at all with the benevolence displayed by Christ in the Bible.
It's going to depend on the quality of his teammates and the run environment.
Player A walks in every PA. Player B strikes out in 80% of his PA and hits a HR in 20%. Player C makes an out in every PA with no chance of advancing a runner. Player D hits a HR in every PA.
If you have a lineup of 8 guys who hit like Player C, Player A is practically useless for scoring runs and Player B is your team MVP. Given 27 outs as currency, you'll score .6 runs per game on average with the lottery slugger and 0 runs per game with the walking dude.
If you have a lineup of 8 guys who hit like Player D, you'll score significantly more runs with Player A in the lineup than with Player B (an infinite number of runs vs. a couple of hundred).
Obviously, players like C and D don't exist any more than players like A and B. But in practically every realistic run environment, Player A is going to be much, much more valuable. Although they do have the same OPS (---/1.000/--- vs. .200/.200/.800), which is amusing.
This sounds like a fun thought experiment...
So we have the case of a guy with OBP= 1.000 with an undefined slugging percentage and bating average vs. a guy with a OBP=0.200, SLG=0.800, and 162 HR. What effect will each have? This seems like a good job for Tom Tango's Markov chain run calculator.
Let's take the following assumptions:
Last year in the AL, there were 34.3 AB, 9.2 hits, 1.8 2B, 1.1 HR, 0.17 3B, 3.4 BB, and 6.7 SO per game. Putting this into Tango's model, and using his base assumptions for how base runners advance, we get 4.98 runs per game The actual AL value was 4.82, so this model seems pretty good for our purposes. First basemen contributed 3.8 AB, 1.0 H, 0.20 2B, 0.20 HR, 0.0 3B, 0.4 BB, 0.8 SO per game. So if we subtract this out, we get the contributions of teammates to the team's hitting line:
30.5 AB, 8.2 H, 1.6 2B, 0.9 HR, 0.17 3B, 3.0 BB, 5.9 SO per game.
Case #1: we have the guy that only walks. He walks 5 times a game. This adds no at bats or anything else to the teams line. But by walking he leaves some other at bats for the other guys. Let's assume that the team gets back to 34.3 AB. We will assume they get hits, HR, SO, etc at the same rate. This team has the batting line:
34.3 AB, 9.2 H, 1.8 2B, 1.0 HR, 0.19 3B, 8.4 BB, 6.6 SO
The model predicts such a team would score 7.27 runs per game. If the guy only gets something like 4 walks per game (because of fewer PA's), the team will get 6.75 runs per game.
Case #2: the HR/strikeout guy. Assume that he is getting 5 AB each game, with 4 SO and 1 HR (also 1 H). I am having a hard time thinking through how this will affect his teammates AB's, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that the hitting line looks like this:
35.5 AB, 9.2 H, 1.6 2B, 1.9 HR, 0.17 3B, 3.0 BB, 9.9 SO
This predicts 5.16 runs per game. I may have messed this line up a bit, but I can add a hit, or take off an AB and we still get a result that is 6.3 runs or less. So the guy with all the walks is a lot better.
If we create a strikeout/HR guy who gets 2 HR per game, with everything else as a strikeout, then his team ends up with a number of runs (~7.0) that is pretty similar to the guy who only walks.
5 walks per game without hits is about the same (in terms of run value) as a guy that gets 2 HR and 3 SO per game. The guy with 1 HR and 4 SO is not as good.
I need to get a life...
Who would have more Runs Produced (R + RBI - HR)?
My guess is that the difference between these two players is so large that there probably isn't a run environment out there in MLB history where the HR hitter is better.
Playing around with Tango's predictor, if we imagine a team (the all walks guy's team) that gets 7 singles, no extra base hits, no strikeouts, and 5 walks gets to about 2.1 runs per game. If we create a team (the HR/strikouts guy's team) that gets 7 singles, 1 HR, 0 walks, and 5 strikeouts this team gets 2.1 runs per game. In scoring environments where there is less scoring than this, the HR/strikeout guy is better. In scoring environments where there is more scoring than this, the all walks guy is better. In 1908 NL teams averaged 3.33 R/G, which is the lowest NL or AL result of all time. Even in this deadball context, the all walks guy is likely better.
This deserves a pass but ..
This kind of crass statement is indicative of the intelligence of the kind of man who would join the Gestapo if he had the misfortune to be born German at the wrong time.
At this point, it's just piling on... but what the hey.
The God of the Bible, if so inclined, could stop any and all partial birth abortions if he chose.
So either he
a) does not exist/is powerless
b) doesn't actually care about PBAs
c) does care (thinks they are wrong) but allows them to continue as some kind of 'teaching moment' or something.
In none of these cases would I change my behavior should the truth be revealed..
The God of the Bible, if so inclined, could stop any and all partial birth abortions if he chose.
So either he
a) does not exist/is powerless
b) doesn't actually care about PBAs
c) does care (thinks they are wrong) but allows them to continue as some kind of 'teaching moment' or something.
In none of these cases would I change my behavior should the truth be revealed..
Free will. If God compelled people to behave morally, there would be no content to the morality. We'd be robots.
God allows people to do evil, b/c otherwise there would be no possibility of doing good.
It's standard, "problem of evil" stuff.
At this point it's just piling on but the fact that atheists think this is variation of the theodicy argument just demonstrates how little they know about everything. Honestly, you people are acting like children (and I like zenbitz).
So Gaelen, is there no truth to Brecht's dramatization of the need of a god? I make absolutely no argument why an omnipotent being would allow endless human suffering through no cause of their own, because such an argument is senseless - there is no meaning to be had. People live and die like all other life on this planet. It's the nature of our existence..and an interesting fate indeed to just be aware of the fact of our looming non-existence and not try to explain it away.
All these discussions are twisted by metaphysical categories and a secret disgust with physical life, that absent a god we are mere blobs of cells and not wondrous creatures, that human life has little worth if it's merely a part of terrestrial life and not the crowning achievement of a god who thinks were so very special. The belief in an afterlife devalues the only life we know.
and eyelash
reappear
in a flash
now's the only
time i know
early morning's
greatest deed
what's forsaken
i do not need
there is water
there is snow
settling down
door and room
keep it tidy
keep it like home
now's the only
time i know
come here sparrow
watch my hand
black and blue seeds
that's what my hand can
now's the only
time i know
Because it makes no sense. If you accept a truly omniscient god, then he/she/it would know everything that was going to happen from start of creation to the end of universe.
Knowing all that, why go through it? What is the purpose of watching something play out when you know every inch before it happens.
And if he/she/it doesn't know, then it's not omniscience.
You always end up coming down to the same things when you deal with the Godders: It is beyond us to understand, God works in mysterious ways, it is not for us to question. In other words, no, it doesn't make any sense, so stop asking us to explain.
Of course, as a Jew, it is an endless source of amusement to me to see so many Goyim basing their worldview on Jewish Fairy Tales.
God allows people to do evil, b/c otherwise there would be no possibility of doing good.
It's standard, "problem of evil" stuff.
This. The "problem of evil" is a pretty facile dilemma if you're a person of faith. If you apply human logic to the divine, then you're naturally going to find human contradictions. For us, this is remarkably unremarkable and not something that shakes us to the core. For others, it's proof that we're buffoons.
Meh. We're accustomed to the sneering.
I say an accidental prediction because the Bagwell projection was listed in the "These Guys Can Play And Might Get A Chance" section. And James simply hadn't noted that the projected batting average for Bagwell was higher than anybody else in the league.
Got quite a bit of attention. And while Bagwell didn't win the batting title he did play well enough that those people who were paying attention scored it a hit.
But people don't necessarily those statements at face value. Nutrition isn't actually all too different from sabermetrics. Nutritionists, and doctors, I'm obviously not blaming all of them here, the "experts" have for a long time made of lot of claims, and prescribed their "expert" opinion from on high, without really any scientific basis. Some people, including but not limited to those doctors and nutritionists who do not accept those claims, keep challenging them on those claims: eggs will kill you, dietary cholesterol will kill you, dietary fat will kill you. Just like statheads used to rudely challenge baseball "experts" on wins and RBI. And the "experts" are slowly rowing back on their claims: eggs won't kill you anymore, in fact they might be good. Dietary cholesterol also won't kill you anymore, not really.
Crashburn cites Keith Laws take on JA Happ - compare it to the arrogance of the majority of atheists. They are right, but their sneering dismissal of myth, while useful in some contexts, is never going to convince the real audiece, the fencesitters. Yeah, I can't really blame Law or Srul for their bluntness - I love it, esp aimed at my own sacred cows - but it's not going to change any minds in the middle. The religiously committed don't usually change unless life deals a shattering personal blow to their worldview, and even then they are likely to regress to the mean myths of their religion.
Can't blame you for being amused Srul..those twisted fairy tales have killed too many, though.
More amusing is how you foisted circumcision on us.
Mere lyrics don't do it justice..don't think Christianity ever took good root in Scandinavia.
I'd suggest the unshakability of such faith is rooted in childhood indoctrination - not so much in religious instruction but in obedience training to the arbitrary higher power of the gods who ruled you from the time you were born. Parents can do unspeakably evil things to their children at a young age and the child will grow into an adult who will cling to the mystification that the abuse, neglect, or merely manipulation was a good and necessary thing.
There is no argument to convince someone that evil is a problem when he bows down to a god who enshrines child sacrifice as core belief.
I would like to go on record that I am a non-circumcised, agnostic atheist. Screw yall suckers!
So who's watching all those classic games that the MLB Network keeps showing?
DB
This is the one thing that always trips up Christians who think what they believe is reasonably rational. There's no even remotely logical argument as to how we could possibly have free will if God created us and everything we will ever interact with and had the full knowledge of how things would play out prior to all of it. As the problem of evil's existence can only be mitigated by human free will this directly questions even the possibility of a benevolent God.
If you bring this up the "things we cannot understand" card always gets played but I think even that nebulous cop out can be brought into question. How can it be reasonable to judge us upon or actions if the basic system of logic God gave us to operate upon is so broken that it doesn't even make sense that we have free will?
Also this;
http://i.imgur.com/wIXWX.png
Despite still being active I can understand saying that about SY as they are past their peak and aren't even trying to be experimental any more. For AC however I'd say it's hard to find anything that sounds "newer" than their last album(outside of things so obscure they wouldn't be discussed here or remotely enter into the public consciousness.)
1) How long will it take the driver to travel 180 miles, if s/he travels at an average speed of 45 miles per hour for the duration of the trip.?
2) Does the ability to calculate the answer to question #1 mean that the driver is not free to choose the average speed at which s/he will travel?
DB
It only trips one up if one applies human concepts of time to God. Humans exist in linear time, God does not.
There is no "prior" or "before" to God. All time is "now" to God, for want of a better term.
Being omnipotent doesn't mean He has to choose to exercise that power to dictate our every action. Being Omniscient doesn't mean he controls our choices, b/c , again he operates outside of time. I know the outcome of the 1960 World Series; that doesn't mean I had any impact on it.
We can't understand why God created man (not itn the strict "young earth" creation sense, but caused man to be), but He created us so that we would love Him and follow His commandments. If we have no free will, then there is no love.
Here's a nice summary on free will, if anyone's interested.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm
OK Go is one of my new favorite bands, although honestly I'm a bit behind.
And what about cloning?
A determined free will, if you will. No worries. Follow the question of god to it's limits and you will reach atheism. Know god to no god. Or is it the reverse?
Makes me smile.
This is not a fact, it shouldn't be presented as one. If it is what you believe, so be it. However, the fact that you believe it doesn't give it one iota of truth.
This is wrong in terms of the facts and incoherent with respect to reason. To put it simply you have no idea what you are talking about. It requires no faith, only a modicum of intelligence and education, to reconcile an omniscient god with free will.
Clearly it is a relgious/theological hypothesis. I didn't think that needed to be spelled out.
This is wrong in terms of the facts and incoherent with respect to reason. To put it simply you have no idea what you are talking about. It requires no faith, only a modicum of intelligence and education, to reconcile an omniscient god with free will.
I love Gaelan's posts :-)
Probably better for me to sit this one out, before I start offending people.
I feel like I've heard this explanation from you before, but if you're so inclined please reiterate.
No time, plus I'm too cranky to be pushing that rock up the hill today.
god was lonely and horny one day so he decided to get it on with mother earth..like us, he may have known what the consequences could be, but he really wasn't thinking about that in the heat of the moment, and by the time he came back to his omniscence, it was too late and all these disobedient children were running around disturbing his peace. So he had to come up with a way to make them behave, and the surest way was to scare 'em to death, then promise 'em a reward if they'd behave.
Part 1 of that statement seems to contradict part 2.
I always wondered if that was meant satirically.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main