|
|
The Henricksons' public stock is rising, as Barb finds herself a finalist for Mother of the Year, and Bill is asked to become the newest member of the Salt Lake City Leadership League. Meanwhile, the three wives mull over custody scenarios in their separate wills, but are chastened for their subterfuge when Hatcher spills the beans to Bill. Rhonda arrives from Juniper Creek for a histrionic spring-break stay, prompting sympathy from Sarah and Heather. Finally, Holloway finds that keeping secrets from Roman carries both risks and rewards.
|
Posts:
2,481
Registered:
11/2/04
|
|
(1182 of 1182)
Re: Episode 11: "Where There's A Will"
Jan 3, 2007 12:07 AM
|
> If you don't believe in the Law of Causation then you
> must believe that things can "just happen"...
> spontaneous creation. [Aristotle weeps and David
> Hume cheers]
>
> Unfortunately, your disbelief in the Law of Causation
> makes it difficult to continue in debate- we need to
> both be on the same sheet of music with this one as
> well as other basic elements of philosophy and logic
> (Mutual Exclusivity, Existence Exists, Conciousness
> is Identification, etc).
>
> I'm sorry that we can't meet on common ground- I
> really enjoyed the exchange.
Causation works well at a macro level, but not a micro level. This is the greatest dilemma of modern physics. At the micro level things do indeed happen "without causes." Two contradictory things can even happen at once, for example a photon tracing two possible paths at once.
You have a deep-seated need for the universe to "make sense" or that a just power will balance all accounts in the end. I'd probably be a happier person if I agreed with that but I don't, and I'm certainly not going to fake it.
--
mugshot
noise
|
|
|
Posts:
6
Registered:
1/2/07
|
|
(1181 of 1182)
Re: Episode 11: "Where There's A Will"
Jan 2, 2007 4:15 PM
|
If you don't believe in the Law of Causation then you must believe that things can "just happen"... spontaneous creation. [Aristotle weeps and David Hume cheers]
Unfortunately, your disbelief in the Law of Causation makes it difficult to continue in debate- we need to both be on the same sheet of music with this one as well as other basic elements of philosophy and logic (Mutual Exclusivity, Existence Exists, Conciousness is Identification, etc).
I'm sorry that we can't meet on common ground- I really enjoyed the exchange.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,481
Registered:
11/2/04
|
|
(1180 of 1182)
Re: Episode 11: "Where There's A Will"
Jan 2, 2007 12:03 PM
|
> >
> > WHAT "evidence?"
> > >
>
> Either you admit you have all the evidence for
> and against the existence of God that is available
> (everywhere in the universe- an absurd position) or
> you must admit that God might exist within the
> context of the information you don't have.
Again, what "evidence?"
>
> Only an omnipotent being can say with surity that
> "There is no God." Which, of course, would be some
> pretty strong evidence to the contrary.
>
There is no Aphrodite. Does that make me omnipotent?
>
> > Same applies to "God." We don't need a "God" for
> the
> > creation of life, or the universe for that matter.
> > >
>
> A true adherent to the base principles of science
> would say otherwise. Theories persist until
> disproven... has science done this? If you worship
> Cause and Effect you reach a sudden halting conundrum
> where the universe is concerned- even Hawking and
> other "singularity origin" proponents want to know
> the "Cause" of the effect [the existence of space,
> matter, and time].
You are confusing "theory" and "hypothesis" -- something creationists do when they yell "It's only a theory."
>
> All things have a cause.
Says who? Take a good look at quantum mechanics.
>
> The universe is a thing.
>
> The universe has a cause.
See above.
>
> Interestingly enough, Hawking's last video records
> him referring to God as a fact. I don't say this as
> an appeal to authority; I simply use it to illustrate
> that the myth that there are no "real" academians who
> are theists is a bogeyman.
I never made such a claim. I suspect many people approaching their mortality get queesy on the question.
>
> > > In the end I don't think we're too different in
> > how
> > > we accept ideas... test all things, right?
> >
> > No, because you now have to go through all the
> > world's pantheons one god(dess) at a time.
> >
>
>
> While you have the more advantageous and intelligent
> position of believing in one god to the exclusion of
> any other possiblity... blind faith.
No, I don't believe any more in one god than a pantheon.
>
> The agnostic says, "I do not know."
>
> The athiest says, "I know everything."
>
> Which is more probable?
That you are putting words in the mouth of the atheist.
--
mugshot
noise
|
|
|
Posts:
6
Registered:
1/2/07
|
|
(1179 of 1182)
Re: Episode 11: "Where There's A Will"
Jan 2, 2007 10:34 AM
|
>
> WHAT "evidence?"
> >
Either you admit you have all the evidence for and against the existence of God that is available (everywhere in the universe- an absurd position) or you must admit that God might exist within the context of the information you don't have.
Only an omnipotent being can say with surity that "There is no God." Which, of course, would be some pretty strong evidence to the contrary.
> Same applies to "God." We don't need a "God" for the
> creation of life, or the universe for that matter.
> >
A true adherent to the base principles of science would say otherwise. Theories persist until disproven... has science done this? If you worship Cause and Effect you reach a sudden halting conundrum where the universe is concerned- even Hawking and other "singularity origin" proponents want to know the "Cause" of the effect [the existence of space, matter, and time].
All things have a cause.
The universe is a thing.
The universe has a cause.
Interestingly enough, Hawking's last video records him referring to God as a fact. I don't say this as an appeal to authority; I simply use it to illustrate that the myth that there are no "real" academians who are theists is a bogeyman.
> > In the end I don't think we're too different in
> how
> > we accept ideas... test all things, right?
>
> No, because you now have to go through all the
> world's pantheons one god(dess) at a time.
>
While you have the more advantageous and intelligent position of believing in one god to the exclusion of any other possiblity... blind faith.
The agnostic says, "I do not know."
The athiest says, "I know everything."
Which is more probable?
|
|
|
Posts:
2,481
Registered:
11/2/04
|
|
(1178 of 1182)
Re: Episode 11: "Where There's A Will"
Jan 2, 2007 5:02 AM
|
> Then, truly, your religion is atheism. You operate
> on the faith (belief) that there is no God, without
> the benefit of all the evidence (available and
> unavailable). Faith is intrinsic to the system.
> Interestingly, this seems to completely undermine
> e any philosophy that seeks to operate strictly on a
> physical basis (see: postmodernism); you have to
> "believe" that there is no metaphysic. But that's
> another ball of fish.
WHAT "evidence?"
>
>
> Without trying to reduce this to a discussion of
> terms, the entymology involved in the term also
> implies a surity. "a" (without) "theos" (god). It's
> a statement of fact when in reality it's just a
> "feeling". Perhaps a better word for "not believing
> in anything without a positive reason" would be a
> physicalist. I don't get the feeling you'd expressly
> disavow divine evidence if presented with it- which a
> true athiest certainly would do if he stuck to Hoyle
> about the definition.
>
> The Flying Spaghetti Monster might not exist- I
> haven't seen one.
You'll boil in tomato sauce for all eternity, you know.
>
> But if there were witnesses who said they had seen
> the FSM rampantly devouring noodles throughout
> history and no other explaination for the
> dissappearance of my meatballs panned out when
> tested, I'd have to concede the possiblility that
> there might just be a Flying Spaghetti Monster
> lurking somewhere outside my paltry and limited life
> experience. I don't have the vanity of intellect to
> assume otherwise- I'm only one man in 6.5 billion
> living. Besides, do you have a better way of
> explaining my missing sauce?
>
> Zeus, OTOH, makes lightning bolts and hurls them to
> the earth... no, wait... I have a working knowledge
> of electricity and know how it forms and why it
> strikes, don't I? So, either there is no Zeus as
> depicted by the greeks, or he's not quite what we
> thought he was, right?
Same applies to "God." We don't need a "God" for the creation of life, or the universe for that matter.
>
> In the end I don't think we're too different in how
> we accept ideas... test all things, right?
No, because you now have to go through all the world's pantheons one god(dess) at a time.
--
mugshot
noise
|
|
|
Posts:
6
Registered:
1/2/07
|
|
(1177 of 1182)
Re: Episode 11: "Where There's A Will"
Jan 2, 2007 3:05 AM
|
Then, truly, your religion is atheism. You operate on the faith (belief) that there is no God, without the benefit of all the evidence (available and unavailable). Faith is intrinsic to the system. Interestingly, this seems to completely undermine any philosophy that seeks to operate strictly on a physical basis (see: postmodernism); you have to "believe" that there is no metaphysic. But that's another ball of fish.
Without trying to reduce this to a discussion of terms, the entymology involved in the term also implies a surity. "a" (without) "theos" (god). It's a statement of fact when in reality it's just a "feeling". Perhaps a better word for "not believing in anything without a positive reason" would be a physicalist. I don't get the feeling you'd expressly disavow divine evidence if presented with it- which a true athiest certainly would do if he stuck to Hoyle about the definition.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster might not exist- I haven't seen one.
But if there were witnesses who said they had seen the FSM rampantly devouring noodles throughout history and no other explaination for the dissappearance of my meatballs panned out when tested, I'd have to concede the possiblility that there might just be a Flying Spaghetti Monster lurking somewhere outside my paltry and limited life experience. I don't have the vanity of intellect to assume otherwise- I'm only one man in 6.5 billion living. Besides, do you have a better way of explaining my missing sauce?
Zeus, OTOH, makes lightning bolts and hurls them to the earth... no, wait... I have a working knowledge of electricity and know how it forms and why it strikes, don't I? So, either there is no Zeus as depicted by the greeks, or he's not quite what we thought he was, right?
In the end I don't think we're too different in how we accept ideas... test all things, right?
|
|
|
Posts:
2,481
Registered:
11/2/04
|
|
(1176 of 1182)
Re: Episode 11: "Where There's A Will"
Jan 2, 2007 2:04 AM
|
> > I, too, am a "considered" atheist. I have been
> > searching for faith for as long as I have had
> > cognitive reasoning skills.
>
> I'm shocked by so much talk of athiesm.
>
> I think most touting atheism actually mean
> agnosticism. For a test, try this:
>
> How much of all the knowledge/information/facts in
> the physical universe would you say you currently
> posess?
>
> [the answer: very little- if you're a supragenious,
> perhaps a fraction of a percent.]
>
> Now with that in mind, is it possible that God exists
> in the vast realm of knowledge/information/facts you
> don't currently posess?
>
> Atheism is a religion of its own, requiring a
> faith that insists God doesn't exist in an
> unexplored realm of information.
>
> No true practitioner of logic can refute it. The
> most extreme position a thinking man can have is one
> of agnosticism- another ball of wax entirely.
I am an atheist. To not believe in God I don't need total knowledge of the universe. I also don't believe in Zeus, Aphrodite, Vishnu or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't "believe" in ANYTHING until I have a positive reason to do so.
--
mugshot
noise
|
|
|
Posts:
6
Registered:
1/2/07
|
|
(1175 of 1182)
Re: Episode 11: "Where There's A Will"
Jan 2, 2007 1:38 AM
|
> I, too, am a "considered" atheist. I have been
> searching for faith for as long as I have had
> cognitive reasoning skills.
I'm shocked by so much talk of athiesm.
I think most touting atheism actually mean agnosticism. For a test, try this:
How much of all the knowledge/information/facts in the physical universe would you say you currently posess?
[the answer: very little- if you're a supragenious, perhaps a fraction of a percent.]
Now with that in mind, is it possible that God exists in the vast realm of knowledge/information/facts you don't currently posess?
Atheism is a religion of its own, requiring a faith that insists God doesn't exist in an unexplored realm of information.
No true practitioner of logic can refute it. The most extreme position a thinking man can have is one of agnosticism- another ball of wax entirely.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
9/18/06
|
|
(1174 of 1182)
Re: Episode 11: "Where There's A Will"
Sep 18, 2006 12:51 PM
|
Is this the episode with a lot of Rhonda?
Cause SHE is the wildest character I've seen in awhile.
She's a secondary character, but as in most HBO series, every fine detail is perfected. She is no exception. She is far from innocent. She is wise beyond her years and manipulates her power position with expertise. I don't believe her for a second that she wants to stay and live with the Henndricksons. She's truly corrupt. And knows her intentions are well hidden behind her gorgeous little girl demeanor.
Yes, she's mostly a product of her environment. But she's also naturally wicked. She is not a Big Love villian that should be underestimated. We haven't seen the worst of her yet. She's too confident, too manipulative, too beautiful. She's capable of awesomely bad things.
|
|
|
Posts:
834
Registered:
7/27/05
|
|
(1173 of 1182)
Re: Episode 11: "Where There's A Will"
Jun 12, 2006 11:03 AM
|
> If Barb and Nicki die before Bill, he would be able
> to designate a guardian in his will for Barb and
> Nicki's children. But, if Margie is still alive,
> Bill could not designate a guardian for her children.
> She has an automatic right to custody of her
> r children.
Well, that's true; it would only apply to Barb and Nicki's children.
> Don and his wives could not sue Margie for custody of
> the children, because they have not stood "in loco
> parentis" (literally in place of the parent). In
> other words, neither Don nor his wives have raised
> these children. Depending on Utah law, Lois, as a
> grandparent, would have the right to sue for custody> of the children, but she does not have a right to an
> award of custody.
Even if there is a will that designates guardians? Wouldn't the will take precedence?
Of course, I know each state has its' own laws.
M.
--
Let me not pray to be sheltered from dangers,
but to be fearless in facing them.
Let me not beg for the stilling of my pain,
but for the heart to conquer it.
Let me not crave in anxious fear to be saved,
but for the patience to win my freedom."
Shantideva
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(1172 of 1182)
Re: Episode 11: "Where There's A Will"
Jun 12, 2006 10:17 AM
|
morrighan:
I just caught the tail end of this episode again, and when Bill approaches Don about taking the kids, he says "if I die, and Barb dies, and Nicki dies, will you take the kids, and raise them in the principle". Maybe it's to show that Bill feels that Margene wouldn't continue in the principle, and it's important to him that his children continue with it. Margene wasn't raised in it, and only came to be in the situation because she fell in love with Bill. This makes it seem less like he's being dismissive of Margene, and just facing reality.
If Barb and Nicki die before Bill, he would be able to designate a guardian in his will for Barb and Nicki's children. But, if Margie is still alive, Bill could not designate a guardian for her children. She has an automatic right to custody of her children.
Don and his wives could not sue Margie for custody of the children, because they have not stood "in loco parentis" (literally in place of the parent). In other words, neither Don nor his wives have raised these children. Depending on Utah law, Lois, as a grandparent, would have the right to sue for custody of the children, but she does not have a right to an award of custody. At least in PA, in a contest between a parent and a non-parent, the law presumes that the child's best interest is to remain with the parent. The non-parent must prove that not only is he/she as good as the parent, but must prove that he/she would be MUCH better at raising the child. Non-parents (including grandparents) rarely can meet this burden unless the parent has mental health or drug/alcohol problems.
Of course, if Lois finds a "polygamy friendly" judge, all bets would be off.
Toolgirl
--
"This is Ohio. If you don't have a brewskie in your hand you might as well be wearing a dress." JD, Heathers
|
|
|
Posts:
834
Registered:
7/27/05
|
|
(1171 of 1182)
Re: Episode 11: "Where There's A Will"
Jun 10, 2006 9:10 PM
|
I just caught the tail end of this episode again, and when Bill approaches Don about taking the kids, he says "if I die, and Barb dies, and Nicki dies, will you take the kids, and raise them in the principle". Maybe it's to show that Bill feels that Margene wouldn't continue in the principle, and it's important to him that his children continue with it. Margene wasn't raised in it, and only came to be in the situation because she fell in love with Bill. This makes it seem less like he's being dismissive of Margene, and just facing reality.
Just a random thought.
M.
--
Let me not pray to be sheltered from dangers,
but to be fearless in facing them.
Let me not beg for the stilling of my pain,
but for the heart to conquer it.
Let me not crave in anxious fear to be saved,
but for the patience to win my freedom."
Shantideva
|
|
|
Posts:
432
Registered:
4/18/06
|
|
(1170 of 1182)
Re: Episode 11: "Where There's A Will"
Jun 9, 2006 4:03 PM
|
|
You know, Abu, of all the religions I have studied, I have come to appreciate Hinduism the most. It is so open and accepting to all belief systems. Essentially, Hinduism believes that there is only one "God" but that this god is more of a supreme consciousness that resides in us all. They believe that all religions are valid, as they are all paths to the same God. Everyone must choose his own path, the one that best suits his needs.
|
|
|
Posts:
314
Registered:
3/25/06
|
|
(1169 of 1182)
Re: Episode 11: "Where There's A Will"
Jun 9, 2006 3:41 PM
|
JPC,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
from the time I was about 10, years of going to church and even teaching CCD to Catholic school children, I never did believe that there was any sentient, omniscient being out there listening to prayers.
This is interesting. For as long as I can remember (age 5?) it never occurred to me that the world, universe, and even myself could ever have come into being without a loving God. Furthermore, I just knew He was present even though, like the wind, I couldn't see or touch Him. It was a given. It was like this understanding was "hard wired" into my being.
I've always been more religious than any members of my family; especially more so than my folks. My father was a liberal Protestant while my mother was a Catholic educated (by the Carmelites I think). As a family we kept up appearances by going to the local liberal Methodist church, but my father's real religion was science. My mother on the other hand was spoon fed the typical Catholic dogma but that's where her thinking on such matters stopped. In fact, I don't really think she though much about spiritual things so it was no big deal to her to convert when she married my dad.
I am much happier and able to focus on other things. Like HBO message boards....
LOL! Glad you're here too.
--
The first commandment was when Eve told Adam to eat the apple.
|
|
|
Posts:
432
Registered:
4/18/06
|
|
(1168 of 1182)
Re: Episode 11: "Where There's A Will"
Jun 9, 2006 2:50 PM
|
> Hi JPC,
>
> Missed you, glad you're back.
>
> After a lifetime of searching, I finally and
> happily concluded that I just can not believe in a
> Supreme Being
>
> I'm really interested in your thought process:
> exactly how did you reach your happy
> conclusion?
I just finally had to accept that I was kidding myself. All those years, probably from the time I was about 10, years of going to church and even teaching CCD to Catholic school children, I never did believe that there was any sentient, omniscious being out there listening to prayers. It did not make sense to me logically. As much as I love the teachings of Jesus, I certainly could not believe in the resurrection or ascension, or in the Catholic doctine of transubstantiation.
Growing up in the South Louisiana, where I'd say it is probably 45% Catholic and 45% Baptist, this was something about myself with which I struggled for years. I hope you understand that I tried to believe in God. That belief system seems to bring joy and comfort to so many, why wouldn't I want to be a part of it? But I just couldn't continue with the hypocrisy. And now that I have let it go and accepted that I just do not believe in any of this, I am much happier and able to focus on other things. Like HBO message boards....
> Nothing happened to me to make me have an
> unfavorable impression of religion
>
> OK, this assumption stems from my inability to
> comprehend an atheist worldview.
>
> Theism has three purposes: It is a way for humans
> to explain that which they can not explain. It
> provides a carrot/stick approach for morals. It
> allows humans to deny their own mortality.
>
> This is true if we theists are wrong. If we are
> right, it's a whole other kettle of fish isn't
> it?
True, but even if it turns out that I am wrong and there is a god, I think that if he is as great and powerful as is believed, he is not concerned about the behavior of humans and would want us to worship Him about as much as we want ants to worship us. I think that is just an anthropomorphization of God to think that he demands obedience and worship.
If he DOES have these strict rules and all these tests of faith, then I don't think he deserves my worship and obedience anyway. I have higher standards for "my" god....
|
|
|
|
|
