Is Eru God?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

Opinion polls don't really prove much.

I would have to disagree. They provide, at a glance, the (stated) opinions of those polled, in this case a reasonably sized cross-section of Barrow-Downers.

You can make of such opinions what you will, but they can (depending upon the size and nature of the sample) be of use with regards to these kinds of questions where there is no definitive answer (or no feasible way of determining a definitive answer).

You can get up now, Fordim.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I would have to disagree. They provide, at a glance, the (stated) opinions of those polled, in this case a reasonably sized cross-section of Barrow-Downers.

You can make of such opinions what you will, but they can (depending upon the size and nature of the sample) be of use with regards to these kinds of questions where there is no definitive answer (or no feasible way of determining a definitive answer).

And of course I would disagree with that, though at this point I cannot even remember the original poll, let alone the question being asked .

In this poll, like many others, we are given limited choices. Assume a poll that asks, "Do you prefer vanilla or chocolate ice cream?" with the choices being *vanilla and *chocolate. Where does that leave me, a 'strawberry' fan? I could choose vanilla, as I prefer that over chocolate, but it's not really what I want to choose. Or do I not vote, as my choice is not available? And while I'm on the topic, I'm not even a big fan of ice cream, but prefer frozen yogurt. So if you can consider a preference for strawberry frozen yogurt to be a 'yes' vote for vanilla ice cream, then what is the poll truly measuring?

And actually, I'd pick coffee and a donut if I really had a choice of desserts, and so obviously I should have voted *chocolate.

And in regards to polls being a cross-section of the population, it should be obvious that only people who partake in polls...well...partake in polls, and so we leave a group completely out. Plus I would say that here at the Downs that only special people participate in these threads, mostly people with high pain thresholds...

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by alatar

And in regards to polls being a cross-section of the population, it should be obvious that only people who partake in polls...well...partake in polls, and so we leave a group completely out. Plus I would say that here at the Downs that only special people participate in these threads, mostly people with high pain thresholds...

I agree with Al of the Tar-folks. In a truly comprehensive poll, there would be even the most random answers like "Well, if you consider God to be embodied by the campus squirrels where Fea goes to school, then heck yes!" even if that answer makes sense to only one person and hardly seems to pertain to the general group. Without the extra choices, a more serious one being "I don't know who God is, but when I find out, I'll tell you if he's the same dude as Eru", there will be a bunch of people left out of it.

And am I an extra special person, alatar, for participating in the thread without even having voted?

[Mithalwen]

Hear! Hear! I have clicked post reply umpteen times to justify my choice but the noise was making my ears bleed.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

And am I an extra special person, alatar, for participating in the thread without even having voted?

But of course Fea - or is it Fey - you are an extra special person, as one might note that I never vote in polls either (don't want to cause some worldwide catastrophe via the butterfly effect ) and people call me special...right before they run the other direction.

But anyway, I really see what the now-visible davem is saying. After receiving some criticism regarding the paganness of the LotR, JRRT continually points to 'similarities' and says, "See? There's yet another reference to Christianity."

Who can argue with the author? And if you all see something stellar in a post of mine that makes my point, surely I'll claim the accident to be intentional - diamond in the rough for those adept at digging, as it were, and not just some lump of compressed carbon.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by alatar

and people call me special...right before they run the other direction.

Ah. I get special just before a favor is asked of me.

Who can argue with the author?

Not me! And when in doubt, fall back on "Well, the text doesn't explicitly state anything, so who cares?"

Since Tolkien didn't write anywhere the exact words "Okay guys, pay attention now: Eru is God.", it's really no skin off my nose whether he is or isn't. Call me a stubborn block-head that would be unable to see through a brick wall no matter how long a time given for it, but delving through subtlety in search of some Freudian concept of slightly hidden messages doesn't appeal to me unless I'm in it for the sheer hilarity of it all. Tolkien intended to secretly convey to us that the all-powerful Eru is God? No way, are you serious? He's also Santa Claus?!? Seriously though, you can find anything you intend to look for, if you simply know where to look. Gimli and Legolas as well as Sam and Frodo are gay. Elrond is sexist as shown by him not appointing females to the Fellowship. Celebrian was raped. Feanor wasn't nearly as bad as he was made out to be. Elves have ears shaped like maple leaves. Balrogs look like emus.

When you get a bunch of sophists running around with a point in their head that they're intent on, they can prove anything, though I'm perfectly willing to admit that that's what makes this argument so much fun.

[Roa_Aoife]

Originally Posted by Fea

When you get a bunch of sophists running around with a point in their head that they're intent on, they can prove anything, though I'm perfectly willing to admit that that's what makes this argument so much fun.

Perfectly stated, if I do say so. If you look at evidence to prove your own point, you can almost always do it. That's what we science folk call the danger of bias. To really get to the truth of the matter, you have to look at the evidence completely objectively, and without bias. This is, rather unfortunately, impossible for anyone who has an opinion (ie all of us) so the chances of ever figuring out what was supposed to be is nigh impossible.

All we have to go on is avgue textual references, the author's statements, and the author's possible motives. The motives have no proof that would hold up to a review board, court of law, etc, the text is vague and could be interpreted any way you want to, so the most concrete evidence we have are the author's statements, and those clearly say that Eru is God.

But you know what they say: "When all else fails, manipulate the data."

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

But you know what they say: "When all else fails, manipulate the data."

75% polled disagree with this statement. The other 35% often forget that when manipulating data, they should make sure their numbers match up.