The Fate of the Elves after the Destruction of the One Ring
Steuard Jensen
> One day, as the members of the council called rec.arts.books.tolkien
> were gathered again to discuss matters of lore, one stepped among
> them who had not been seen in their midst for a long time.
Wow... vague memories stir... almost, almost as if I actually
recognize a name from long ago. Any chance you'll be sticking around,
Marc? Or will you just drop by to see if we've been overwhelmed after
the movies start coming out? :)
Honestly, I've had similar concerns. However, I'm optimistic for two
reasons. First, I have high hopes that folks will reasonably quickly
absorb our ancient culture here: it should be quite clear quite
quickly that the films rank awfully low on the "what is canonical"
scale. Second, a bit less optimistically, it's entirely possible that
the mob will only find alt.fan.tolkien, and will not think to look in
the rec.arts.books hierarchy for discussion of their favorite films.
The guess (made by someone else in this thread) that the films' impact
will fade is very likely to come true, but there is always the chance
that they'll be good enough to last a while. If that happens, then we
can expect movie fans to be here indefinitely. Presumably, however,
die-hard long term fans of the film would be sure to seek out the
books (after all, many die hard Star Wars fans often read the sequel
books, and they aren't "canonical" in the least, as far as I know).
Having said all that... good parody!
Steuard Jensen
Hazel
Steuard Jensen wrote:
> The guess (made by someone else in this thread) that the films' impact
> will fade is very likely to come true, but there is always the chance
> that they'll be good enough to last a while. If that happens, then we
> can expect movie fans to be here indefinitely. Presumably, however,
> die-hard long term fans of the film would be sure to seek out the
> books (after all, many die hard Star Wars fans often read the sequel
> books, and they aren't "canonical" in the least, as far as I know).
Steuard, as someone who most probably qualifies as a die-hard Star Wars
fan, I'm here to tell you that your comment is *not* a cause for optimism.
I participate regularly in a Star Wars message board that ostensibly deals
with fanfic but more often wanders into merrily trashing the published
novels and sneering at George Lucas. Come to think of it, in a lot of ways
it's like this place. ;) After a newcomer posts two or three messages,
it's easy to put that person into one of two categories: someone who was a
Star Wars fan before Tim Zahn started the flood of books, and someone who
*became* a Star Wars fan *through* the SW books.
So what's the problem? Simple: Someone who became a SW fan before 1990 may
or may not read all the books, likes some but not all, and treats them
more or less as fanfic that the lucky author actually got paid to write.
On the other hand, someone who falls into the second category invariably
looks at the new characters introduced through the novels as just as much
a part of "canon" as the characters in movies. (Whaddaya mean, Luke
doesn't marry Mara Jade and Wedge doesn't love a [literally] airhead piece
of blue fluff who designed the Death Star? It's in the books!!!)
So here we have a similar situation, only in reverse. Instead of the movie
being "canon" and the books the interpretations of others, we have the
books as "canon" (no kidding!) with Peter Jackson's interpretation
creating the movie.With my experience with the "younger generation" of
Star Wars fan, I'm not too sure we can hope that those who are captivated
by the movie will ever supplant the impressions and ideas of the film with
the true magic of Tolkien. "Hey, who's this guy Glorfindel? *That's* not
what happened! Why isn't Arwen around?!" All efforts to point out that The
Book Came First will not help. Trust me, it's going to happen...
Sigh.
Hazel
(back to lurking)
Paris
Hazel <Ha...@hotmail.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:380F16C4...@hotmail.com...
> I've more or less lurked here since I first subscribed, but this one...
>
> Steuard Jensen wrote:
>
> > The guess (made by someone else in this thread) that the films' impact
> > will fade is very likely to come true, but there is always the chance
> > that they'll be good enough to last a while. If that happens, then we
> > can expect movie fans to be here indefinitely. Presumably, however,
> > die-hard long term fans of the film would be sure to seek out the
> > books (after all, many die hard Star Wars fans often read the sequel
> > books, and they aren't "canonical" in the least, as far as I know).
>
> Steuard, as someone who most probably qualifies as a die-hard Star Wars
> fan, I'm here to tell you that your comment is *not* a cause for optimism.
>
> I participate regularly in a Star Wars message board that ostensibly deals
> with fanfic but more often wanders into merrily trashing the published
> novels and sneering at George Lucas. Come to think of it, in a lot of ways
> it's like this place. ;) After a newcomer posts two or three messages,
> it's easy to put that person into one of two categories: someone who was a
> Star Wars fan before Tim Zahn started the flood of books, and someone who
> *became* a Star Wars fan *through* the SW books.
>
George Lucas has a look at them, and decides if they are: he did approve of
the killing of Chewie in one of the last novels, to the dismay of many fans.
Of course, one may argue that each fan can decide for himself what he
regards as 'canon', but then the concept of canon loses most of its
significance.
Hazel
> Hazel <Ha...@hotmail.com> skrev i
> diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:380F16C4...@hotmail.com...
>
> > I participate regularly in a Star Wars message board that ostensibly deals
> > with fanfic but more often wanders into merrily trashing the published
> > novels and sneering at George Lucas. Come to think of it, in a lot of ways
> > it's like this place. ;) After a newcomer posts two or three messages,
> > it's easy to put that person into one of two categories: someone who was a
> > Star Wars fan before Tim Zahn started the flood of books, and someone who
> > *became* a Star Wars fan *through* the SW books.
> >
> But the books (at least some of them) *are* canon, aren't they? I think
> George Lucas has a look at them, and decides if they are: he did approve of
> the killing of Chewie in one of the last novels, to the dismay of many fans.
> Of course, one may argue that each fan can decide for himself what he
> regards as 'canon', but then the concept of canon loses most of its
> significance.
A favorite point of dissension among the more rabid Star Wars fans, actually.
Again, it seems to be a matter of age group. The 21-25 and under insist that
they're canon. Then again, many fans in this same group insist that Kyle Katarn
is also canon. Mind you, there are several younger fans who don't fit into this
category, and older ones who do; but that's more or less how things seem to
divide themselves. (No insult intended to the younglings, really.)
George Lucas has stated that he has little, if any, idea of what goes on in the
books. It's his *company* that gives approval for the books' plots, not Lucas
himself. The only thing that's in the books that made it into the movie (TPM, I
think, and also the Special Editions, which many more rabid fans also prefer to
discount -- "I DON'T CARE WHAT LUCAS SAYS! GREEDO SHOT FIRST!" You know, that
kind of thing) is "Coruscant," which Zahn named the formal Imperial capital
world. Mind you, it seems as if Zahn discussed this with Lucas himself at great
length before he wrote his first trilogy of novels, so it's hard to say which
one of them actually came up with the name.
Most older fans look at the three movies only -- Star Wars (or A New Hope if
you're rabid enough), Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi -- as canon.
Most of these will now also include TPM, but not all, by any means! :)
Everything else, including the overabundance of novels, the comics put out today
by Dark Horse, the comics published by Marvel back when the movies were still
being made (and some of those were *good*!), the myriad encylopedias and
compendiums and roleplaying books and what-have-you -- those all are
"acrophycal." They could have happened, I spose, but hey -- it was "a long time
ago," so legends have obviously crept into the mix and muddled things.
Obviously, there could not have been three "first" duels between Vader and Luke
(in the Marvel comics, in Foster's _Splinter of the Mind's Eye_, and THEN in
Empire), now could there? The movies are canon. The rest can be classified as
"published fanfic."
...Except, please, Kyle Katarn.
Hazel
John Savard
>But the books (at least some of them) *are* canon, aren't they? I think
>George Lucas has a look at them, and decides if they are: he did approve of
>the killing of Chewie in one of the last novels, to the dismay of many fans.
>Of course, one may argue that each fan can decide for himself what he
>regards as 'canon', but then the concept of canon loses most of its
>significance.
Anything in the novels is at least potentially subject to change,
should new movies be made that cover the same or later territory.
The Star Trek novels are _definitely_ not canon, because they
contradict each other.
John Savard ( teneerf<- )
http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
John Whelan
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, John Savard wrote:
> The Star Trek novels are _definitely_ not canon, because they
> contradict each other.
By that logic, neither are the gospels of Luke and Matthew.
-- John Whelan
David Sulger
>Whaddaya mean, Luke doesn't marry
>Mara Jade
Holy Shit!
What have I been missing?
--Dave
Steuard Jensen
Agreed! :)
(Fundamentalism is inherently illogical, though that doesn't mean that
a less literal reading of the Bible isn't valuable. On the other
hand, we Tolkien fanatics can afford to be rather more intellectually
"honest"... though there are always little problems that aren't easy
to resolve.)
Steuard Jensen
Michael Martinez
>(Fundamentalism is inherently illogical,
You know, science is inherently illogical. It spends most of its time
advocating crackpot ideas until they are proven wrong.
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// FREE! Watch Internet TV shows at Xenite.Org!
//\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
Cletus the slack-jawed yokel
>
> In article <bw0Q3.64$k4.1341@uchinews>, sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) wrote:
> >(Fundamentalism is inherently illogical,
>
> You know, science is inherently illogical. It spends most of its time
> advocating crackpot ideas until they are proven wrong.
The key phrase here is "until they are proven wrong." The scientific
method is about proposing theories (crackpot or not) in an attempt to
explain some set of data. If the theory fails to explain the data, then
it must be modified or discarded. At NO point is any theory considered
absolutely canonical - although any changes to it may be limited to
"extensions" rather than "replacements". Contrast this to the fundie
stance that their particular set of ideas is the Absolute Truth. This
applies, by the way, to the beliefs of any fundamentalist, whether
religious (christian, moslem, jewish, etc.) or non-religious (marxist,
libertarian, etc.) in nature.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>>
>> In article <bw0Q3.64$k4.1341@uchinews>, sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard
> Jensen) wrote:
>> >(Fundamentalism is inherently illogical,
>>
>> You know, science is inherently illogical. It spends most of its time
>> advocating crackpot ideas until they are proven wrong.
>
>The key phrase here is "until they are proven wrong."
[snip usual misguided criticisms of Fundamentalism versus Science]
I figured someone would take exception with the little joke. However, any
dedicated Fundamentalist would point out for you that science has not
proven the assertion of God's existence to be invalid.
Both science and faith have their crackpot ideas, and you'll find much
warring and whooping and hollaring on all sides of all debates.
I think it's interesting how SIR ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE'S THE LOST WORLD
examined this subject in their most recent episode. The man of faith was
able to show the man of science that everything he said against believing
in gods could be said of believing in science.
Both groups claim they are basing their assertions on observations of the
natural (i.e., what exists); both groups claim they can test their
observations; both groups claim the other is not being reasonable (or not
using reason).
There was a time when science was closely married to philosophy, and
scientists accepted the idea of God's existence as unprovable by their
methods. Now people use the assertion of God's unprovability to
erroneously suggest the people who believe in God are wrong. Science has
made no effort to prove or disprove God's existence. It is therefore
singularly unqualified to make any statements regarding the credibility of
the assertions of God's existence.
Ermanna
David Sulger wrote:
Read the books, Dave. It is your destiny.
(pss. not the Black Fleet Crisis. it's terrible.
they'll try to get you, but don't let them.
RUN, DAVE! SAVE YOURSELF!)
> Dave
Ermanna the Elven Jedi Knight
Who needs the Force? May the Valar be with you.
David Sulger
>pss. not the Black Fleet Crisis. it's
>terrible. they'll try to get you, but don't let
>them. RUN, DAVE! SAVE YOURSELF!)
You're a little late. I already suffered through that pile of dreck.
What I meant were the more recent books, published within the last year
or so.
I've already read most of the earlier books that deal with the post-RotJ
galaxy.
--Dave
Marc Greis
> Wow... vague memories stir... almost, almost as if I actually
> recognize a name from long ago. Any chance you'll be sticking around,
> Marc? Or will you just drop by to see if we've been overwhelmed after
> the movies start coming out? :)
Ah, I'll be dropping in and out as my (very limited) time allows. ;)
While I actually agree with most of your comments, I should note that
everyone seems to have missed the irony in my original posting: I
claimed that it may be possible that this newsgroup will be overwhelmed
by people who think that Arwen is Xena's sister, but I guess it will be
easy to avoid such postings, or else this newsgroup would have been
overwhelmed by off-topic postings regarding pornography quite a while
ago. ;)
Best regards,
Marc
--
Marc Greis gr...@cs.uni-bonn.de
Cletus the slack-jawed yokel
>
> In article <38109D...@sympatico.ca>, william....@sympatico.ca wrote:
> >Michael Martinez wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <bw0Q3.64$k4.1341@uchinews>, sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard
> > Jensen) wrote:
> >> >(Fundamentalism is inherently illogical,
> >>
> >> You know, science is inherently illogical. It spends most of its time
> >> advocating crackpot ideas until they are proven wrong.
> >
> >The key phrase here is "until they are proven wrong."
>
> [snip usual misguided criticisms of Fundamentalism versus Science]
I think that you are reading too much into what I said. At NO point did
I say that "God does not exist." What I am saying is that any assertion
about anything, to be accepted as fact, must have evidence to back it
up. BTW, my own personal opinion is that the fact that the universe(s)
exists does require an explanation, and that so far the God hypothesis
is the only plausible explanation.
> There was a time when science was closely married to philosophy, and
> scientists accepted the idea of God's existence as unprovable by their
> methods. Now people use the assertion of God's unprovability to
> erroneously suggest the people who believe in God are wrong. Science has
> made no effort to prove or disprove God's existence. It is therefore
> singularly unqualified to make any statements regarding the credibility of
> the assertions of God's existence.
Agreed. Anybody who makes such an assertion as "God does not exist"
without providing evidence is also a fundamentalist.
Steuard Jensen
> >> Steuard Jensen wrote:
> >> >Fundamentalism is inherently illogical,
> >>
> >> You know, science is inherently illogical. It spends most of its time
> >> advocating crackpot ideas until they are proven wrong.
Wellllll... if you say "making crazy guesses and studying them until
something better comes along", then sure! :)
We've never claimed to hold The Truth in our hands (or at least, the
more intellectually honest ones among us haven't), but simply to have
found mathematical models that describe some simple aspects of the
physical world remarkably well. As long as we don't claim that our
understanding at one particular point in time is Truth, and leave room
for new understanding and refinements, then we're still behaving
rationally.
The moment someone comes and says (for example) "Quantum Mechanics is
The Truth", _that's_ being illogical. Incidentally, that's the
biggest problem I have with folks who like to draw philosophical
conclusions from quantum mechanics: philosophy is all about seeking
truth (well, the sorts of philosophy that try to draw on quantum,
anyway), and quantum mechanics is just a (very successful) _model_ of
reality. Yes, there may be some aspects of The Truth in it, but we
simply _can't_ know for sure which aspects those are.
Quoth Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez):
> I figured someone would take exception with the little joke. However, any
> dedicated Fundamentalist would point out for you that science has not
> proven the assertion of God's existence to be invalid.
For the record, I didn't actually say anything about the existence of
God one way or the other. I, at least, _don't_ think that science can
tell us much of anything about the existence or non-existence of a God
(hence my agnosticism).
On the other hand, since you bring it up, the remarkable consistency
of our mathematical models with everything we see around us does seem
to indicate that if there _is_ a God, He doesn't see very much need to
interfere directly with the laws He set up to make the world work.
From my perspective, this makes any God that may exist more impressive
than He would be otherwise: His creation was good enough that He has
little or no need to "tweak" it in the course of day-to-day operation.
> Science has made no effort to prove or disprove God's existence.
Absolutely true, and thank goodness!
Steuard Jensen
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >The key phrase here is "until they are proven wrong."
>>
>> [snip usual misguided criticisms of Fundamentalism versus Science]
>
>I think that you are reading too much into what I said.
Really? So what are you implying when you say, "the key phrase here is
'until they are proven wrong'"?
Until someone uses science to show there is no God, you have no reason to
suggest the people who choose to believe in him (or her or them) aren't
going to accept that. Hence, there is no basis for suggesting any
difference between those who approach rationality through science (which is
nothing more than the organized collection of human knowledge) and those
who approach it through faith (which is nothing more than the intuitive
application of knowledge).
>> There was a time when science was closely married to philosophy, and
>> scientists accepted the idea of God's existence as unprovable by their
>> methods. Now people use the assertion of God's unprovability to
>> erroneously suggest the people who believe in God are wrong. Science has
>> made no effort to prove or disprove God's existence. It is therefore
>> singularly unqualified to make any statements regarding the credibility of
>> the assertions of God's existence.
>
>Agreed. Anybody who makes such an assertion as "God does not exist"
>without providing evidence is also a fundamentalist.
You're using the term "fundamentalist" as if it's some sort of label for
backwards or incorrect thinking people. Fundamentalism abounds throughout
science, religion, art, and business, the four cornerstones of our
civilization's expressions of thought. If one is a fundamentist
expression, all are.
Michael Martinez
>> >Michael Martinez wrote:
>> >> Steuard Jensen wrote:
>> >> >Fundamentalism is inherently illogical,
>> >>
>> >> You know, science is inherently illogical. It spends most of its time
>> >> advocating crackpot ideas until they are proven wrong.
>
>Wellllll... if you say "making crazy guesses and studying them until
>something better comes along", then sure! :)
That's one crude way of putting it. But the halls of science are littered
with crackpot ideas which once were considered extremely credible.
>We've never claimed to hold The Truth in our hands (or at least, the
>more intellectually honest ones among us haven't), but simply to have
>found mathematical models that describe some simple aspects of the
>physical world remarkably well. As long as we don't claim that our
>understanding at one particular point in time is Truth, and leave room
>for new understanding and refinements, then we're still behaving
>rationally.
Steuard, I don't know who you think "We" is, but the libraries are filled
with books and videotape where scientists have proclaimed the Truth from
their pulpits. A humble man like Einstein might reserve judgement in his
papers, but most outspoken scientists have not only been far less humble
than he was, many have also been far more critical of the belief in God.
Such criticisms are completely irrational and not based in anything other
than uniformed opinion born of prejudice and arrogance.
>Quoth Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez):
>> I figured someone would take exception with the little joke. However, any
>> dedicated Fundamentalist would point out for you that science has not
>> proven the assertion of God's existence to be invalid.
>
>For the record, I didn't actually say anything about the existence of
>God one way or the other. I, at least, _don't_ think that science can
>tell us much of anything about the existence or non-existence of a God
>(hence my agnosticism).
You're both missing the point here. The assertion of God's existence is
scientifically valid until proven otherwise. Hence, the distinctions
people like to draw between science and faith are largely irrational and
arbitrary -- there is certainly no logic to be found in such distinctions.
>On the other hand, since you bring it up, the remarkable consistency
>of our mathematical models with everything we see around us does seem
>to indicate that if there _is_ a God, He doesn't see very much need to
>interfere directly with the laws He set up to make the world work.
A Deist would love that statement, but until we know everything, we won't
know enough to form a mathematical model which explains everything.
>From my perspective, this makes any God that may exist more impressive
>than He would be otherwise: His creation was good enough that He has
>little or no need to "tweak" it in the course of day-to-day operation.
The proposition that God interacts with those whom he created doesn't imply
that he is correcting imperfections in his creation. It just means he
cares enough to pay attention to us. That would be tough to work out
mathematically, wouldn't it?
>> Science has made no effort to prove or disprove God's existence.
>
>Absolutely true, and thank goodness!
I see no reason to be thankful. The sooner science gets off its lazy,
arrogant ass and does something to answer the question for skeptics, the
better off we'll be.
Rev. Jevon den Ridder
> Until someone uses science to show there is no God, you have no reason to
> suggest the people who choose to believe in him...<snip>
So you're saying that until science shows there is no giant duck living
in the center of the Earth, there's a possibility that there's one
there?
--
[Something New]
Rev. Jevon den Ridder [Remove NOSPAM for email]
http://welcome.to/agelastos
FernWithy
>>Mara Jade
>
>Holy Shit!
>
>What have I been missing?
More EU junk. Pay it no heed. Mara who? ;)
(Seriously, I guess it's a plot point in the current novel. The response to it
was fairly good in a poll at theforce.net -- 43% declared it "Wizard!" and
only19% said "Poodoo" to the whole idea.)
---
FernWithy
Cletus the slack-jawed yokel
> >> >> You know, science is inherently illogical. It spends most of its time
> >> >> advocating crackpot ideas until they are proven wrong.
> >
> >Wellllll... if you say "making crazy guesses and studying them until
> >something better comes along", then sure! :)
>
> That's one crude way of putting it. But the halls of science are littered
> with crackpot ideas which once were considered extremely credible.
Exactly! That is the essence of science: any hypothesis, no matter how
commonly accepted, can be overthrown by credible evidence against it.
Mind you, that evidence must be verifiable by other researchers in the
field. As far as our current ideas about the universe go, I think that
yes, they are closer to the "truth" than previous ideas, but I fully
expect that in time they will be replaced by ideas that are even closer
to the "truth". Being discarded after new data are uncovered is no
shame, it simply means that a better idea is required.
> You're both missing the point here. The assertion of God's existence is
> scientifically valid until proven otherwise.
I would say that the assertion of God's existence is neither
scientifically valid nor invalid. There simply is not enough scientific
evidence to prove or disprove the assertion.
> >> Science has made no effort to prove or disprove God's existence.
> >
> >Absolutely true, and thank goodness!
>
> I see no reason to be thankful. The sooner science gets off its lazy,
> arrogant ass and does something to answer the question for skeptics, the
> better off we'll be.
That's the way to convince others... start throwing insults around.
:)
I am assuming that you are being serious, since there was no emoticon
attached. Individual scientists may be lazy and/or arrogant but science
is a "process" It cannot be lazy or arrogant, or any human personality
trait.
Cletus the slack-jawed yokel
> You're using the term "fundamentalist" as if it's some sort of label for
> backwards or incorrect thinking people. Fundamentalism abounds throughout
> science, religion, art, and business, the four cornerstones of our
> civilization's expressions of thought. If one is a fundamentist
> expression, all are.
I would define a devout person as "devout". Simply that.
On the other hand, "fundamentalist", to me, means that a person holds
some idea firmly in their head, in the face of external evidence against
that idea. If there is no evidence against that idea, then by definition
it is not fundamentalist. Most devout people are NOT fundamentalists,
they accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun, that the Earth is
4.6 billion years old, that all extant organisms evolved from earlier
ones, etc. It is those who do not accept the (overwhelming) evidence for
these ideas who are fundamentalists.
Jiminut
There are fundamentalists in the other sense as well. Those who are convinced
that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and there is only life as we see it.
There are alternatives to both the theory they present and the one they argue
against. Perhaps the world is indeed 4.6 billion years old, but God made light
in one day, earth another, birds and fish, animals, man (there's another day in
there somewhere) and rested on the last. It is indeed "possible", though
statistically unlikely.
Believing in God doesn't have to go against believing in science. See the
movie "Inherit the Wind" for an at least 30-year old theory. Come to think
about it, LoTR gives a pretty darned good example of another possibility beyond
what we can comprehend.
Mike D.
Prembone
<jd...@cableol.co.uk> wrote:
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>> Until someone uses science to show there is no God, you have no reason to
>> suggest the people who choose to believe in him...<snip>
>
>So you're saying that until science shows there is no giant duck living
>in the center of the Earth, there's a possibility that there's one
>there?
Don't forget the Invisible Pink Unicorn! I believe in the IPU!
Seriously, I believe the burden of proof lies on those asserting the
existence of a god, not on those disputing the veracity of that
assertion.
"For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is
than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." -- Carl Sagan
The Secular Paganist http://www.stormloader.com/secularpagan (new URL)
Prembone
Martinez) wrote:
>I see no reason to be thankful. The sooner science gets off its lazy,
>arrogant ass and does something to answer the question for skeptics, the
>better off we'll be.
Apart from questions of "upon whom does the burden of proof lie," ;-)
I thought you might find skeptic Michael Shermer's latest book to be
of interest.
How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science
It's on my "to read" list, and looks promising.
David Sulger
>I see no reason to be thankful. The
>sooner science gets off its lazy, arrogant
>ass and does something to answer the
>question for skeptics, the better off we'll
>be.
That might not work anyway, Michael, at least not for some very
ultra-orthodox believers. They'd find something wrong with the proof,
and say that it contradicts their holy writings or some such. Some
believers are rabidly opposed to any science whatsoever. I wouldn't be
surprised if there was some very tiny church out there that still
belives the world is flat, and completely rejects the Copernican
heliocentric solar system.
I think it's best if science doesn't find any hard answers about God
anyway. If God were proven, just imagine the holy wars that could be
set off from that proof. I don't think anyone but the priests would end
up being better off if that happened, and it would be the Dark Ages all
over again.
The proof of God's existance really belongs with philosophy and
metaphysics rather than with hard science anyway.
However, you're right about science being lazy and arrogant. I have
little but contempt for modern academia. They can sit in their ivory
towers all day long, bemoaning the state of the world while thinking
they have all the answers that will make life perfect. Now this may
offend some people here, but it is the truth. Life on campus in many
ways is a controlled environment, unlike the world outside.
--Dave
Steuard Jensen
> (Steuard Jensen) wrote:
> >We've never claimed to hold The Truth in our hands (or at least, the
> >more intellectually honest ones among us haven't), but simply to have
> >found mathematical models that describe some simple aspects of the
> >physical world remarkably well. As long as we don't claim that our
> >understanding at one particular point in time is Truth, and leave room
> >for new understanding and refinements, then we're still behaving
> >rationally.
>
> Steuard, I don't know who you think "We" is, but the libraries are filled
> with books and videotape where scientists have proclaimed the Truth from
> their pulpits. A humble man like Einstein might reserve judgement in his
> papers, but most outspoken scientists have not only been far less humble
> than he was, many have also been far more critical of the belief in God.
Well, I know that "we" includes "me". :) As you point out, it also
included Einstein. Stephen Hawking has speculated (sometime in the
past few years) that we may be very near the limits of actual
scientific "knowledge", and that any further progress would be
untestable and therefore not true knowledge; that certainly seems
incompatible with a claim that any current scientific theory is "The
Truth". When discussing philosophical issues with friends who are
also scientists, I have yet to hear a single one of them claim that
any particular scientific theory is "The Truth" (in the sense that
further progress could never show it to be incorrect in some way).
That's off the top of my head. What scientists are you thinking of
who _have_ claimed to have some sort of final, unquestionable Truth?
As for belief in God, I don't think that science could ever _disprove_
the existence of such a remarkably powerful being: it would always be
possible for Him to perfectly conceal His existence. As I understand
it, most scientists who do not believe in God take that position for
the same reason that they do not believe in unicorns (no evidence that
they _do_ exist, and the assumption that the burden of proof lies on
the pro-existence side of such a debate).
To be honest, this strikes me as a very logical chain of reasoning.
There are two main reasons that I _don't_ fully subscribe to it.
First of all, a great many people over time have claimed to have had
personal interactions with God (or Gods) in one way or another. While
it is quite possible that that all of those people have been deluded
about the true sources of their experiences, that is a very bold
claim.
Second, the whole notion of a God is utterly beyond my experience, and
I have trouble claiming that my intuition about "first causes" and
infinitely powerful beings is trustworthy. (Heck, even my intuition
about quantum mechanics was way off for a while.) For all I know, an
uncreated Creator _may_ be more natural than an uncreated universe,
despite my intuition. Also, I don't feel particularly confident that
I know every possible way to _look_ for a God. Thus, I feel a need
for stronger arguments for _or_ against the existence of God than I
would for unicorns (for example).
At any rate, I don't believe in any particular God(s), but I certainly
don't try to convince people that there _aren't_ any. (I often do, on
the other hand, try to convince people that there is some degree of
doubt if they first try to convince me that there isn't.)
On the other hand, I tend to give slightly more respect to those who
argue rationally against the existence of God than I do to those who
argue in favoe of a literal interpretation of the Bible (for example).
My disagreement with the former is generally due to minor differences
in postulates or in exactly how strong we require the evidence to be
one way or the other. My disagreement with the latter, however, tends
to rest on utterly different beliefs: I am unwilling to put greater
trust in the contents of any particular book than I do in the evidence
I can gather from the natural world itself. In other words, "rational
athiests" at least do not base their arguments on a premise that
invalidates my career and my entire outlook on life.
How's that for a long-winded reply?
> The assertion of God's existence is scientifically valid until
> proven otherwise.
Is the same true of the existence of unicorns? Nobody has
scientifically proven that there are no unicorns (there could be one
hiding in the Amazon right now!), much less that there never were any
(maybe they intrinsically don't fossilize...). On the other hand, we
have very good evidence that there are no unicorns, so I think most
scientists would be willing to say that they don't exist. (That's not
"The Truth", though.)
I've already explained my thoughts on similar arguments against the
existence of God above.
> Hence, the distinctions people like to draw between science and
> faith are largely irrational and arbitrary -- there is certainly no
> logic to be found in such distinctions.
If someone came up to me and said "I truly believe that there are
unicorns", I would make a distinction between my science and their
faith pretty quickly, and I think that that distinction would be
entirely rational and not arbitrary. At least as I understand them,
the difference between this argument and the usual "scientific
argument against the existence of God" is one of degree, not of kind.
Again, see my all-too-extensive comments above.
> >On the other hand, since you bring it up, the remarkable consistency
> >of our mathematical models with everything we see around us does seem
> >to indicate that if there _is_ a God, He doesn't see very much need to
> >interfere directly with the laws He set up to make the world work.
>
> A Deist would love that statement, but until we know everything, we won't
> know enough to form a mathematical model which explains everything.
Naturally enough, the sort of God I acknowledge may exist is pretty
certainly a Deist God.
As for mathematical models, I agree. However, that's precisely why
it's so amazing that our models work as well as they do: far, far, far
more often than not, the same models we developed here on earth seem
to be able to explain at least the basics of what we see out in the
cosmos. Pretty cool, that.
> The proposition that God interacts with those whom he created
> doesn't imply that he is correcting imperfections in his creation.
> It just means he cares enough to pay attention to us.
Depends on your point of view, I guess. Couldn't one also claim that
if He cared about us, He could set up a universe that would naturally
address our problems when He knew that we would have them? That is,
for example, set it up ahead of time so that particular prayers would
be answered (in whatever way He would answer them if He actually were
actively involved). In that way, seemingly random events that did
follow from "natural laws" would still lead to divine aid.
Steuard Jensen
Raven
nyhedsmeddelelse:7uvgbt$148...@Org.xenite.org...
> [snip] ...science (which is
> nothing more than the organized collection of human knowledge)...
Science is more than that. It is a method, which relies on evidence
(although not irrefutable proof: that exists only in logic and mathematic,
where the rules are made by ourselves, and irrefutable proof can be built to
show that eg. the square root of two is not a rational number) to determine
what is probably the truth. If it would be pleasant if X were true, this
adds not a iota to the veracity of X. If an authority figure commands that
X be true, this adds not a iota to the veracity of X. Put flippantly,
neither the command of a despot nor the majority vote of a democracy can
revoke the Law of Gravity.
The Universe behaves as the Universe behaves, and does not change
behaviour to suit our practical or existential desires. By observing the
Universe we may discover some of the ways that it behaves in. But if we
choose to believe in the absence of proof by observation, the Universe
continues on its old track, and our worldview will differ from the world.
Which is dangerous if we choose to believe that one can step off Sears'
Tower and not fall down ---
Of course, in practice, if you believe what modern science has to say
about the Universe, you do have to rely quite a bit on faith. Umptillions
of experiments and observations are the foundation of this knowledge, and
nobody has the time to repeat them all personally, or even learn personally
from textbooks all the collective knowledge of the various fields of modern
science. So you have to believe that either all those researchers who were
before you formed a big great conspiracy to construct a very finely crafted
and all-encompassing lie, or else that they have been, by and large, honest
and have reported their observations truthfully. Or even that some
omnipotent God or demon has lied to humanity by crafting a lot of false
evidence...
By Occam's razor, I find the second explanation the *far* more probable.
Also, such experiments as I have conducted and observations as I have made
have verified the textbooks: Ohm's law *does* hold true, and muons created
by interstellar radiation colliding with the upper atmosphere *do* travel
nearly with the speed of light...
>[snip]...faith (which is nothing more than the intuitive
> application of knowledge).
Perhaps we simply have different definitions of 'faith'. Mine is that
faith, as regards to explanations, is belief in the absence of evidence.
Because it feels or seems good.
As for the God hypothesis, I have seen no evidence for the existence of
God. So I do not believe that God exists. Also I have seen no evidence
against the existence of God. So I do not believe that God does not exist.
To me, either would be 'faith': atheism as much as belief in God.
Perhaps, if there is an afterlife, I will find out when I am dead. Until
then, I don't let the question worry me.
'Cletus the slack-jawed yokel' wrote:
> >Agreed. Anybody who makes such an assertion as "God does not exist"
> >without providing evidence is also a fundamentalist.
IMHO, a person who asserts confidently that God does not exist is
exercising as much faith as a person who prays to God and believes that God
exists and hears the prayers. That, of course, will change if proof appears
on the issue.
Jon L. Beck.
Raven
> That's one crude way of putting it. But the halls of science are littered
> with crackpot ideas which once were considered extremely credible.
Which, due to the nature of science, have become just that - litter.
Such as the ether theory. Once it was believed that light propagates
through a tenuous medium known as the 'ether', just as sound propagates
through the medium of matter (such as air). Then the Michelson-Morley
experiment proved that there is no ether.
Or the theory that eyesight is a beam-like thing emitted by the eyes,
touching that which is seen, and that is how we see. But observations such
as light being shut out, creating darkness (but not vice versa) and light
being created in darkness (but not darkness created in light), and the
inability to see in darkness, replaced that idea with a better one.
Or the impetus theory, that an object such as an arrow or a cannonball
continues to move, decelerating in a straight line, until its impetus is
spent, and then falls vertically down.
Or the idea that the Earth is fixed, and all else revolves around it.
This was not purely a religious dogma. Some ancient Greek scientist (I
forget which one; perhaps it was Aristoteles) considered the opposite idea,
that the Earth revolves once in a day, and rejected it, reasoning that this
would cause a perennial storm. Perhaps he thought that the air which causes
wind by moving fills the universe, and if the Earth rotated within the air,
we would feel it as a storm. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to
find out why this reasoning is invalid. :-)
Or the phlogiston theory, the details of which I have forgotten.
> >For the record, I didn't actually say anything about the existence of
> >God one way or the other. I, at least, _don't_ think that science can
> >tell us much of anything about the existence or non-existence of a God
> >(hence my agnosticism).
In principle, the scientific method *can* tell us whether God exists or
not - if any evidence on the issue turns up. No evidence has turned up, so
science has no tools to work with on this hypothesis. Most ongoing
phenomena observed in the Universe have explanations which do not involve
God, though, and none to my knowledge which *do* require God. This gives us
some ideas of what God does *not* do, if there is a God.
> You're both missing the point here. The assertion of God's existence is
> scientifically valid until proven otherwise. Hence, the distinctions
> people like to draw between science and faith are largely irrational and
> arbitrary -- there is certainly no logic to be found in such distinctions.
The *assertion* of God's existence is scientifically valid in the
presence of evidence. But I have seen none.
> I see no reason to be thankful. The sooner science gets off its lazy,
> arrogant ass and does something to answer the question for skeptics, the
> better off we'll be.
Then ask me something. I have what corresponds to a Master's Degree in
physics. Perhaps I will be able to answer. If I am unable, I shall be
honest enough to admit it.
Jon L. Beck.
Cletus the slack-jawed yokel
> As for belief in God, I don't think that science could ever _disprove_
> the existence of such a remarkably powerful being: it would always be
> possible for Him to perfectly conceal His existence. As I understand
> it, most scientists who do not believe in God take that position for
> the same reason that they do not believe in unicorns (no evidence that
> they _do_ exist, and the assumption that the burden of proof lies on
> the pro-existence side of such a debate).
<snip>
> Second, the whole notion of a God is utterly beyond my experience, and
> I have trouble claiming that my intuition about "first causes" and
> infinitely powerful beings is trustworthy. (Heck, even my intuition
> about quantum mechanics was way off for a while.) For all I know, an
> uncreated Creator _may_ be more natural than an uncreated universe,
> despite my intuition. Also, I don't feel particularly confident that
> I know every possible way to _look_ for a God. Thus, I feel a need
> for stronger arguments for _or_ against the existence of God than I
> would for unicorns (for example).
At the risk of having this thread becoming even more off-topic than it
already is, I will suggest that there may be an "experiment" currently
under way that may shed some light on the existance or non-existance of
a Creator. WARNING!!! The interpretation of the experiment depends on
which interpretation of QM is "correct". I should add that I regard the
Copenhagen interpretation to be a cop-out. To me, there must be some
physical "meaning" behind the collapse of the wave-function. A
probability "by itself" cannot interact with a particle - this seems to
me to be a type mismatch. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The experiment in question is the continuing effort to build a "quantum
computer" From the news reports that I read, this seems to be
progressing well, with no unsurmountable roadblocks so far. Now, what if
such a computer is built, and succeeds in solving some computationally
enormous problem - say, factoring a 10^12 digit number into its two 10^6
digit prime factors in one second. This would indicate quite strongly
that the many-histories interpretation is in fact correct. On the other
hand, maybe it will prove to be impossible to build such a computer.
This would suggest that the many-histories interpretation is incorrect.
Now, let me tell a story adapted from John Leslie's book "universes":
You wake up with no memories and are confronted with a Mad Scientist.
She proceeds to tell you, and provides you with undeniable proof, that
you she had a freezer full of fertilised human eggs, and chose at random
to bring your particular egg to maturity. OK, you think, I myself am
lucky to be aware, but some person would have been in your position. But
then she tells you that after bringing you to maturity, but before
waking you, she selected a number: 265760. She then generated a random
integer between 0 and 1000000. with the intention that if then random
number were not 265760 she would shoot you through your head, but if it
were 265760, she would wake you. Sure enough, the random number WAS
265760, and she woke you! What could you conclude from this? There are
three possibilities (remember, you can verify what she says). One: Sheer
good luck. However, this is very unlikely, due to the enormous odds
against this occurance. Two: The random number generator was rigged.
Three: The Mad Scientist actually brought an enormous number of eggs to
maturity, possibly the entire freezerful. Both Two and Three are serious
possibilities.
The point of that story is that we, as living,intelligent beings, fill
the role of the newly awakened person, and the Universe fills the role
of the Mad Scientist. There are simply too many ratios between various
forces that require incredible precision in their relative strengths, to
allow life to evolve at all.
Simply put, in my opinion there are only two alternatives: either there
are innumerable Universes, each with different ratios between the
fundamental forces, and we happen to inhabit one that is suited to life,
or there exists a Creator who rigged the odds to allow life to evolve.
Of course both of these may be true: a Creator could cause many
different Universes to exist, some or all of which are inhabitable. (As
an aside, could one of these universes be identicle to JRRTs creation?
Maybe!)
Getting back to the quantum computers, if they are not buildable at all,
that would strongly suggest that a Creator made the (one and only)
Universe. If they are in fact built and perform as described, that would
strongly suggest that there are innumerable Universes. The issue of a
Creator would be still open, in that case.
To the three people who are still reading this far, :) this is my
opinion only. I certainly could have messed up at some point in my
reasoning. I would welcome a reply from anyone who knows more than I do
about this subject.
Paris
>
> At the risk of having this thread becoming even more off-topic than it
> already is, I will suggest that there may be an "experiment" currently
> under way that may shed some light on the existance or non-existance of
> a Creator. WARNING!!! The interpretation of the experiment depends on
> which interpretation of QM is "correct". I should add that I regard the
> Copenhagen interpretation to be a cop-out. To me, there must be some
> physical "meaning" behind the collapse of the wave-function. A
> probability "by itself" cannot interact with a particle - this seems to
> me to be a type mismatch. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> The experiment in question is the continuing effort to build a "quantum
> computer" From the news reports that I read, this seems to be
> progressing well, with no unsurmountable roadblocks so far. Now, what if
> such a computer is built, and succeeds in solving some computationally
> enormous problem - say, factoring a 10^12 digit number into its two 10^6
> digit prime factors in one second. This would indicate quite strongly
> that the many-histories interpretation is in fact correct. On the other
> hand, maybe it will prove to be impossible to build such a computer.
> This would suggest that the many-histories interpretation is incorrect.
I lose your thread here: why would the existance of a quantum-computer
indicate the existance of parallel universes?
<snip>
Cletus the slack-jawed yokel
> > computer" From the news reports that I read, this seems to be
> > progressing well, with no unsurmountable roadblocks so far. Now, what if
> > such a computer is built, and succeeds in solving some computationally
> > enormous problem - say, factoring a 10^12 digit number into its two 10^6
> > digit prime factors in one second. This would indicate quite strongly
> > that the many-histories interpretation is in fact correct. On the other
> > hand, maybe it will prove to be impossible to build such a computer.
> > This would suggest that the many-histories interpretation is incorrect.
>
> indicate the existance of parallel universes?
Basically it comes down to how much computetion can be performed by a
given physical system in a given time. A really extreme calculation
would require more computation than is physically possible by ANY
combination of the atoms making up the computer - or even by any
combination of all the atoms in the Universe. Nevertheless, the
calculation will have been done. The only plausible mechanism (to me) is
that the interior of the computer had split into a huge number of
mini-universes, which then merged back together at the conclusion of the
computation.
The way the computation would work (as far as I understand it) would be
by trial factorization: a pair of integers would be chosen at random,
and multiplied together to see if their product is the target number.
Obviously, there would be almost no chance that the product was that
target. The "quantum" part of the computation has to do with the
computer being held in a state of "entanglement" - the computer would be
isolated from the outside world and allowed to "interfere" with itself
in such a way that only the correct answer would "collapse" and be read
by the outside world. Sounds bizarre, but simple quantum computation -
albeit not at the extreme level I'm talking about - has been
successfully accomplished.
Then there's the question of the "meaning" of the famous double-slit
experiment - a single photon passes through one of two parallel slits,
and strikes the sensor at a position determined by the
probability-function of a two-slit interference pattern! But only if
both slits are uncovered! It must be interfering with "something", but
what? Since I personally believe that only a physical object can
influence another physical object, not some "probability amplitude", and
this object seems to have exactly the same properties as another photon,
I conclude that it IS another photon, that had just branched off of our
history and recombined with it at the moment of detection. And since
wherever the photon strikes the detector, the same thing happens, there
must be an almost infinite number of "other-history" photons for every
one in our universe, each in its own universe. At least by my
understanding.
simonh...@my-deja.com
I'm not sure that your second to last sentence about means anything.
The probabilities are attributes of particles (and waves) which
describe their likely behaviour.
> Getting back to the quantum computers, if they are not buildable at
all,
> that would strongly suggest that a Creator made the (one and only)
> Universe. If they are in fact built and perform as described, that
would
> strongly suggest that there are innumerable Universes. The issue of a
> Creator would be still open, in that case.
There's also the 'evolving universe' theory. This postulates that the
universe has formed many times, but that with each iteration the
ballance of the universal constants tends towards a stable configuration
leading to the universe we experience.
Sorry, but I don't see how this experiment can possible tell us
anything about theology.
Simon Hibbs
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Cletus the slack-jawed yokel
> william....@sympatico.ca wrote:
> > To me, there must be some
> > physical "meaning" behind the collapse of the wave-function. A
> > probability "by itself" cannot interact with a particle - this seems
> to
> > me to be a type mismatch. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> The probabilities are attributes of particles (and waves) which
> describe their likely behaviour.
It is true that a probability is a description of how likely some event
is to occur. But why does the probability of a photon striking a
particular area on a detector change from quite high to practically
zero, depending on whether the slit that it passed through was alone or
one of a pair? Something must physically cause that change (or so it
seems to me). My understanding of the standard interpretation is that
the cause of the change is the change in the probability function
itself, which sounds circular to me.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>> >> >> You know, science is inherently illogical. It spends most of its time
>> >> >> advocating crackpot ideas until they are proven wrong.
>> >
>> >Wellllll... if you say "making crazy guesses and studying them until
>> >something better comes along", then sure! :)
>>
>> with crackpot ideas which once were considered extremely credible.
>
>commonly accepted, can be overthrown by credible evidence against it.
Those who are commonly referred to as "religious" would say much the same
thing.
>> You're both missing the point here. The assertion of God's existence is
>> scientifically valid until proven otherwise.
>
>I would say that the assertion of God's existence is neither
>scientifically valid nor invalid. There simply is not enough scientific
>evidence to prove or disprove the assertion.
There is no such thing as an assertion which is neither scientifically valid
nor invalid. It either is or it isn't. That an assertion cannot be disproven
doesn't mean it's invalid. That an assertion cannot be proven doesn't mean
it's invalid, either.
Fermat's Last Theorem is probably the most famous example of an assertion
which could not be proven or disproved for over 300 years (and even now it can
only be proven through the use of mathematics which hadn't been devised in
Fermat's day). FLT was widely regarded as an IMPORTANT assertion, and the
study of the principles entailed in proving it help broaden the field of
mathematics considerably.
>> >> Science has made no effort to prove or disprove God's existence.
>> >
>> >Absolutely true, and thank goodness!
>>
>> I see no reason to be thankful. The sooner science gets off its lazy,
>> arrogant ass and does something to answer the question for skeptics, the
>> better off we'll be.
>
>That's the way to convince others... start throwing insults around.
>:)
Nonetheless, it's a truthful remark.
>I am assuming that you are being serious, since there was no emoticon
>attached. Individual scientists may be lazy and/or arrogant but science
>is a "process" It cannot be lazy or arrogant, or any human personality
>trait.
Science is a process which has been restrained by the emotions of the
scientists. And in the above "insult", "science" referred to the
practitioners of the art, not the art itself.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>> Until someone uses science to show there is no God, you have no reason to
>> suggest the people who choose to believe in him...<snip>
>
>So you're saying that until science shows there is no giant duck living
>in the center of the Earth, there's a possibility that there's one
>there?
Nope. And Science has some pretty solid ideas about whether ducks can live at
the center of the Earth anyway (giant or otherwise).
Michael Martinez
>> backwards or incorrect thinking people. Fundamentalism abounds throughout
>> science, religion, art, and business, the four cornerstones of our
>> civilization's expressions of thought. If one is a fundamentist
>> expression, all are.
>
>I would define a devout person as "devout". Simply that.
Science has its devotees who are as earnest and sincere as Faith's.
>On the other hand, "fundamentalist", to me, means that a person holds
>some idea firmly in their head, in the face of external evidence against
>that idea.
[snip]
That is not what "fundamentalism" referrs to it. It refers to the adherence
to founding principles (fundamentals) of a belief or knowledge system as
opposed to embracing extrapolative (often more "liberal") principles which
have arisen in the course of the system's existence.
Whether there is evidence to disprove what Fundamentalist people of Faith
believe is questionable -- certainly no one has tried to prove that God
doesn't exist (or the Gods -- Fundamentalism is not peculiar to
Judeo-Christian groups, among groups of Faith).
That some Fundamentalists introduce new impurities into their systems means
only that they are no longer Fundamentalists (even if they call themselves by
such a name).
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>>I see no reason to be thankful. The
>>sooner science gets off its lazy, arrogant
>>ass and does something to answer the
>>question for skeptics, the better off we'll
>>be.
>
>ultra-orthodox believers. They'd find something wrong with the proof,
>and say that it contradicts their holy writings or some such. Some
>believers are rabidly opposed to any science whatsoever. I wouldn't be
>surprised if there was some very tiny church out there that still
>belives the world is flat, and completely rejects the Copernican
>heliocentric solar system.
Which believers are you referring to? The believers of Faith or the believers
of Science? Or those of us who have no problem reconciling the two?
>I think it's best if science doesn't find any hard answers about God
>anyway.
Why not? Everything science is set up to do, the Bible tells us to do.
Watch, observe, and determine what happened based on the results of your
observations. Only if the Bible had coined the term "science" we'd be
discussing Faith versus something else these days.
>...If God were proven, just imagine the holy wars that could be
>set off from that proof. I don't think anyone but the priests would end
>up being better off if that happened, and it would be the Dark Ages all
>over again.
Holy wars don't come from a knowledge of God, but rather from the ambitions of
men, and the only difference between a Holy War and a non-Holy War is that in
the former some idiot lied and said God commanded the war, whereas in the
second case some idiot just felt it was his destiny to cause the deaths of
many people.
>The proof of God's existance really belongs with philosophy and
>metaphysics rather than with hard science anyway.
No, the proof of God's existence belongs with all of mankind's knowledge.
If God exists then all those who don't believe in him will be left behind, and
if he doesn't exist then all those who do believe in him may be left behind.
Either way, mankind loses a part of itself because people are unwilling to
face the facts.
>However, you're right about science being lazy and arrogant. I have
>little but contempt for modern academia. They can sit in their ivory
>towers all day long, bemoaning the state of the world while thinking
>they have all the answers that will make life perfect. Now this may
>offend some people here, but it is the truth. Life on campus in many
>ways is a controlled environment, unlike the world outside.
Dependency on government budgets brought us to this impasse. Oh for the good
old unregulated days when anyone could sponsor scientific research with the
hope of getting rich no matter how many people suffered in the resulting chaos
as new knowledge was unleashed upon an unsuspecting world!
Michael Martinez
>When discussing philosophical issues with friends who are
>also scientists, I have yet to hear a single one of them claim that
>any particular scientific theory is "The Truth" (in the sense that
>further progress could never show it to be incorrect in some way).
Odd. I've yet to meet anyone other than a Quantum Physicist who has a problem
with Einstein's relativity. And even the QPs say it's not wrong -- sort of.
>That's off the top of my head. What scientists are you thinking of
>who _have_ claimed to have some sort of final, unquestionable Truth?
See above. More to the point, sit in on any lecture about gravity and how it
works. I've yet to hear a physicist depart from the doctrine. Gravity is
there. We all have to deal with it. Will it simply stop working for you if
you choose to believe it shouldn't?
>As for belief in God, I don't think that science could ever _disprove_
>the existence of such a remarkably powerful being: it would always be
>possible for Him to perfectly conceal His existence...
That's a cheap out which has nothing to do with the question of whether God
exists. If he exists, then he has made himself known to us, and having made
himself known to us he can be observed. If he doesn't exist, then we have
imagined him, and at the very least we can show that none of our "sightings"
are real.
Now, a quick response is, "How does God's existence imply he has made himself
known to us?" The answer is simple: what we think of as "God" is a being (or
beings) who has/have revealed him/themselves to us. i.e., we believe in the
gods we are taught about, who created the universe, our souls, the laws which
govern all nature, and who revealed something of his/their nature/existence
through prophets and revelations.
Although I haven't studied the religions of the world and have by no means
heard of them all, I haven't yet heard of any which professes a god or gods
which have nothing to do with us.
>... As I understand
>it, most scientists who do not believe in God take that position for
>the same reason that they do not believe in unicorns (no evidence that
>they _do_ exist, and the assumption that the burden of proof lies on
>the pro-existence side of such a debate).
Educated people should know better, but then, educated people also smoke
cigarettes, drink alcohol, and pass on social diseases despite knowing better.
The burden of proof for any assertion lies with the assertion. Asserting
there is no evidence of the existence of God requires that proof of the lack
of evidence be offered (i.e., all "evidence" submitted by the other camp must
be credibly invalidated rather than conveniently dismissed).
>To be honest, this strikes me as a very logical chain of reasoning.
I see nothing logical in the callous dismissal of another person's assertion
through the convenience of self-imposed ignorance. If people say there is
evidence of God's existence, then no one is in their right mind to say there
is no such evidence unless they can show that the purported evidence is flawed
or being misinterpreted.
>> The assertion of God's existence is scientifically valid until
>> proven otherwise.
>
>Is the same true of the existence of unicorns?
You keep bringing up unicorns as if the name somehow relegates the discussion
of God to the realm of fanciful fairy tales. I can certainly prove there
exist now (and have millions of years) four-legged animals with a single horn
growing out of their head. Since "unicorns" exist, you might do well to sit
down and consider how illogical your dodging appears.
Whether white horse-like creatures with horns growing out of their heads do
exist or ever have existed is another matter altogether. I can't say anyone
could prove they didn't exist without going back through time and cataloguing
all previously existing creatures on Earth. But God, if he exists, is still
around -- we don't need to look for fossils which may not be there.
>> Hence, the distinctions people like to draw between science and
>> faith are largely irrational and arbitrary -- there is certainly no
>> logic to be found in such distinctions.
>
>If someone came up to me and said "I truly believe that there are
>unicorns", I would make a distinction between my science and their
>faith pretty quickly,...
How nobly arrogant of you. You, who know so much better than the person who
has stabled unicorns in their back yard for 20 years immediately dismiss their
real life experiences as imagination and "faith".
Thank God not all scientists think so irrationally.
If someone came up to me and said, "I truly believe that there are unicorns",
I would first ask "Why do you believe so?" If the answer was based on belief
and philosophy, then I would distinguish between their faith and my science.
If the answer was, "Well, I've been stabling unicorns in my back yard for the
past 20 years", I'd say, "Show me".
No assumptions. No casual (and arrogant) dismissals based on ignorance.
THAT is the difference between science done right and science done wrong.
The Missourians have science down pat: they say "Show me".
>> The proposition that God interacts with those whom he created
>> doesn't imply that he is correcting imperfections in his creation.
>> It just means he cares enough to pay attention to us.
>
>Depends on your point of view, I guess. Couldn't one also claim that
>if He cared about us, He could set up a universe that would naturally
>address our problems when He knew that we would have them?
And how do you know he hasn't? Should a loving God cater to the whims of
selfish people all day long, eons in advance?
Michael Martinez
>that would strongly suggest that a Creator made the (one and only)
>Universe. If they are in fact built and perform as described, that would
>strongly suggest that there are innumerable Universes. The issue of a
>Creator would be still open, in that case.
That we cannot build a thing today does not mean it cannot be built tomorrow.
Hence, that we cannot build a thing today proves nothing more than that we are
incapable of building it.
Michael Martinez
>Sorry, but I don't see how this experiment can possible tell us
>anything about theology.
"Theology" in the pure, scientific sense, I hope, rather than "theology, the
organization of religion".
Religion really has nothing to do with the question of God's existence.
Michael Martinez
>Paris wrote:
>>
>> Cletus the slack-jawed yokel <william....@sympatico.ca> skrev
>> >
>> > computer" From the news reports that I read, this seems to be
>> > progressing well, with no unsurmountable roadblocks so far. Now, what if
>> > such a computer is built, and succeeds in solving some computationally
>> > enormous problem - say, factoring a 10^12 digit number into its two 10^6
>> > digit prime factors in one second. This would indicate quite strongly
>> > that the many-histories interpretation is in fact correct. On the other
>> > hand, maybe it will prove to be impossible to build such a computer.
>> > This would suggest that the many-histories interpretation is incorrect.
>>
>> indicate the existance of parallel universes?
>
>Basically it comes down to how much computetion can be performed by a
>given physical system in a given time. A really extreme calculation
>would require more computation than is physically possible by ANY
>combination of the atoms making up the computer - or even by any
>combination of all the atoms in the Universe. Nevertheless, the
>calculation will have been done. The only plausible mechanism (to me) is
>that the interior of the computer had split into a huge number of
>mini-universes, which then merged back together at the conclusion of the
>computation.
[snip]
One needs to understand how computer architecture works in order to visualize
the limitations of the technology (and, despite some media reports to the
contrary, we are not yet close to experiencing the limits of that technology).
We currently build CIRCUITS, things which guide electrons on specified paths,
and we have put up blocks (gates) inside those circuits which cause the
electrons to alter their paths. By combining several of these simple gates in
a circuit we create physical domains called "cells" in which a small amount of
current keeps alive a positive pulse (a "bit" set to 1) or a negative pulse
(a "bit" set to 0). The pulse is "trapped" and forced to circumnavigate its
little domain (the "cell") continuously until the current dissipates (usually
when you turn off the computer or if a break in the flow occurs).
By connecting these cells together we create a "byte", but the connection is
logical, not physical. The cells are grouped together side-by-side but they
don't touch (if they did the current would jump from cell to cell and bypass
the gates which block the paths of the pulses).
Each cell has a path to the "bus", the connecting "highway" of the chip. When
told to let the pulse through the gates of the cell "open" and the pulse takes
off (rather a copy of it does).
These tiny little cells are unimaginably huge compared to the kinds of
molecular constructions which have been theorized. It may one day be possible
to create a cell from a single complex molecule. Right now it takes thousands
or millions of molecules to create one cell.
The reason people want to create smaller cells is that they want to cut down
on the distance a pulse has to cover in moving from the cell to the registers
(the circuits where calculations occur). What we think of as the "logic" of
the computer is actually just a big puzzle we have predefined from millions
(billions, even) of small positive/negative pulses passing through a small
number of registers. The pulses are brought together in pairs and the "truth"
or "falseness" of their being similar is used to determine some subsequent
action.
It's very much like telling an ant colony to build a mountain. Each ant
carries only a small grain of sand, and all the grains look nearly alike, but
when piled on top of each other, some grains bear up the weight of the others
and some grains rest on the surface to protect the others from exposure to the
elements, some grains are projected in hills, some grains form the borders of
valleys, etc. The position of each grain is unique.
Anyway, if the distance between cells and registers today can be reduced by
half tomorrow, then tomorrow's computers -- if no design improvements are made
-- will be twice as fast as today's computers. If the next day the distance
is reduced by half again, then the computers of two days from now are four
times as fast as today's computers. And so on.
But computer technology improves on a macro scale as well as a micro scale.
The more things a processor does at the same time, the sooner it should
complete a complex task. This is the approach behind array processors, which
assemble hundreds or thousands of processors in tandem and have them crunch
out big number projects. But processor technology can be improved by putting
more registers and pathways on the chip (provided there is room). The more
gizmos you fit on the chip, the faster the chip processes its commands when
compared with older, simpler chips. Hence, the need for reducing the space
between things becomes critical to speeding up computer technology.
If I understand the theory correctly, a quantum computer would eliminate or
minimize the need for reducing the space between things because they should
only exist when they are needed. Hence, you don't have to worry about the
distances between things as much as in a normal computer (but I don't believe
you'd want cells located at opposite sides of the continent). So the computer
quantum could have as many registers to compare bits as is required.
Assuming I have all this right (I'm pretty sure about the basic computer
architecture although I did not pull out my old textbooks to double check, so
I've just committed one of the cardinal sins of Tolkien Debating with Michael
Martinez), there is nothing in the above which would provide grounds for
arguing the existence of God (except that everything would conform to natural
laws, and one of the points presented in the favor of God's existence is the
existence of natural laws).
Michael Martinez
In article <z47R3.776$y5....@news.get2net.dk>, "Raven"
<jonlenn...@get2net.dk> wrote:
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> skrev i en
>nyhedsmeddelelse:7uvgbt$148...@Org.xenite.org...
>
>> [snip] ...science (which is
>> nothing more than the organized collection of human knowledge)...
> Science is more than that. It is a method, which relies on evidence
>(although not irrefutable proof: that exists only in logic and mathematic,
>where the rules are made by ourselves, and irrefutable proof can be built to
>show that eg. the square root of two is not a rational number) to determine
>what is probably the truth.
You're simply expanding on what I said, not adding to it. Science is how we
accumulate and organize our knowledge. Nothing more.
> Of course, in practice, if you believe what modern science has to say
>about the Universe, you do have to rely quite a bit on faith. Umptillions
>of experiments and observations are the foundation of this knowledge, and
>nobody has the time to repeat them all personally, or even learn personally
>from textbooks all the collective knowledge of the various fields of modern
>science. So you have to believe that either all those researchers who were
>before you formed a big great conspiracy to construct a very finely crafted
>and all-encompassing lie, or else that they have been, by and large, honest
>and have reported their observations truthfully. Or even that some
>omnipotent God or demon has lied to humanity by crafting a lot of false
>evidence...
This last sentence makes no sense.
> By Occam's razor, I find the second explanation the *far* more probable.
Occam's razor is sadly one of the most misunderstood and misused scientific
principles to come out of philosophy. All it says is that entities should not
be unecessarily multiplied. In fact, much of past research is suspect for
various reasons, and students are required to perform basic experiments which
have long since found their way into the "canon" of science simply because
that is considered to be the best method of passing on what has been learned.
Science does not accept the results of any experiment which cannot be
duplicated, so all experiments ARE duplicated to confirm the results (at
least, that is the way empirical knowledge is gathered, but science includes
field observations which don't entail experiments).
>>[snip]...faith (which is nothing more than the intuitive
>> application of knowledge).
> Perhaps we simply have different definitions of 'faith'. Mine is that
>faith, as regards to explanations, is belief in the absence of evidence.
>Because it feels or seems good.
>
> As for the God hypothesis, I have seen no evidence for the existence of
>God.
And what would you consider to BE evidence for the existence of God? What are
the criteria you have set up for determining the validity of any evidence.
The problem with statements such as your is that they are unscientific. They
are meaningless in a methodical analysis.
> 'Cletus the slack-jawed yokel' wrote:
>> >Agreed. Anybody who makes such an assertion as "God does not exist"
>> >without providing evidence is also a fundamentalist.
>
> IMHO, a person who asserts confidently that God does not exist is
>exercising as much faith as a person who prays to God and believes that God
>exists and hears the prayers. That, of course, will change if proof appears
>on the issue.
Proof may be staring everyone in the face, but until such time as people sit
down and rationally look for (and examine, if any is found) the evidence,
there will never be any serious basis for doubting the existence of God. The
basis for accepting the existence of God is based on personal experience --
which is where the results of science's observations come from.
Michael Martinez
>> >For the record, I didn't actually say anything about the existence of
>> >God one way or the other. I, at least, _don't_ think that science can
>> >tell us much of anything about the existence or non-existence of a God
>> >(hence my agnosticism).
> In principle, the scientific method *can* tell us whether God exists or
>not - if any evidence on the issue turns up. No evidence has turned up, so
You have no credible basis for making such an assertion. Which branch of
science has made that determination? Why was the investigation into the
evidence of God's existence kept secret until now?
One might as well say no evidence has turned up that microbes exist on the
moons of Neptune, so science has no tools to work with on the hypothesis. In
fact, science has long worked on the hypothesis despite the lack of evidence.
Shirking the pursuit of knowledge is simply not a credible and responsible
answer to the question, Is there a God?
>...Most ongoing phenomena observed in the Universe have explanations which do
>not involve God, though, and none to my knowledge which *do* require God.
>This gives us some ideas of what God does *not* do, if there is a God.
This is a very limited perspective. At the very least, the requirement for a
creator has not been obviated by any observation (nor the non-requirement of
one) of the ongoing phenomena. Even the Big Bang can be used to argue for and
against the existence of God.
>> You're both missing the point here. The assertion of God's existence is
>> scientifically valid until proven otherwise. Hence, the distinctions
>> people like to draw between science and faith are largely irrational and
>> arbitrary -- there is certainly no logic to be found in such distinctions.
> The *assertion* of God's existence is scientifically valid in the
>presence of evidence. But I have seen none.
And since you have seen none none exists, right? Wrong. An assertion can be
made in the absence of evidence and many have. But people who deliberately
dismiss all claims of evidence without examining them are not serving science
or advancing its principles.
>> I see no reason to be thankful. The sooner science gets off its lazy,
>> arrogant ass and does something to answer the question for skeptics, the
>> better off we'll be.
> Then ask me something. I have what corresponds to a Master's Degree in
>physics. Perhaps I will be able to answer. If I am unable, I shall be
>honest enough to admit it.
Okay, does God exist?
Simply saying "Science cannot answer that question" is not acceptable.
Science has so far not made the attempt. That doesn't mean it can't.
So only a "Yes", "No", or "I cannot answer that question" type of answer is
acceptable. All evidence supporting either the "Yes" or "No" will be
appreciated.
David Sulger
>David Sulger wrote:
>>Michael Martinez wrote:
>>>I see no reason to be thankful. The
>>>sooner science gets off its lazy,
>>>arrogant ass and does something to
>>>answer the question for skeptics, the
>>>better off we'll be.
>>That might not work anyway, Michael, >>at least not for some very
ultra-orthodox
>>believers. They'd find something wrong
>>with the proof, and say that it
>>contradicts their holy writings or some
>>such. Some believers are rabidly
>>opposed to any science whatsoever. I
>>wouldn't be surprised if there was some
>>very tiny church out there that still
>>belives the world is flat, and completely
>>rejects the Copernican heliocentric
>>solar system.
>Which believers are you referring to?
>The believers of Faith or the believers of
>Science? Or those of us who have no
>problem reconciling the two?
I think it's fairly clear that I was talking about the believers of
Faith. But to answer the point the you may have been trying to make,
yes, there are those in science who would reject the proof as well.
After all, we see this everytime a scientist presents a new theory;
there are always those who try to debunk it. There is at least as much
contention in science as there is in theology; as an outsider in both
fields, I have no problem with mentioning this fact.
>>I think it's best if science doesn't find >>any hard answers about God
anyway.
>Everything science is set up to do, the >Bible tells us to do. Watch,
observe, and >determine what happened based on the >results of your
observations.
The Bible doesn't tell it followers to watch and observe. It tells its
followers very specific behaviors which they have to follow or avoid.
The Bible isn't about learning, rather it is about obeying.
>>...If God were proven, just imagine the
>>holy wars that could be set off from that
>>proof.
>Holy wars don't come from a knowledge
>of God, but rather from the ambitions of
>men
The point I was trying to make was twofold:
First, there are those who would disagree with the proof. They would
therefore feel threatened by the proof, and would attempt to destroy it.
I originally meant this to be confined to the partisans of Faith, but
after reading your reply, I include the partisans of science as well.
Second, there are those who would take the proof as meaning that that
their faith is the one true faith, and that by extension, all others are
heresies or blasphemies and must be wiped out. History itself should be
enough to validate this point. And there is proof even in today's world
that this would happen. There are those who are willing to kill others
out of a religious conviction, even in the United States.
Let me also take the opportunity to say that this is the point that
concerns me the most, and why I feel that the world is not ready for a
definitive "yes" or "no" answer on God. I know that you probably
brought up this argument to state that science has just as many faults
as religion (which I would agree with, at least to some point) , thereby
playing the devil's advocate, but
I believe religion can be more dangerous than science, and this has
affected my response.
This ties in with a point that Steuard made about using his power to
hide from us. This is a reasonable assumption to make. If there is a
God, and and he is as wise as Western theology would have us believe,
then he probably knows that everyone isn't ready to know the whole
truth. If there is no God, then this is a moot point anyway. One could
also bring fate into the argument and say that we are meanrt to learn
the truth at a certain time, in which case, science can do nothing about
it.
Mankind definitely needs to mature before learning whether or not God
exists.
--Dave
Steuard Jensen
> In article <YK5R3.129$84.3141@uchinews>, sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu
> (Steuard Jensen) wrote:
> >When discussing philosophical issues with friends who are
> >also scientists, I have yet to hear a single one of them claim that
> >any particular scientific theory is "The Truth" (in the sense that
> >further progress could never show it to be incorrect in some way).
> Odd. I've yet to meet anyone other than a Quantum Physicist who has
> a problem with Einstein's relativity. And even the QPs say it's not
> wrong -- sort of.
Also odd. :) In what sense do you mean "a problem"? Most scientists
that I know of would certainly acknowledge, for example, that
relativity doesn't explain the strong or weak nuclear interactions
very well. Similarly, most relativists would concede that relativity
can't successfully describe what goes on at the very center of a black
hole: the theory allows singular points, where it just plain doesn't
work.
My work recently has related to string theory, which is an attempt to
find a "deeper" truth than that of relativity (and than the Standard
Model of particle physics at the same time). Needless to say, none of
the people I'm working with believe that Einstein's relativity is "The
Truth", despite the fact that all string theories reduce to it at low
enough energies. That's all I was getting at in my comments above:
even a theory as successful and beautiful as relativity is always
considered tentative to some degree.
> >That's off the top of my head. What scientists are you thinking of
> >who _have_ claimed to have some sort of final, unquestionable Truth?
> See above. More to the point, sit in on any lecture about gravity
> and how it works. I've yet to hear a physicist depart from the
> doctrine. Gravity is there. We all have to deal with it. Will it
> simply stop working for you if you choose to believe it shouldn't?
You should come up to Chicago. :) This fall's series of "Compton
Lectures" (Saturday presentations intended for the general public) is
about string theory. Now, true, string theory is moving in the
direction of becoming the "new doctrine", but the very fact that the
"doctrine" can change over the course of a few years seems to suggest
that it's not an unquestioned assumption.
On the other hand, I may be misunderstanding your concern. Yes, most
scientists would readily say that gravity is always there, whether you
believe in it or not, and no matter what else happens. However,
that's not really a statement about "truth". That's a generalization
from a remarkably consistent and wide-ranging set of observations,
carried out by every human who ever lived, all the time. (Astronauts
excepted, at least from the "all the time" bit.) I suppose that
pretty much every scientist would say that the action of gravity in
the past and the present is "scientific fact", and therefore The Truth
in some sense. That's not much of a philosophical claim, however,
except inasmuch as it implies that scientists do tend to trust the
senses to give trustworthy information about the real world. :)
> Now, a quick response is, "How does God's existence imply he has
> made himself known to us?" The answer is simple: what we think of
> as "God" is a being (or beings) who has/have revealed him/themselves
> to us. i.e., we believe in the gods we are taught about, who
> created the universe, our souls, the laws which govern all nature,
> and who revealed something of his/their nature/existence through
> prophets and revelations.
Ok, here you lose me. I very much do _not_ think of God in the way in
which many people are taught, at least when it comes to prophets and
revelations. I _do_ believe that if there is a God, then the best way
to understand Him is to learn as much as we can about His creation
(and I don't just mean physics, there; understanding each other is
important, too).
I do _not_ believe that I can ever learn reliable information about
God by way of prophets and revelations, at least if they're
revelations to other people. There are too many contradictory
"prophets" and "revelations" out there for me to be able to recognize
the real ones with ease, and thus I'm very hesitant to even think that
there _are_ any real ones. (Why would God use a medium that was so
untrustworthy?, I ask myself.) If God makes some special revelation
to _me_ in a way that is sufficiently unambiguous to admit no more
mundane explanation, then I will revise my position (though I wouldn't
expect others to do so).
> Although I haven't studied the religions of the world and have by no means
> heard of them all, I haven't yet heard of any which professes a god or gods
> which have nothing to do with us.
If the Deists are right, then it would be perfectly fair to study the
universe and not call anything specific within it an "act of God". As
you point out, of course, the creation of the universe itself would
from the Deist perspective be a way in which God had something to do
with us. :)
> The burden of proof for any assertion lies with the assertion.
> Asserting there is no evidence of the existence of God requires that
> proof of the lack of evidence be offered (i.e., all "evidence"
> submitted by the other camp must be credibly invalidated rather than
> conveniently dismissed).
Just out of curiosity, what evidence for the existence of God is the
athiest camp "conveniently dismissing"? The testimony of others seems
to be the primary example, and I think that most athiests believe that
they have good reasons for not trusting others' testimony in the
relevant cases. (Whether they're right or not is an entirely
different question.)
> I see nothing logical in the callous dismissal of another person's
> assertion through the convenience of self-imposed ignorance. If
> people say there is evidence of God's existence, then no one is in
> their right mind to say there is no such evidence unless they can
> show that the purported evidence is flawed or being misinterpreted.
I think the usual athiest argument is that there is no "trustworthy"
evidence of God's existence. One justification that one might use for
that claim is the following: many people claim to have personal
experiences that show them that God exists. However, those
experiences seem to have led them to very different and often
contradictory ideas about the nature of that God. A person who has
had no such experience could reasonably suspect that those who had
were mistaken in their conclusions.
> >> The assertion of God's existence is scientifically valid until
> >> proven otherwise.
> >
> >Is the same true of the existence of unicorns?
> You keep bringing up unicorns as if the name somehow relegates the
> discussion of God to the realm of fanciful fairy tales. I can
> certainly prove there exist now (and have millions of years)
> four-legged animals with a single horn growing out of their head.
> Since "unicorns" exist, you might do well to sit down and consider
> how illogical your dodging appears.
I had hoped that it was clear that I was referring specifically to the
fanciful, fairy tale version of the beast. For "unicorn", substitute
"leprechaun" if you like; the intent is the same. As far as anyone
knows, "unicorns" as I was clearly using the term do not exist. If my
comments appear illogical because of that usage, I can only apologize
for not having been more clear, but I take solace in the fact that my
comments would not have appeared illogical had I been given the
benefit of the doubt.
I was _not_, incidentally, trying to relegate the discussion of God to
the realm of fanciful fairy tales. I was simply pointing out that
your arguments could, by simple substitution of one word for another,
be used to assert the existence of entities most of us agree are
entirely mythical.
> Whether white horse-like creatures with horns growing out of their
> heads do exist or ever have existed is another matter altogether. I
> can't say anyone could prove they didn't exist without going back
> through time and cataloguing all previously existing creatures on
> Earth. But God, if he exists, is still around -- we don't need to
> look for fossils which may not be there.
In my original article, I asked both if unicorns (read: leprechauns)
do exist and if they ever did exist. Even a scientific proof that
they don't exist _now_ would be effectively impossible. I think my
point still stands: if I claim that unicorns (read: leprechauns)
exist, the burden of proof rests squarely on me. You say as much
later on, when you demand that the unicorn breeder "show you".
> >> >If someone came up to me and said "I truly believe that there are
> >unicorns", I would make a distinction between my science and their
> >faith pretty quickly,...
> How nobly arrogant of you. You, who know so much better than the
> person who has stabled unicorns in their back yard for 20 years
> immediately dismiss their real life experiences as imagination and
> "faith".
> Thank God not all scientists think so irrationally.
Note that I did _not_ say that I would laugh in the person's face and
walk away. I suspect that if placed in the situation, I would mumble
a shocked "Oh, really? You don't say...". If this person actually
had been raising mythical beasts in his back yard for 20 years, I
suspect that he'd be used to this sort of thing, and say, "No, really,
I've been raising them in my back yard for twenty years." At that
point, I think I _would_ reevaluate my initial reaction. I can't
honestly claim that I would trust that they had a good reason for
their beliefs from the start, though; you've got me beat there.
I like to think, however, that the response I've outlined above isn't
unforgivably irrational, at least. Yes, Mr. Spock would do better,
but I'm only human. I do the best I can, but I gave up on _pure_
reason in social situations long ago. :)
> No assumptions. No casual (and arrogant) dismissals based on ignorance.
> THAT is the difference between science done right and science done wrong.
I'll admit it: in social situations, I do make assumptions fairly
freely (one of which, for example, was the assumption that everyone
would understand that I meant _mythical_ unicorns earlier). I've
found that I can do so fairly successfully, and it generally makes
interpersonal relations go a _lot_ more smoothly. I do, however, try
to keep track of the non-assumption versions of things too. (A habit
which, for example, tended to tell me when a relationship is failing
much sooner than I'm willing to admit it to myself...)
If, on the other hand, someone had come to me and said "I want your
scientific opinion on something: I believe that unicorns exist," I
think that I would quickly switch into the "no assumptions" attitude
that you mention. I would still be inclined to doubt, but I would
start out with a willingness to explore the issue further, rather than
needing an additional nudge in that direction.
> >Depends on your point of view, I guess. Couldn't one also claim that
> >if He cared about us, He could set up a universe that would naturally
> >address our problems when He knew that we would have them?
>
> And how do you know he hasn't? Should a loving God cater to the whims of
> selfish people all day long, eons in advance?
I didn't say that He hadn't. :) My only point was that a God who
wanted a particular event to happen in the world at a particular time
(whether in response to a prayer or just for the heck of it) would be
capable of either
1) tweaking things at the time, in violation of the usual laws of the
universe that He had established, or
2) arranging the initial conditions of the universe so that its own
laws would make that same thing happen when he wanted it to.
I don't see the choice of 1) or 2) implying any more or less love or
interest in our affairs. I _do_ see 2) as being substantially more
elegant, but that's a personal choice. I think that 2) _is_
marginally more natural for a God who is "outside of space and time",
as is the usual conception.
Steuard Jensen
Robert Brady
>If I understand the theory correctly, a quantum computer would eliminate or
>minimize the need for reducing the space between things because they should
>only exist when they are needed. Hence, you don't have to worry about the
>distances between things as much as in a normal computer (but I don't believe
>you'd want cells located at opposite sides of the continent). So the computer
>quantum could have as many registers to compare bits as is required.
Not quite. A quantum computer would actually take advantage of the
being-in-several-places-at-once thing, rather than being an extremely
minituarized conventional computer, which seems to be what you are
describing.
Quantum computers will be able to do stuff not some orders of magnitude
faster, but will scale up to large problems remarkably (e.g. a quantum
computer might be able to do a conventionally O(n^2) problem in O(n)
time).
--
Robert
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>>If I understand the theory correctly, a quantum computer would eliminate or
>>minimize the need for reducing the space between things because they should
>>only exist when they are needed. Hence, you don't have to worry about the
>>distances between things as much as in a normal computer (but I don't believe
>>you'd want cells located at opposite sides of the continent). So the computer
>>quantum could have as many registers to compare bits as is required.
>
>being-in-several-places-at-once thing, rather than being an extremely
>minituarized conventional computer, which seems to be what you are
>describing.
I wasn't trying to describe a quantum computer as being extremely miniturized.
But I wasn't trying to claim I fully understand the theory to begin with.
Michael Martinez
>Quoth Mic...@xenite.org (Michael Martinez):
>> Odd. I've yet to meet anyone other than a Quantum Physicist who has
>> a problem with Einstein's relativity. And even the QPs say it's not
>> wrong -- sort of.
>
>Also odd. :) In what sense do you mean "a problem"? Most scientists
>that I know of would certainly acknowledge, for example, that
>relativity doesn't explain the strong or weak nuclear interactions
Should it? I thought the long-sought Unified Field Theory was supposed to
handle that burden.
>...Similarly, most relativists would concede that relativity
>can't successfully describe what goes on at the very center of a black
>hole: the theory allows singular points, where it just plain doesn't
>work.
Again, should it? Are you suggesting that the theory of relativity is not
trusted by the scientific community? They certainly slap it in the face of
anyone who proposes FTL often enough.
>My work recently has related to string theory, which is an attempt to
>find a "deeper" truth than that of relativity (and than the Standard
>Model of particle physics at the same time). Needless to say, none of
>the people I'm working with believe that Einstein's relativity is "The
>Truth", despite the fact that all string theories reduce to it at low
>enough energies. That's all I was getting at in my comments above:
>even a theory as successful and beautiful as relativity is always
>considered tentative to some degree.
Either they accept it as a working model or they don't. Which is it?
If they accept it as a working model, then it is "The Truth". Why? Because
they believe it works and their own work is grounded in it.
A spring cannot send forth both bitter water and sweet.
You can't practice magic while looking down your nose at it.
Bottled water just doesn't taste the same as tap water.
>> >That's off the top of my head. What scientists are you thinking of
>> >who _have_ claimed to have some sort of final, unquestionable Truth?
>
>> See above. More to the point, sit in on any lecture about gravity
>> and how it works. I've yet to hear a physicist depart from the
>> doctrine. Gravity is there. We all have to deal with it. Will it
>> simply stop working for you if you choose to believe it shouldn't?
>
>You should come up to Chicago. :) This fall's series of "Compton
>Lectures" (Saturday presentations intended for the general public) is
>about string theory. Now, true, string theory is moving in the
>direction of becoming the "new doctrine", but the very fact that the
>"doctrine" can change over the course of a few years seems to suggest
>that it's not an unquestioned assumption.
Are you implying string theory will give us a method for contravening gravity
or not? Unless gravity is going to be set aside and ignored by physics once
string theory hits its stride, you don't seem to be countering what I've said.
>On the other hand, I may be misunderstanding your concern. Yes, most
>scientists would readily say that gravity is always there, whether you
>believe in it or not, and no matter what else happens. However,
>that's not really a statement about "truth". That's a generalization
>from a remarkably consistent and wide-ranging set of observations,
>carried out by every human who ever lived, all the time. (Astronauts
>excepted, at least from the "all the time" bit.) I suppose that
>pretty much every scientist would say that the action of gravity in
>the past and the present is "scientific fact", and therefore The Truth
>in some sense. That's not much of a philosophical claim, however,
>except inasmuch as it implies that scientists do tend to trust the
>senses to give trustworthy information about the real world. :)
What are you grasping for with these comments about "truth", Steuard? Truth
simply is. It isn't complex, obscure, esoteric, hard-to-reach, found only on
mountaintops in Tibet, or encased in quantum proto-panes. It simply is. We
either come across it or we don't. We hit the mark or we miss.
It's true that Einstein lived. It's not true that he practiced sorcery. It's
true that gravity works. It's not true that you can alter gravity by throwing
candy bars into automobile engines.
Philosophy, like religion, really has nothing to do with answering the simple
question, Is there a God?
>> Now, a quick response is, "How does God's existence imply he has
>> made himself known to us?" The answer is simple: what we think of
>> as "God" is a being (or beings) who has/have revealed him/themselves
>> to us. i.e., we believe in the gods we are taught about, who
>> created the universe, our souls, the laws which govern all nature,
>> and who revealed something of his/their nature/existence through
>> prophets and revelations.
>
>Ok, here you lose me. I very much do _not_ think of God in the way in
>which many people are taught, at least when it comes to prophets and
>revelations. I _do_ believe that if there is a God, then the best way
>to understand Him is to learn as much as we can about His creation
>(and I don't just mean physics, there; understanding each other is
>important, too).
You're inventing a new definition for "God" (or "god"), which in effect is
like another dodge. "Oh, I don't want to talk about THAT 'god' I want to talk
about THIS 'god'."
When we speak of "God" in general, we are referring to the god of
Judeo-Christian-Islamic teaching. That God, according to these traditions,
has revealed himself to us.
Or, if we speak of the gods of other faiths, such as the Hindu gods, those
traditions also claim their gods have revealed themselves to us.
The best way to understand God is to find him and learn to communicate with
him. If he's there, he is certainly capable of communicating with us. Like
the ants with respect to us, we simply may be too wrapped up in our own
concerns to listen in on what he has to say.
>I do _not_ believe that I can ever learn reliable information about
>God by way of prophets and revelations, at least if they're
>revelations to other people. There are too many contradictory
>"prophets" and "revelations" out there for me to be able to recognize
>the real ones with ease, and thus I'm very hesitant to even think that
>there _are_ any real ones.
[snip]
The Bible gives a pretty simple test for determining whether a prophet is
speaking on God's behalf: if what he or she says is true, it's coming from
God. That means 100% accuracy. Does anyone have such accuracy in this day
and age? I have no idea. I'm not aware of any formal efforts to document
such prophecies. Of course, prophecy doesn't consist of just predicting the
future, and future predictions fall into two categories: those which occur
within the predictor's lifetime and those which don't.
But if God is indeed communicating with mankind through prophets and
revelations, then science still has no excuse for paying no attention to them.
There are millions of species of insect but that hasn't kept science from
cataloging as many as it possibly can. Science TRIES with the insects. It
makes no effort with the prophets and revelations.
And there is no excuse for NOT trying.
>> The burden of proof for any assertion lies with the assertion.
>> Asserting there is no evidence of the existence of God requires that
>> proof of the lack of evidence be offered (i.e., all "evidence"
>> submitted by the other camp must be credibly invalidated rather than
>> conveniently dismissed).
>
>Just out of curiosity, what evidence for the existence of God is the
>athiest camp "conveniently dismissing"?...
See above. As for any additional evidence, what criteria should we apply for
determining that such evidence exists?
If God exists then he has made some effort to make himself known to us. How
can we, inferior to him, understand his attempts to reach us? He should be
using only means we are somehow capable of understanding and accepting. That
can include prophets and revelations. It might also include spacegrams
launched from the furthest ends of the known universe.
>...The testimony of others seems
>to be the primary example, and I think that most athiests believe that
>they have good reasons for not trusting others' testimony in the
>relevant cases. (Whether they're right or not is an entirely
>different question.)
Yes, personal testimony is always dismissed when it conflicts with one's
own beliefs and desires. And yet personal testimony is the core of much of
our scientific store of knowledge. We've also supplemented personal testimony
with the testimony of recording devices. Recording devices are not
infallible, just as people are not infallible. But when it's convenient to do
so, we accept the testimonies of individuals and devices and add that
testimony to our storehouse of information.
But when it is convenient to dismiss the testimony, we say it's
"unscientific", and we shouldn't trust it. This attitude can be applied to
virtually any controversy, even "cold fusion". No one has been abe to
duplicate reported results, but that in itself doesn't mean the cold
fusionists who claim to have done it really didn't do it. If they did it,
they just can't figure out (from their data) how they did it.
The derision and abuse with which people are greeted by the scientific
community for boldly making claims may or may not be justified (the prospect
of facing such public ridicule and possibly ruining your career should
certainly induce scientists to be EXTREMELY careful and conservative in
reporting their findings), but that derision itself is not scientific. It is
not born of science and contributes nothing to science.
>> I see nothing logical in the callous dismissal of another person's
>> assertion through the convenience of self-imposed ignorance. If
>> people say there is evidence of God's existence, then no one is in
>> their right mind to say there is no such evidence unless they can
>> show that the purported evidence is flawed or being misinterpreted.
>
>I think the usual athiest argument is that there is no "trustworthy"
>evidence of God's existence.
You're switching tactics, Steuard. Atheism has nothing to do with it, just as
religion and philosophy have nothing to do with it. People's opinions and
prejudices won't answer the question.
>> >> The assertion of God's existence is scientifically valid until
>> >> proven otherwise.
>> >
>> >Is the same true of the existence of unicorns?
>
>> You keep bringing up unicorns as if the name somehow relegates the
>> discussion of God to the realm of fanciful fairy tales. I can
>> certainly prove there exist now (and have millions of years)
>> four-legged animals with a single horn growing out of their head.
>> Since "unicorns" exist, you might do well to sit down and consider
>> how illogical your dodging appears.
>
>I had hoped that it was clear that I was referring specifically to the
>fanciful, fairy tale version of the beast. For "unicorn", substitute
>"leprechaun" if you like; the intent is the same. As far as anyone
>knows, "unicorns" as I was clearly using the term do not exist...
As far as anyone knows, "messenger pigeons" don't exist, but someone might be
breeding them in secret aviaries for all we know. The non-existences of
things are not facts recorded by science, they are conclusions preferred by
people who don't want to consider the possibilities (perhaps only because such
possibilities are highly improbable).
Recall Arthur C. Clarke's popular observation: any sufficiently advanced
technology seems like magic. Leprechauns may indeed turn up one day. One
never knows, and they are not a good example of something which we know does
not exist.
>...If my comments appear illogical because of that usage, I can only
>apologize for not having been more clear, but I take solace in the fact that
>my comments would not have appeared illogical had I been given the
>benefit of the doubt.
Logic doesn't grant the benefit of the doubt, Steuard. I know enough of MY
proofs were crossed out and returned as WRONG because the benefit of the doubt
wasn't extended to them. Surely you've had similar experiences. Logic is
very unforgiving.
>I was _not_, incidentally, trying to relegate the discussion of God to
>the realm of fanciful fairy tales. I was simply pointing out that
>your arguments could, by simple substitution of one word for another,
>be used to assert the existence of entities most of us agree are
>entirely mythical.
Whether we agree they are mythical doesn't mean they are, in fact, mythical.
Just because we decided Coelecanths (sp?) were extent didn't mean they were.
Truth (aka "fact") is not democratically determined. Millions of people have
been wrong about various things before. They'll be wrong about various things
again.
>> >> >If someone came up to me and said "I truly believe that there are
>> >unicorns", I would make a distinction between my science and their
>> >faith pretty quickly,...
>
>> How nobly arrogant of you. You, who know so much better than the
>> person who has stabled unicorns in their back yard for 20 years
>> immediately dismiss their real life experiences as imagination and
>> "faith".
>> Thank God not all scientists think so irrationally.
>
>Note that I did _not_ say that I would laugh in the person's face and
>walk away...
Laughter and derision have nothing to do with it. I simply pointed out the
arrogance of your placing your own unscientific assumptions above another
person's personal experience.
>...I suspect that if placed in the situation, I would mumble
>a shocked "Oh, really? You don't say...". If this person actually
>had been raising mythical beasts in his back yard for 20 years, I
>suspect that he'd be used to this sort of thing, and say, "No, really,
>I've been raising them in my back yard for twenty years." At that
>point, I think I _would_ reevaluate my initial reaction. I can't
>honestly claim that I would trust that they had a good reason for
>their beliefs from the start, though; you've got me beat there.
That wouldn't make you any less arrogant. You believe you know better. That
is arrogance. Notice how you persist in calling them "mythical beasts" even
though in my proposed situation they are clearly NOT mythical.
>> >Depends on your point of view, I guess. Couldn't one also claim that
>> >if He cared about us, He could set up a universe that would naturally
>> >address our problems when He knew that we would have them?
>>
>> And how do you know he hasn't? Should a loving God cater to the whims of
>> selfish people all day long, eons in advance?
>
>I didn't say that He hadn't. :) My only point was that a God who
>wanted a particular event to happen in the world at a particular time
>(whether in response to a prayer or just for the heck of it) would be
>capable of either
>
>1) tweaking things at the time, in violation of the usual laws of the
> universe that He had established, or
>
>2) arranging the initial conditions of the universe so that its own
> laws would make that same thing happen when he wanted it to.
Or
3) Providing some laws which let him interact with the universe.
I suspect you're of the opinion that "God" should be purely unphysical. A
physical being can interact with a physical universe, can it not?
What physical form should "God" have? Some people would quickly say, "Human".
But is "God" really supposed to be so limited? Suppose today he is floating
around space in the form of a giant ball of ice, contemplating the silliness
of ants?
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>>observe, and >determine what happened based on the >results of your
>>observations.
>
>The Bible doesn't tell it followers to watch and observe.
Oh, indeed it does.
>...It tells its followers very specific behaviors which they have to follow
>or avoid.
The Old Testament includes the Mosaic Law, but the Mosaic Law is not the Old
Testament.
>The Bible isn't about learning, rather it is about obeying.
No. It's about learning. Nothing can be gained through blind obedience.
>>>...If God were proven, just imagine the
>>>holy wars that could be set off from that
>>>proof.
>
>>Holy wars don't come from a knowledge
>>of God, but rather from the ambitions of
>>men
>
>The point I was trying to make was twofold:
>
>First, there are those who would disagree with the proof...
[snip]
Which would not invalidate it. This is an irrelevancy.
>Second, there are those who would take the proof as meaning that that
>their faith is the one true faith
[snip]
This is also an irrelevancy.
Fear of what we imagine MIGHT or SHOULD happen when some knowledge is gained
is not sufficient reason for not pursuing that knowledge. The adherents of
science should not be preaching doctrines of ignorance.
[snip a more relevant point about God's hiding from us -- I don't have time
for it]
>Mankind definitely needs to mature before learning whether or not God
>exists.
Learning will help us reach that maturity.
Raven
> If someone came up to me and said, "I truly believe that there are
> unicorns", I would first ask "Why do you believe so?" If the answer
> was based on belief and philosophy, then I would distinguish
> between their faith and my science. If the answer was, "Well, I've
> been stabling unicorns in my back yard for the past 20 years", I'd
> say, "Show me".
Good grief. You and I agree! Which one of us made misstep?? :-)
Of course, in practice, I would not expect that man to succeed in showing
me. If he did, it would be a momentuous thing, and I would have to believe
what my senses told me.
Jon L. Beck
Raven
> >> [snip] ...science (which is
> >> nothing more than the organized collection of human knowledge)...
> > Science is more than that. It is a method, which relies on evidence
> >(although not irrefutable proof: that exists only in logic and
> >mathematic, where the rules are made by ourselves, and irrefutable
> >proof can be built to show that eg. the square root of two is not a
> >rational number) to determine what is probably the truth.
> You're simply expanding on what I said, not adding to it. Science is how
> we accumulate and organize our knowledge. Nothing more.
Ok. But how do you define 'knowledge'? As a representation of the
surrounding universe in the mind?
To me, an analogy of knowledge is a landscape painting. It represents
the landscape, and by examining the painting one gets an idea of what the
actual landscape looks like.
However, this painting can never be exactly accurate. There are areas
outside the FOV. Of course, you can add to the canvas and so be able to put
a larger portion of the landscape on it. The actual landscape is more
detailed than any painting can ever be. But you can improve the detail of
the painting, perhaps more detail in some areas of the canvas than in other.
These two correspond to limits on knowledge. And there may be elements in
the painting which do not occur in the actual landscape. This corresponds
to wrong knowledge, to illusions.
There are more than one way to paint that canvas. One is to stand before
the actual landscape and paint what you actually see. Ideally, this is the
scientific method. Another is to rely on what others tell you about the
landscape. In practice, both of these must be used, because no single
person has time in his or her life to view the entire landscape. But folly
is to see a part of the landscape, hear another person describe that part as
quite different from what you see, and then choose to believe the latter.
A third way to paint that canvas is to put in what you find aesthetically
pleasing or practical if it were there, without regard to what is in the
actual landscape. Some whom we regard as kooks seem to form parts of their
world-views in that way. It is a way of collecting and organizing
'knowledge' which is not scientific.
> > Of course, in practice, if you believe what modern science has to say
> >about the Universe, you do have to rely quite a bit on faith.
> >Umptillions of experiments and observations are the foundation
> >of this knowledge, and nobody has the time to repeat them all
> >personally, or even learn personally from textbooks all the
> >collective knowledge of the various fields of modern science.
> >So you have to believe that either all those researchers who
> >were before you formed a big great conspiracy to construct a
> >very finely crafted and all-encompassing lie, or else that they
> >have been, by and large, honest and have reported their
> >observations truthfully. Or even that some omnipotent God or
> >demon has lied to humanity by crafting a lot of false evidence...
> This last sentence makes no sense.
Oh it does. Eg. fossils of our ancestors, by and large more ape-like the
older they are, cannot be interpreted other than as evidence that our
ancestry is far older than 6000 years. Rocks are found which are billions
of years old, according to our dating techniques. Or else, in theory, it
might be that some omnipotent God or demon has put the 'evidence' there,
treating it to appear old.
It *could* be. I don't believe it, though.
> > By Occam's razor, I find the second explanation the *far* more
> >probable.
> Occam's razor is sadly one of the most misunderstood and misused
> scientific principles to come out of philosophy. All it says is that
> entities should not be unecessarily multiplied. In fact, much of past
> research is suspect for various reasons, and students are required to
> perform basic experiments which have long since found their way
> into the "canon" of science simply because that is considered to be
> the best method of passing on what has been learned.
Whatever Occam originally said, it is sensible to accept the simplest
explanation fitting the data as the most probable one (without mixing
'ABSOLUTE TRUTH' into anything). This principle is at least vaguely related
to Occam's razor.
> Science does not accept the results of any experiment which cannot be
> duplicated, so all experiments ARE duplicated to confirm the results (at
> least, that is the way empirical knowledge is gathered, but science
> includes field observations which don't entail experiments).
This is true. If I claim that some specific magic invocation will enable
me to fly, *and* this invocation is repeatedly seen to work for many people,
then the scientific conclusion is that that specific invocation does enable
people to fly. :-)
> > As for the God hypothesis, I have seen no evidence for the existence
> >of God.
> And what would you consider to BE evidence for the existence of God? What
> are the criteria you have set up for determining the validity of any
> evidence.
My criteria are not a physical phenomenon which cannot be explained by
current knowledge, or even one which goes against current knowledge.
My definition of God is as a sentient being, who can speak and respond,
and who has the power to move mountains by willing it and other things. I
have seen no evidence that such a being exists. Such evidence might be some
physical phenomenon which goes against current knowledge (telekinesis,
resurrection of a dead person, whatever), and *then* an announcement,
equally miraculously delivered, saying I Am And I Did This.
I would consider the accumulation of such occurrences as increasingly
strong evidence for a God by that definition.
By other definitions of God I suppose that no methodical analysis is
possible, as you commented in the paragraph below:
> The problem with statements such as your is that they are unscientific.
> They are meaningless in a methodical analysis.
> > IMHO, a person who asserts confidently that God does not exist is
> >exercising as much faith as a person who prays to God and believes that
> >God exists and hears the prayers. That, of course, will change if proof
> >appears on the issue.
> Proof may be staring everyone in the face, but until such time as people
> sit down and rationally look for (and examine, if any is found) the
> evidence, there will never be any serious basis for doubting the
> existence of God. The basis for accepting the existence of God is
> based on personal experience -- which is where the results of
> science's observations come from.
There is equally no serious basis for accepting the existence of God. In
my experience.
Jon L. Beck
Raven
> > In principle, the scientific method *can* tell us whether God exists
> > or not - if any evidence on the issue turns up. No evidence has turned
> > up, so science has no tools to work with on this hypothesis...
> You have no credible basis for making such an assertion. Which branch of
> science has made that determination? Why was the investigation into the
> evidence of God's existence kept secret until now?
It appears to me that attempts to prove God's existence have been made
repeatedly since those misnamed Dark Ages. Some of them have been
excercises in logic and semantics, such as 'If God is omnipotent, can He
create a stone so big that He cannot lift it'. Later it has been decided by
some Church authorities that belief in God is an act of faith, not requiring
evidence. IIRC.
What do you mean by the rethorical question about why the investigation
into the evidence of God's existence has been kept secret? That
laboratories and observatories should make experiments and observations,
passing the results on to theoretical scientists for analysis? If no
evidence is present, no evidence is present, whether it could have been
found by inspection or does not exist at all. In the former case, of
course, evidence *can* become present, by research.
If, while you play with your cats in the garden, or while you do some
experiments in a lab, you notice something out of the ordinary, you try to
figure out what it was and why. If you have the curiosity, of course.
Claims from people that they have 'seen God' are not out of the ordinary,
and since they are often conflicting (as Steuard Jensen noted), the
conclusion that these people have been somehow deluded, not necessarily
through some fault of their own, is near.
So far, I know of only one thing which suggests that the Universe is not
merely a mechanical contrivance, and we humans just fantastically
complicated machines with a gigantic set of input/response characteristics:
consciousness. A little like Descartes' Cogito, ergo sum thing. I know of
no other evidence in favour of eg. immortal souls, but it is enough to keep
my mind open to the possibility, at least.
I have seen no evidence either turned up or produced, either in favour or
in disfavour of the existence of a God. I certainly have seen much evidence
against a God *as* *described* *in* *older* *times*, by Christianity as it
was then taught, but this is of course not evidence that the whole God
theory is bunk.
Science has to work with evidence. Without evidence, no conclusion.
Have you evidence which, if investigated further, can lead to a conclusion
of whether God exists, and what He is like if He does?
> One might as well say no evidence has turned up that microbes exist on the
> moons of Neptune, so science has no tools to work with on the hypothesis.
> In fact, science has long worked on the hypothesis despite the lack of
> evidence.
There is no direct evidence concerning microbes on the moons of Neptune,
but we have quite a body of knowledge of the physical conditions up there.
Many of the molecules of life are present, but temperatures are way low and
there is, to our knowledge, no liquid water. Since there probably is liquid
water on the Jovian moon Europa, below a thick shell of ice, there is
speculation that there may be life there.
So I should say that there is some knowledge upon which we may base a
discussion on life in the outer Solar System.
But of course, until we go and see, we don't know whether there are
microbes on the Neptunian moons any more than we do whether there is a God.
Though I can see a way that we *can* go and check on the former issue. Know
you a way for us to check on the latter?
> Shirking the pursuit of knowledge is simply not a credible and responsible
> answer to the question, Is there a God?
Of course. But to pursue something, one must begin with a spoor. Do you
know of a spoor? That is, a test or observation which could give us more to
go on than at least I have today?
> >...Most ongoing phenomena observed in the Universe have explanations
> >which do not involve God, though, and none to my knowledge which
> >*do* require God. This gives us some ideas of what God does *not*
> >do, if there is a God.
> This is a very limited perspective. At the very least, the requirement
> for a creator has not been obviated by any observation (nor the non-
> requirement of one) of the ongoing phenomena. Even the Big Bang
> can be used to argue for and against the existence of God.
This is true. We plain don't know. I have not tried to prove that there
is no God, and I hope you haven't mistaken me on that one.
> > The *assertion* of God's existence is scientifically valid in the
> >presence of evidence. But I have seen none.
> And since you have seen none none exists, right? Wrong. An assertion can
> be made in the absence of evidence and many have. But people who
> deliberately dismiss all claims of evidence without examining them are
> not serving science or advancing its principles.
Perhaps I should have clarified again by adding, 'The *assertion* of
God's *non*-existence is also scientifically valid in the presence of
evidence for *that*. But also here, I have seen none.' The speculation of
the existance or non-existance of God is of course permissible whether there
is evidence or not, but IMHO a direct assertion requires 'show me'.
> >> I see no reason to be thankful. The sooner science gets off its lazy,
> >> arrogant ass and does something to answer the question for skeptics,
> >> the better off we'll be.
> > Then ask me something. I have what corresponds to a Master's Degree
> >in physics. Perhaps I will be able to answer. If I am unable, I shall
> >be honest enough to admit it.
> Okay, does God exist?
--- I am honest enough to admit that I do not know ---
> Simply saying "Science cannot answer that question" is not acceptable.
I have not said that science cannot answer that question. Just that I
have so far not seen any tools, ie. data, that science may answer the
question with.
> Science has so far not made the attempt. That doesn't mean it can't.
It can if there is evidence, or a 'spoor' pointing a way in which
evidence can be discovered. I am not saying that neither evidence nor spoor
exist, just that I have seen none. Apart from the aforementioned
observation that I, and presumably therefore others, am conscious. Though I
have not found out where a 'spoor' to stronger evidence leads from there.
> So only a "Yes", "No", or "I cannot answer that question" type of answer
> is acceptable. All evidence supporting either the "Yes" or "No" will be
> appreciated.
You seem to have a good grasp on the underpinning idea of science: 'Show
me!' I cannot show you. Can you show me?
Jon L. Beck.
Raven
> >Also odd. :) In what sense do you mean "a problem"? Most scientists
> >that I know of would certainly acknowledge, for example, that
> >relativity doesn't explain the strong or weak nuclear interactions
> >very well...
> Should it? I thought the long-sought Unified Field Theory was supposed to
> handle that burden.
Relativity doesn't explain those nuclear interactions very well. There
is no should or shouldn't. Relativity describes How Things Behave under
certain conditions, and when these conditions are met, describes them well.
Under other conditions, it does not describe well How Things Behave.
A Big Great Theory of Everything is indeed sought after. It has not yet
been found.
Remember that a scientific theory is just a description of How Things
Behave, not a profound Truth. Newton's Theory of Gravity describes how
objects with mass are attracted to each other, and this desciption has been
demonstrated to conform well to the observed behaviour of objects in
ballistic flight and planets in orbits.
> >...Similarly, most relativists would concede that relativity
> >can't successfully describe what goes on at the very center of a black
> >hole: the theory allows singular points, where it just plain doesn't
> >work.
> Again, should it? Are you suggesting that the theory of relativity is not
> trusted by the scientific community? They certainly slap it in the face
> of anyone who proposes FTL often enough.
The theory of relativity is well trusted. It is known when it applies,
and when it does not apply. On small scales and when small velocities and
weak gravities are involved, it reduces to classical physics, with the
Galilei transform (velocities are simply added: if you drive a car at 50 mph
and shoot a bullet at 1000 mph forward relative to the car, the bullet will
travel at 1050 mph relative to the road).
Relativity does not explain nuclear interactions very well. It has its
limits, just like classical physics. It is hoped that there will be built a
Theory of Everything, which will simply reduce to Relativity when describing
what Relativity describes now etc.
> If they accept it as a working model, then it is "The Truth". Why?
> Because they believe it works and their own work is grounded in it.
Bzzt. A working model is not The Truth. It is a description which has
been demonstrated to conform well to observed phenomena, at least under
certain conditions. I am within my field of expertise, and making a
definition.
An example is Bohr's model of the quantized orbits which electrons are
permitted to follow around the atomic nucleus. This model is not The Truth.
Nor is it applicable under every circumstance. But when describing certain
aspects of the behaviour of atoms, it us useful to aid understanding. When
describing other aspects of the behaviour of atoms, it is plain wrong, or at
least ridiculously limited.
Other models of various phenomena are more widely applicable.
> Are you implying string theory will give us a method for contravening
> gravity or not? Unless gravity is going to be set aside and ignored by
> physics once string theory hits its stride, you don't seem to be
> countering what I've said.
Until the end of last century, Newtonian physics was taught in schools.
Newtonian physics worked. One could predict outcomes with it.
Then phenomena were discovered which went contrary to Newtonian physics.
Electrons didn't just spiral into their atomic nuclei within microseconds,
emitting synchrotron radiation, as predicted by Newtonian physics and
electromagnetism. So quantum mechanics arose to describe phenomena
occurring on very small scales. And the vacuum speed of light was noticed
to be constant, no matter the relative motions of emitter and observer. So
special relativity arose to describe phenomena involving very great speeds.
But Newtonian physics still works, as a special case of Relativity at
moderate to small speeds, and as a special case of QM at moderate to large
scales.
Building a new theory will not negate what we know already, but expand
it.
> >On the other hand, I may be misunderstanding your concern. Yes, most
> >scientists would readily say that gravity is always there, whether you
> >believe in it or not, and no matter what else happens. However,
> >that's not really a statement about "truth". That's a generalization
> >from a remarkably consistent and wide-ranging set of observations,
> >carried out by every human who ever lived, all the time. (Astronauts
> >excepted, at least from the "all the time" bit.) I suppose that
> >pretty much every scientist would say that the action of gravity in
> >the past and the present is "scientific fact", and therefore The Truth
> >in some sense. That's not much of a philosophical claim, however,
> >except inasmuch as it implies that scientists do tend to trust the
> >senses to give trustworthy information about the real world. :)
> What are you grasping for with these comments about "truth", Steuard?
> Truth simply is. It isn't complex, obscure, esoteric, hard-to-reach,
> found only on mountaintops in Tibet, or encased in quantum proto-
> panes. It simply is. We either come across it or we don't. We hit
> the mark or we miss.
--- but how do we *know* that we did hit the mark? On some points, we
can be certain *for* *all* *practical* *purposes* that we do know the truth.
Science does not deal with truth, but with veracities. Some theories
have been verified beyond *any* *reasonable* doubt, such as the theory of
gravity.
> It's true that Einstein lived. It's not true that he practiced sorcery.
> It's true that gravity works. It's not true that you can alter gravity by
> throwing candy bars into automobile engines.
How do we know that Einstein lived? I never met the man. He is supposed
to have lived out his life before I began mine.
But there are so many references to him that for all practical purposes,
I can accept that he did live, played the violin, made the theories of
Relativity and other scientific thinking, and did not practice sorcery.
What's with the candy bar example? A TV commercial or something?
> Philosophy, like religion, really has nothing to do with answering the
> simple question, Is there a God?
Then answer it, if you can. Or devise a way in which it can be answered.
> >I do _not_ believe that I can ever learn reliable information about
> >God by way of prophets and revelations, at least if they're
> >revelations to other people. There are too many contradictory
> >"prophets" and "revelations" out there for me to be able to recognize
> >the real ones with ease, and thus I'm very hesitant to even think that
> >there _are_ any real ones.
> The Bible gives a pretty simple test for determining whether a prophet is
> speaking on God's behalf: if what he or she says is true, it's coming from
> God. That means 100% accuracy. Does anyone have such accuracy in this
> day and age? I have no idea. I'm not aware of any formal efforts to
>document such prophecies. Of course, prophecy doesn't consist of just
> predicting the future, and future predictions fall into two categories:
> those which occur within the predictor's lifetime and those which don't.
Ah. So that is your test of the existence of God? Find such people as
make prophecies, claiming that God told them, and see if these prophecies
come through without any chance that the 'prophet' may have cheated? And do
you want the universities to conduct searches for such prophets, correlating
their prophecies with each other and with observed phenomena?
> But if God is indeed communicating with mankind through prophets and
> revelations, then science still has no excuse for paying no attention to
> them.
There have been tonnes of people who claimed to be God's prophets. Their
record so far hasn't been good. Unless the true ones are hiding, or are
being hid.
> >Just out of curiosity, what evidence for the existence of God is the
> >athiest camp "conveniently dismissing"?...
> See above. As for any additional evidence, what criteria should we apply
> for determining that such evidence exists?
> If God exists then he has made some effort to make himself known to us.
> How can we, inferior to him, understand his attempts to reach us? He
> should be using only means we are somehow capable of understanding
> and accepting. That can include prophets and revelations. It might also
> include spacegrams launched from the furthest ends of the known
> universe.
Or big, immaterial neonlights in the sky, or a total divine takeover of
all radio channels. That last proposal I saw in a short story in Reader's
Digest, where God also sank Australia for a minute and then returned it to
its previous geological state... and a film I once saw with God appearing
among people in the shape as an elderly gentleman, chiding people for
believing in Satan just because of some nifty special effects in 'The
Excorcist' but not believing in him, and then performing some miracles, such
as taking the group to floor 14 in a hotel with 12 floors.
I have seen (or at least recognized) no true prophets, no spacegrams, no
neonlights in the sky, no apparitions on worldwide airwaves, no sunk and
resurfaced continents, no suddenly appearing parts of buildings. An
omnipotent God should be *easily* able to manifest himself.
Of course, he may be there but chooses not to reveal himself very much.
> >...The testimony of others seems
> >to be the primary example, and I think that most athiests believe that
> >they have good reasons for not trusting others' testimony in the
> >relevant cases. (Whether they're right or not is an entirely
> >different question.)
> Yes, personal testimony is always dismissed when it conflicts with one's
> own beliefs and desires. And yet personal testimony is the core of much
>of our scientific store of knowledge. We've also supplemented personal
> testimony with the testimony of recording devices. Recording devices
> are not infallible, just as people are not infallible. But when it's
> convenient to do so, we accept the testimonies of individuals and
> devices and add that testimony to our storehouse of information.
If a thousand unrelated people testify on matter X, and their testimonies
are incompatible (contradicting each other), we guess that no valid
testimony on X has been offered. If a thousand unrelated people testify on
matter Y, and their testimonies are compatible, we guess that valid
testimonies have been offered, and it is safe to believe in them.
Plenty of people have said, 'I am Jesus'. In Jerusalem there is a doctor
in one of the hospitals who is often taking care of religious loonies who
think that they are Jesus. That doctor's name is Bar-El, which means,
literally, 'Son of God'. His patients often take exception to that: 'There
is only one son of God, and *I* am he, doc!'
But if thousands of people throughout the ages have claimed to be Jesus
(often many simultaneously), and doctrine has it that there is only one
Jesus, what does this say about the theory that Jesus walks among us, and we
shall know Him because He tells us?
> But when it is convenient to dismiss the testimony, we say it's
> "unscientific", and we shouldn't trust it. This attitude can be applied
> to virtually any controversy, even "cold fusion". No one has been abe
> to duplicate reported results, but that in itself doesn't mean the cold
> fusionists who claim to have done it really didn't do it. If they did it,
> they just can't figure out (from their data) how they did it.
If many reports came in of testimonies of, say, divine revelations, and
they were compatible, and there were evidence *against* a secret, previous
conspiratorical agreement among them and *against* some sort of puppeteer
commanding them - that their revelations could only have come from within
themselves - *then* there would be the same basis for believing in divine
revelations as there is for believing in eg. the veracity of carbon dating,
even among those who have never performed such dating.
> The derision and abuse with which people are greeted by the scientific
> community for boldly making claims may or may not be justified (the
> prospect of facing such public ridicule and possibly ruining your
> career should certainly induce scientists to be EXTREMELY careful
> and conservative in reporting their findings), but that derision itself is
> not scientific. It is not born of science and contributes nothing to
> science.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claims of divine
revelation are extraordinary in that none have so far credibly made any. If
such claims are made, and verified, then on a time such claims will cease to
be extraordinary.
Jon L. Beck.
David Sulger
>David Sulger wrote:
>>The Bible doesn't tell it followers to >>watch and observe.
>Oh, indeed it does.
Well, in that, case enlighten me. Which chapters and verses
specifically instruct us to learn by observing the world?
>>...It tells its followers very specific
>>behaviors which they have to follow or
>>avoid.
>The Old Testament includes the Mosaic
>Law, but the Mosaic Law is not the Old
>Testament.
The Gospels and epistles of Paul also give specific and sometimes rigid
instruction.
>>The Bible isn't about learning, rather it
>>is about obeying.
>No. It's about learning. Nothing can be
>gained through blind obedience.
Then point out where exaclty these parts about learning are. Also,
while you clearly believe the Bible isn't about blind obedience, the
fact is that people DO blindly obey what they read in it. I do agree
with you on that: these people aren't learning anything (except, of
course, to quote scripture verbatim, which means nothing if you don't
live it.)
>>The point I was trying to make was
>>twofold:
>>First, there are those who would >>disagree with the proof...
>>[snip]
>Which would not invalidate it. This is an
>irrelevancy.
No, it not an irrelevancy. This is a point which is central to my
argument in the first place. I didn't say that rejection of a proof
automatically invalidates it.
>>Second, there are those who would >>take the proof as meaning that
that their
>>faith is the one true faith
>[snip]
>This is also an irrelevancy.
>Fear of what we imagine MIGHT or
>SHOULD happen when some knowledge
>is gained is not sufficient reason for not
>pursuing that knowledge. The adherents
>of science should not be preaching
>doctrines of ignorance.
So science shouldn't worry about the consequenses of its actions just to
satisfy your curiosity? That would be pretty irresponsible. Hell,
religious factions are already on the verge of a holy war without
science creating any new controversies.
Besides, it's not just science that preaches ignorance out of fear.
Religious fundamentalists denounces science out of the fear that it will
destroy everything they believe. Look at evolution. Fundamentalists
are threatened by it because it doesn't require God (though more liberal
believers can accept God as a guiding force). So they want to stop
their children from learning evolution. This is ignorance as well.
Do you condone this?
<snip>
>>Mankind definitely needs to mature
>>before learning whether or not God
>>exists.
>Learning will help us reach that maturity.
Agreed. However, unflexible dogma teaches us nothing.
Remember, religion has no one to blame but itself for science's scorn.
Perhaps if the Church was more open minded in regards to people like
Copernicus and Galileo, maybe the two would be more compatible.
However, the die has been cast, and while the Church, after 400 years,
is willing to reconsider, there are those who have taken its place of
intolerance in the world.
--Dave
Karim Arain
Martinez) wrote:
>In article <bw0Q3.64$k4.1341@uchinews>, sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu (Steuard Jensen) wrote:
>>(Fundamentalism is inherently illogical,
>
>You know, science is inherently illogical. It spends most of its time
>advocating crackpot ideas until they are proven wrong.
Ah, but that's not illogical. It may be stupid or silly, but not
illogical.
Ciao. Karim
--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you.
Matthew Collett
>At the risk of having this thread becoming even more off-topic than it
>already is, I will suggest that there may be an "experiment" currently
>under way that may shed some light on the existance or non-existance of
>a Creator. WARNING!!! The interpretation of the experiment depends on
>which interpretation of QM is "correct".
[snip]
>
>The experiment in question is the continuing effort to build a "quantum
>computer" From the news reports that I read, this seems to be
>progressing well, with no unsurmountable roadblocks so far. Now, what if
>such a computer is built, and succeeds in solving some computationally
>enormous problem - say, factoring a 10^12 digit number into its two 10^6
>digit prime factors in one second. This would indicate quite strongly
>that the many-histories interpretation is in fact correct. On the other
>hand, maybe it will prove to be impossible to build such a computer.
>This would suggest that the many-histories interpretation is incorrect.
I'm not sure where you get this idea from. The various interpretations of
quantum mechanics differ principally in what they say 'really happens'
whaen a measurement is made. One characteristic of a quantum computer is
that one must _avoid_ making measurements during the process of
computation. Thus the predicted observable behaviour of a quantum
computer does not depend on the interpretation of quantum mechanics that
one subscribes to.
Best wishes,
Matthew Collett
--
The word "reality" is generally used with the intention
of evoking sentiment. -- Arthur Eddington
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>>David Sulger wrote:
>
>>>The Bible doesn't tell it followers to >>watch and observe.
>
>>Oh, indeed it does.
>
>Well, in that, case enlighten me. Which chapters and verses
>specifically instruct us to learn by observing the world?
Cool. You've metamorphed what I said. But to support what I ACTUALLY
said, I can point to, say, Proverbs, 1:5:
A wise man will hear and increase in learning, And a man of understanding
will acquire wise counsel,
Or one could take a more parabellic approach:
Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already
become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near;
(Mathew 24:32)
Or the good old, "By its fruit will you know the tree".
How many more examples would you like?
>>>...It tells its followers very specific
>>>behaviors which they have to follow or
>>>avoid.
>
>>The Old Testament includes the Mosaic
>>Law, but the Mosaic Law is not the Old
>>Testament.
>
>The Gospels and epistles of Paul also give specific and sometimes rigid
>instruction.
Yes, instruction such as Romans 7:6:
But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we
were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of
the letter.
And Galatians 5:18:
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
>>>The Bible isn't about learning, rather it
>>>is about obeying.
>
>>No. It's about learning. Nothing can be
>>gained through blind obedience.
>
>Then point out where exaclty these parts about learning are...
A few examples provided, but there are far more numerous examples provided in
various contexts.
>...Also, while you clearly believe the Bible isn't about blind obedience, the
>fact is that people DO blindly obey what they read in it. I do agree
>with you on that: these people aren't learning anything (except, of
>course, to quote scripture verbatim, which means nothing if you don't
>live it.)
The same can be said of many things other than the Bible.
>>>The point I was trying to make was
>>>twofold:
>
>>>First, there are those who would disagree with the proof...
>>>[snip]
>
>>Which would not invalidate it. This is an
>>irrelevancy.
>
>No, it not an irrelevancy.
It is completely irrelevant to the question of whether there is a God.
>>>Second, there are those who would >>take the proof as meaning that
>>>that their faith is the one true faith
>
>>[snip]
>>This is also an irrelevancy.
>
>>Fear of what we imagine MIGHT or
>>SHOULD happen when some knowledge
>>is gained is not sufficient reason for not
>>pursuing that knowledge. The adherents
>>of science should not be preaching
>>doctrines of ignorance.
>
>So science shouldn't worry about the consequenses of its actions just to
>satisfy your curiosity?
[snip]
No, science shouldn't worry about the consequences of OTHER people's actions
to satisfy MANY people's curiosity (and I would call it much more than that).
The science of Louis Pasteur is no more to blame for germ wafare than it is
for the development of the nuclear arsenals which threaten the world with
total destruction. What men choose to do with knowledge once it's gained does
not make the search for knowledge culpable. The culpability lies with those
who misuse the knowledge, not the searchers.
>Besides, it's not just science that preaches ignorance out of fear.
But it's science that I'm addressing, nothing else. If science cannot answer
the question of God's existence, then nothing can. All else is irrelevant --
red herrings.
>>>Mankind definitely needs to mature
>>>before learning whether or not God
>>>exists.
>
>>Learning will help us reach that maturity.
>
>Agreed. However, unflexible dogma teaches us nothing.
Unflexible dogmas have nothing to do with it.
Let's leave religion out of the search for God. It never should have been
there in the first place.
Karim Arain
<jonlenn...@get2net.dk> wrote:
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> skrev i en
>nyhedsmeddelelse:lqHR3.45$74....@news.uswest.net...
>> The Bible gives a pretty simple test for determining whether a prophet is
>> speaking on God's behalf: if what he or she says is true, it's coming from
>> God. That means 100% accuracy. Does anyone have such accuracy in this
>> day and age? I have no idea. I'm not aware of any formal efforts to
>> document such prophecies. Of course, prophecy doesn't consist of just
>> predicting the future, and future predictions fall into two categories:
>> those which occur within the predictor's lifetime and those which don't.
>Ah. So that is your test of the existence of God? Find such people as
>make prophecies, claiming that God told them, and see if these prophecies
>come through without any chance that the 'prophet' may have cheated? And do
>you want the universities to conduct searches for such prophets, correlating
>their prophecies with each other and with observed phenomena?
No, as far I understand Michael, not correlating their prophecies with
each other at the beginning. First look for people who claim to be
prophets and correlate their predictions with observed phenomena. If
they are true prophets i.e. speaking on God's behalf then ALL their
prophesies must come 100% true. THEN correlate the things such people
say which are not directly observable (e.g. about God) with each other
and see if all say the same things. If yes, that should be sufficient
proof of the existence of God.
>> But if God is indeed communicating with mankind through prophets and
>> revelations, then science still has no excuse for paying no attention to
>> them.
>There have been tonnes of people who claimed to be God's prophets. Their
>record so far hasn't been good. Unless the true ones are hiding, or are
>being hid.
Well, what Micheal seems to be saying is that science hasn't really
scientifically researched their records. Science just concentrated on
obviously false prophecies and declared them bogus. There has been no
scientifical research in the field of "prophets", no systematical
search. The (unscientific) approach of most scientiests to the topic
of prophets rather seems to have been "We don't believe in prophets,
so it is futile to scientifically search for them".
Spamfast
and never will.
simonh...@my-deja.com
william....@sympatico.ca wrote:
> simonh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > william....@sympatico.ca wrote:
> > > To me, there must be some
> > > physical "meaning" behind the collapse of the wave-function. A
> > > probability "by itself" cannot interact with a particle - this
seems
> > to
> > > me to be a type mismatch. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> >
> > I'm not sure that your second to last sentence about means anything.
> > The probabilities are attributes of particles (and waves) which
> > describe their likely behaviour.
>
> It is true that a probability is a description of how likely some
event
> is to occur. But why does the probability of a photon striking a
> particular area on a detector change from quite high to practically
> zero, depending on whether the slit that it passed through was alone
or
> one of a pair? Something must physically cause that change (or so it
> seems to me). My understanding of the standard interpretation is that
> the cause of the change is the change in the probability function
> itself, which sounds circular to me.
It's not realy circular. Nobody knows why the probability function
changes, it just does. There are some attempts to explain why, but
they aren't properly a part of formal QM, which simply happens to
very precisely model and predict behaviour.
Simon Hibbs
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
simonh...@my-deja.com
"Raven" <jonlenn...@get2net.dk> wrote:
> > > As for the God hypothesis, I have seen no evidence for the
existence
> > >of God.
>
> > And what would you consider to BE evidence for the existence of
God? What
> > are the criteria you have set up for determining the validity of any
> > evidence.
> My criteria are not a physical phenomenon which cannot be
explained by
> current knowledge, or even one which goes against current knowledge.
> My definition of God is as a sentient being, who can speak and
respond,
> and who has the power to move mountains by willing it and other
things. I
> have seen no evidence that such a being exists....
That's very interesting, but unfortunately that definition has very
little to do with actual thological speculations on the nature of
god made by thinkers in the word's major religions. If this
definition of god has little to do with religion, how usefull is it,
and why shoudl anyone care whether it exists or not?
> ....Such evidence might be
some
> physical phenomenon which goes against current knowledge (telekinesis,
> resurrection of a dead person, whatever), and *then* an announcement,
> equally miraculously delivered, saying I Am And I Did This.
But that's exactly what the Gospels say happened.
Well, the god you chose to define, as against any of the theories
about god from the theology of the three major monotheistic religions.
Marie Barnett
here...
Michael Martinez (Mic...@xenite.org) wrote:
: [Snippage has occurred]
: In article <z47R3.776$y5....@news.get2net.dk>, "Raven"
: <jonlenn...@get2net.dk> wrote:
: >Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> skrev i en
: >nyhedsmeddelelse:7uvgbt$148...@Org.xenite.org...
: >
: >> [snip] ...science (which is
: >> nothing more than the organized collection of human knowledge)...
: > Science is more than that. It is a method, which relies on evidence
: >(although not irrefutable proof: that exists only in logic and mathematic,
: >where the rules are made by ourselves, and irrefutable proof can be built to
: >show that eg. the square root of two is not a rational number) to determine
: >what is probably the truth.
: You're simply expanding on what I said, not adding to it. Science is how we
: accumulate and organize our knowledge. Nothing more.
A small point, but your original statement seems to refer to only the body
of knowledge, not the methodology behind science, which is of course very
important.
: > Of course, in practice, if you believe what modern science has to say
: >about the Universe, you do have to rely quite a bit on faith. Umptillions
: >of experiments and observations are the foundation of this knowledge, and
: >nobody has the time to repeat them all personally, or even learn personally
: >from textbooks all the collective knowledge of the various fields of modern
: >science. So you have to believe that either all those researchers who were
: >before you formed a big great conspiracy to construct a very finely crafted
: >and all-encompassing lie, or else that they have been, by and large, honest
: >and have reported their observations truthfully. Or even that some
: >omnipotent God or demon has lied to humanity by crafting a lot of false
: >evidence...
: This last sentence makes no sense.
Hmm... After careful consideration of the referenced 'last sentence', I
can indeed find meaning within and find it to make 'sense'.
[snip]
: Science does not accept the results of any experiment which cannot be
: duplicated, so all experiments ARE duplicated to confirm the results (at
: least, that is the way empirical knowledge is gathered, but science includes
: field observations which don't entail experiments).
Yes, they are all duplicated to ensure validity, but no person can
duplicate all of the experiments alone, thus requiring a good bit of
anyone's scientific knowledge to rely on testimonial evidence alone.
: >>[snip]...faith (which is nothing more than the intuitive
: >> application of knowledge).
: > Perhaps we simply have different definitions of 'faith'. Mine is that
: >faith, as regards to explanations, is belief in the absence of evidence.
: >Because it feels or seems good.
: >
: > As for the God hypothesis, I have seen no evidence for the existence of
: >God.
: And what would you consider to BE evidence for the existence of God? What are
: the criteria you have set up for determining the validity of any evidence.
God coming forth, filling the sky with his image for the whole world to
see, and proclaiming his existence. That would indeed be evidence, though
naturally not the only kind of evidence. IMO, the evidence I have seen
for the existence of god is debatable and certainly doesn't entail the
existence of god.
[snip]
: >
: > IMHO, a person who asserts confidently that God does not exist is
: >exercising as much faith as a person who prays to God and believes that God
: >exists and hears the prayers. That, of course, will change if proof appears
: >on the issue.
: Proof may be staring everyone in the face, but until such time as people sit
: down and rationally look for (and examine, if any is found) the evidence,
: there will never be any serious basis for doubting the existence of God. The
: basis for accepting the existence of God is based on personal experience --
: which is where the results of science's observations come from.
So, in order to rationally doubt the existence of something requires
evidence directly against that thing's existence? If I make up
something(claiming it to be not a construct of mine) then tell you about
it, you are not justified in doubting it? Seems strange to me.
Raven
nyhedsmeddelelse:7vc5t8$lmj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > And what would you consider to BE evidence for the existence of
> > > God? What are the criteria you have set up for determining the
> > > validity of any evidence.
> > My criteria are not a physical phenomenon which cannot be
> > explained by current knowledge, or even one which goes against
> > current knowledge. My definition of God is as a sentient being,
> > who can speak and respond, and who has the power to move
> > mountains by willing it and other things. I have seen no evidence
> > that such a being exists....
> That's very interesting, but unfortunately that definition has very
> little to do with actual thological speculations on the nature of
> god made by thinkers in the word's major religions. If this
> definition of god has little to do with religion, how usefull is it,
> and why shoudl anyone care whether it exists or not?
Well I haven't followed theology much, so admittedly, although one of my
feet is on rather secure ground my other foot is not...
So what is your definition of God, and what definitions have you seen?
> > ....Such evidence might be some
> > physical phenomenon which goes against current knowledge (telekinesis,
> > resurrection of a dead person, whatever), and *then* an announcement,
> > equally miraculously delivered, saying I Am And I Did This.
> But that's exactly what the Gospels say happened.
And the equivalent of Gospels of other religions say other things.
Among the ancient Greeks there were some who noticed that their Greek god
Zeus was held to be the king of Gods. And that the Babylonians though that
Marduk (IIRC) was, and Zeus and Marduk were not the same according to the
tales told about them. So at least one of the two conflicting set of tales
must be less than true. And if one, why not both? Perhaps there were no
gods, just tales men tell.
If there was only the Christian Gospel and the Old Testament, I would be
more inclined to think that there must be quite a bit to it.
Jon L. Beck.
Raven
> And Galatians 5:18:
> But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
Thank you for that quote. It can be used to counter our local
xenophobes who hate and fear Islam because, they say, Moslems do not feel
obliged to obey our law when they contradict the Quran ---
Cornix.
Michael Martinez
>Lets leave God out of the search for God because he's never been there
>and never will.
Except for the fact you have to report to your parole officer every weekend,
you never really do get out of the house, do you?
Michael Martinez
><simonh...@my-deja.com> skrev i en
>nyhedsmeddelelse:7vc5t8$lmj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>> > > God? What are the criteria you have set up for determining the
>> > > validity of any evidence.
>> > My criteria are not a physical phenomenon which cannot be
>> > explained by current knowledge, or even one which goes against
>> > current knowledge. My definition of God is as a sentient being,
>> > who can speak and respond, and who has the power to move
>> > mountains by willing it and other things. I have seen no evidence
I never saw your followup, so I'll have to respond here. Whether "such a
being" exists isn't dependent on what little evidence you have actually
considered (if any -- nor, for that matter, on what little evidence *I* have
actually considered, or any other person on this Earth). I do know that what
people like to call "mind over matter" is supposed to have been proven to work
in a miniscule way in Virginia with an experiment and a random number
generator.
But your aversion to seeking evidence for or against the existence of God
certainly disqualifies you as an authority on the subject. I'm afraid you'll
always be mired in the streets of opinion along the rest of us.
>> That's very interesting, but unfortunately that definition has very
>> little to do with actual thological speculations on the nature of
>> god made by thinkers in the word's major religions. If this
>> definition of god has little to do with religion, how usefull is it,
>> and why shoudl anyone care whether it exists or not?
> Well I haven't followed theology much, so admittedly, although one of my
>feet is on rather secure ground my other foot is not...
Theology really has nothing to do with it, however. If science is ever going
to take a crack at determining whether God exists, it will have to come up
with a dispassionate definition independently of all religious ideologies,
even if some parallels are developed.
>> > ....Such evidence might be some
>> > physical phenomenon which goes against current knowledge (telekinesis,
>> > resurrection of a dead person, whatever), and *then* an announcement,
>> > equally miraculously delivered, saying I Am And I Did This.
>
>> But that's exactly what the Gospels say happened.
> And the equivalent of Gospels of other religions say other things.
And today's newspapers and magazines, too. The "impossible" has been
happening throughout history (and before), but it never seems to be seriously
investigated by those who wish to dismiss it out of convenience.
> Among the ancient Greeks there were some who noticed that their Greek god
>Zeus was held to be the king of Gods. And that the Babylonians though that
>Marduk (IIRC) was, and Zeus and Marduk were not the same according to the
>tales told about them. So at least one of the two conflicting set of tales
>must be less than true. And if one, why not both? Perhaps there were no
>gods, just tales men tell.
We can deduce that one is probably untrue from the limited evidence available,
but not both, and once you start making assumptions that all such claims are
untrue you have not only left the path of logic and reason, you have abandoned
science altogether.
> If there was only the Christian Gospel and the Old Testament, I would be
>more inclined to think that there must be quite a bit to it.
Except Judeo-Christian teachings are founded in the principle that men have
been led astray to worship false gods. Hence, you can't have one without the
other. The Jewish prophets were trying to lead mankind back to the truth.
The Christian apostles were trying to announce the good news that some of the
old promises had been fulfilled.
Supposedly, hundreds of people were witness to Jesus' death and subsequent
appearances, and it was on the basis of their testimonies that thousands of
other people believed in him as the risen son of the living god. The rest
then becomes the result of third-hand proselytizing, but history acknowlegdes
the fact that contemporaries of Jesus proclaimed his resurrection (and this
is true of some other teachings as well, not just the Christian teachings -- a
number of "resurrections" have been reported).
Science doesn't have the means to confirm or contest such testimonies, and
unless someone intends to develop a branch of science which CAN confirm or
contest those testimonies, we have to leave all such stories to the realm of
articles of faith, just as we have to accept on faith that Alexander the
Great's army had a week-long orgy after having been separated into two groups
during a long march. All the evidence we have for THAT event is no better
than the evidence we have for the resurrection of Jesus.
The same is true of the trial of Socrates. We only have a written account to
tell us that it occurred -- no physical evidence has survived.
But the question of God's CURRENT existence won't be answered by examinations
of the past.
Michael Martinez
>I find it hard to keep away from these discussions, so I'll jump in
>here...
Well, it's more entertaining than the movie threads and flame wars. So, by
all means, join in, until someone comes up with something really juicy and
Tolkien-related.
>Michael Martinez (Mic...@xenite.org) wrote:
>: [Snippage has occurred]
>
>: In article <z47R3.776$y5....@news.get2net.dk>, "Raven"
>: <jonlenn...@get2net.dk> wrote:
>: >Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> skrev i en
>: >nyhedsmeddelelse:7uvgbt$148...@Org.xenite.org...
>: >
>: >> [snip] ...science (which is
>: >> nothing more than the organized collection of human knowledge)...
>: > Science is more than that. It is a method, which relies on evidence
>: >(although not irrefutable proof: that exists only in logic and mathematic,
>: >where the rules are made by ourselves, and irrefutable proof can be built to
>: >show that eg. the square root of two is not a rational number) to determine
>: >what is probably the truth.
>
>: You're simply expanding on what I said, not adding to it. Science is how we
>: accumulate and organize our knowledge. Nothing more.
>
>A small point, but your original statement seems to refer to only the body
>of knowledge, not the methodology behind science, which is of course very
>important.
Not to sound condescending, but my feeling was that my use of the word
"organized" implied all that.
>: > Of course, in practice, if you believe what modern science has to say
>: >about the Universe, you do have to rely quite a bit on faith. Umptillions
>: >of experiments and observations are the foundation of this knowledge, and
>: >nobody has the time to repeat them all personally, or even learn personally
>: >from textbooks all the collective knowledge of the various fields of modern
>: >science. So you have to believe that either all those researchers who were
>: >before you formed a big great conspiracy to construct a very finely crafted
>: >and all-encompassing lie, or else that they have been, by and large, honest
>: >and have reported their observations truthfully. Or even that some
>: >omnipotent God or demon has lied to humanity by crafting a lot of false
>: >evidence...
>
>: This last sentence makes no sense.
>
>Hmm... After careful consideration of the referenced 'last sentence', I
>can indeed find meaning within and find it to make 'sense'.
Within the context of the current discussion? Please, feel free to share the
sense. Apparently we're all stuck in the house this weekend (despite the fact
I have plans for the morrow myself).
>: Science does not accept the results of any experiment which cannot be
>: duplicated, so all experiments ARE duplicated to confirm the results (at
>: least, that is the way empirical knowledge is gathered, but science includes
>: field observations which don't entail experiments).
>
>Yes, they are all duplicated to ensure validity, but no person can
>duplicate all of the experiments alone, thus requiring a good bit of
>anyone's scientific knowledge to rely on testimonial evidence alone.
Of course here we seem to be distinguishing between "hard science" and, say,
"social science" (such as history, which relies exclusively on testimonial
evidence for its primary archives, or sociology, which relies on essentially
similar evidence -- psychology does have some physiological research to work
with).
But ALL evidence is testimonial in some fashion or another. An archaeologist
who uncovers the knives used to kill Julius Caesar may be able to accurately
identify them but they then become testimonial to the fact of Caesar's murder,
rather than clear evidence that he WAS murdered. They would confirm one
aspect of the story.
Or, to put it another way, the pyramids are testimonial evidence of the great
engineering skill of the ancients, but they don't prove the ancients built the
pyramids (and, no, I'm not saying anyone else DID build them). We can't
actually show who built the pyramids, even though we have found records
purporting to name the architects and kings for whom they were built.
>: >>[snip]...faith (which is nothing more than the intuitive
>: >> application of knowledge).
>: > Perhaps we simply have different definitions of 'faith'. Mine is that
>: >faith, as regards to explanations, is belief in the absence of evidence.
>: >Because it feels or seems good.
>: >
>: > As for the God hypothesis, I have seen no evidence for the existence of
>: >God.
>
>: And what would you consider to BE evidence for the existence of God? What
>: are the criteria you have set up for determining the validity of any evidence.
>
>God coming forth, filling the sky with his image for the whole world to
>see, and proclaiming his existence. That would indeed be evidence, though
>naturally not the only kind of evidence. IMO, the evidence I have seen
>for the existence of god is debatable and certainly doesn't entail the
>existence of god.
But have you seen this evidence as the result of some scientific investigation
into the question of God's existence? So far as I'm aware, no such
investigations have ever been undertaken, and thus science has no organized
base of data to evaluate. Hence, any personal considerations of "the
available evidence" really aren't scientifically reliable. No controls have
been applied, no criteria defined and considered -- essentially, nothing
scientific has gone into the forming of any opinions about the existence of
God or the debatability of whatever evidence anyone has seen.
>: > IMHO, a person who asserts confidently that God does not exist is
>: >exercising as much faith as a person who prays to God and believes that God
>: >exists and hears the prayers. That, of course, will change if proof appears
>: >on the issue.
>
>: Proof may be staring everyone in the face, but until such time as people sit
>: down and rationally look for (and examine, if any is found) the evidence,
>: there will never be any serious basis for doubting the existence of God. The
>: basis for accepting the existence of God is based on personal experience --
>: which is where the results of science's observations come from.
>
>So, in order to rationally doubt the existence of something requires
>evidence directly against that thing's existence?
[snip]
No. In order to rationally doubt the existence of something only requires
a rational evaluation of appropriately collected and organized data
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> skrev i en
>
>> And Galatians 5:18:
>
>> But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
>
> Thank you for that quote. It can be used to counter our local
>xenophobes who hate and fear Islam because, they say, Moslems do not feel
>obliged to obey our law when they contradict the Quran ---
I don't see how the New Testament can be used to silence people who criticize
the followers of another book.
The New Testament tells us we should obey the authorities, but some Christian
Fundamentalist groups nonetheless (ignorantly) argue they are serving the
higher law of God. Quoting the Qu'ran at them isn't going to show them the
error of their ways, either.
But as I keep saying, religion really has nothing to do with the question of
whether God exists. All religions assume the existence of one or more gods as
axiomatic.
Michael Martinez
>On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 04:35:57 +0200, "Raven"
><jonlenn...@get2net.dk> wrote:
>
>>nyhedsmeddelelse:lqHR3.45$74....@news.uswest.net...
>
>>> speaking on God's behalf: if what he or she says is true, it's coming from
>>> God. That means 100% accuracy. Does anyone have such accuracy in this
>>> day and age? I have no idea. I'm not aware of any formal efforts to
>>> document such prophecies. Of course, prophecy doesn't consist of just
>>> predicting the future, and future predictions fall into two categories:
>>> those which occur within the predictor's lifetime and those which don't.
>
>>Ah. So that is your test of the existence of God? Find such people as
>>make prophecies, claiming that God told them, and see if these prophecies
>>come through without any chance that the 'prophet' may have cheated? And do
>>you want the universities to conduct searches for such prophets, correlating
>>their prophecies with each other and with observed phenomena?
I haven't seen THIS followup either. I will respond below, however.
>No, as far I understand Michael, not correlating their prophecies with
>each other at the beginning. First look for people who claim to be
>prophets and correlate their predictions with observed phenomena. If
>they are true prophets i.e. speaking on God's behalf then ALL their
>prophesies must come 100% true. THEN correlate the things such people
>say which are not directly observable (e.g. about God) with each other
>and see if all say the same things. If yes, that should be sufficient
>proof of the existence of God.
That would be a start. It would show that the prophecy test is valid for
determining if a prophet (i.e., someone claiming to speak for God) is
legitimate. It would strongly imply there was a God behind the prophets, but
would not itself prove the existence of God.
Simply showing that prophets can have a 100% accuracy merely indicates that
this point of the Bible is not untestable. It would argue for the credibility
of the Bible as well as for the existence of God, but this would not be
sufficient to show (rationally) that God exists.
What if God really doesn't work the way the Bible says he does? God could
exist despite all that the world's various religions have to say about him.
He should, in fact, exist regardless of whether the world's religions talk
about him at all -- if he exists.
>>> But if God is indeed communicating with mankind through prophets and
>>> revelations, then science still has no excuse for paying no attention to
>>> them.
>
>>There have been tonnes of people who claimed to be God's prophets. Their
>>record so far hasn't been good. Unless the true ones are hiding, or are
>>being hid.
This is pure nonsense. No scientific studies have ever been made to evaluate
the record of history's prophets. There have been tons of people who claim
God doesn't exist. Unless the facts are genetically embedded in their brains,
they are simply speaking opinions, not facts.
>Well, what Michael seems to be saying is that science hasn't really
>scientifically researched their records. Science just concentrated on
>obviously false prophecies and declared them bogus...
Has science really even done much of that? Most of the prophecy debunking I'm
(unscientifically) aware of comes from the news media and the religious
community, usually in reaction to cults and/or popular misconceptions (such as
the many predictions of Jesus' return despite the fact he said no man would
know in advance when he returned). I don't consider the news media, as
careful as they can be in their investigative reporting, to be as
intrinsically married to the pursuit for facts as the scientific community is
reputed to be.
>...There has been no
>scientifical research in the field of "prophets", no systematical
>search. The (unscientific) approach of most scientiests to the topic
>of prophets rather seems to have been "We don't believe in prophets,
>so it is futile to scientifically search for them".
Basically, they spout off their unsubstantiated opinions as if they are
credible statements of fact. I put no faith in the opinions people choose to
base in ignorance and prejudice. Forming opinions in the vacuum of ignorance
as so many are wont to do when dismissing the possibility of God's existence
is an extremely unscientific and irrational way of thinking, as far as I'm
concerned.
David Sulger
>But it's science that I'm addressing,
>nothing else. If science cannot answer
>the question of God's existence, then
>nothing can. All else is irrelevant -- red
>herrings.
<snip>
>Let's leave religion out of the search for
>God. It never should have been there in
>the first place.
It seems it was somewhat mistaken on your position. I assumed that you
were arguing on the side of religion, since some of the arguments you
used at least seemed similar to those used by religious fundamentalists
when attempting to debunk science. And I wasn't simply misreading your
words, usually when poeple discuss the merits of science vs. religion
most people end up taking one side or the other. But no one one the
side of religion would actually consider leaving their faith out of the
search for God.
You're right about science being they only definitive way of settling
the God question. Religious leaders can hardly be trusted in the matter
since they're not at all objective about the matter.
But I'm not sure science can answer the question anyway. Science can
only build on what it has learned. There is nothing which can logically
prove or disprove the existance of God.
--Dave
Michael Martinez
>It seems it was somewhat mistaken on your position. I assumed that you
>were arguing on the side of religion, since some of the arguments you
>used at least seemed similar to those used by religious fundamentalists
>when attempting to debunk science. And I wasn't simply misreading your
>words, usually when poeple discuss the merits of science vs. religion
>most people end up taking one side or the other. But no one one the
>side of religion would actually consider leaving their faith out of the
>search for God.
I am a Christian. I have no intention of abandoning my faith in Christ as
my savior. But in speaking of science and why I feel it should be looking for
God, I see no need to digress with religious dogmas that really have nothing
to do with the point.
>You're right about science being they only definitive way of settling
>the God question. Religious leaders can hardly be trusted in the matter
>since they're not at all objective about the matter.
PEOPLE are not objective in general. Just because someone believes in God,
however, doesn't mean they aren't or can't be objective. Unless you're
speaking of televangelists and the ilk. Objectivity and truth seem to be the
farthest things from their minds.
>But I'm not sure science can answer the question anyway. Science can
>only build on what it has learned. There is nothing which can logically
>prove or disprove the existance of God.
Then you've missed the point. Science shouldn't be drawing lines and saying,
"Here we'll stop trying to learn."
We've invested millions of dollars in searching for extra-terrestial life by
scanning the heavens for organized radio waves. We've even deliberately
beamed one or more messages to space, and we have sent out probes which may
one day be encountered by space-travellers.
But in all that effort, not one scientist has had the temerity to suggest we
should perhaps look a little further and see if maybe there is also evidence
of a God out there.
Maybe if we weren't so stingy with research dollars things would be different.
But then, we don't seem to have a problem to fund million-dollar studies on
the life-cycles of insects, so one has to wonder just how objective scientists
in general are when it comes to the notion of looking for evidence of God's
existence.
The odds of finding God (if he exists) should be considerably better than the
odds of finding intelligent life within nearby space.
Ian
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in message
news:nduS3.1517$BM.6...@news.uswest.net...
> In article <7vbo6l$2ae$1...@supernews.com>, "Spamfast"
<spam...@shitisp.com> wrote:
> >Lets leave God out of the search for God because he's never been
there
> >and never will.
>
> Except for the fact you have to report to your parole officer every
weekend,
> you never really do get out of the house, do you?
Do my opinions offend you? Are you a bible basher Martinez?
Except for the fact that you have to go to the toilet now and again
you never really do stop reading Tolkien do you ? (or leave the house)
You don't like someone disagreeing with you do you Martinez? You're
just a domineering bully who's very good at insisting that he's right
and everybody else is wrong. How so though? Do you have access to
secret reference material that nobody else does ? Nope. Most things
argued about on this group are open ended and ambiguous which renders
your opinions on them no more valid than anyone else's. I think people
are fearful of arguing with you in case they get killfiled by you
actually, which leaves you free to carry on with your pompous self
importance.
Oh yes and cut the gameshow buzzer thing out because I'm sure most
people find it extremely patronising and irritating. It smacks of "I'm
a smart arse who knows everything and you know nothing". Well I expect
there are many non Tolkien subjects which I and the other people on
this newsgroup could turn the tables on you and leave you looking like
the clueless newbie.
As it says in the header I believe you would even argue with JRRT if
he were alive and dropped into aft occasionally. You would try and
tell HIM about the lore of Middle-earth, I'm convinced about that such
is your bullying insistence.
Why don't you get a bit of humility and start respecting other peoples
opinions instead of killfiling them as soon as they dare to disagree
with the" great god Martinez" ?
So chew on this lot if you've read this far (which I doubt), absorb
it and then strongly consider changing your style for the better.
Enough said for now I think.
Cheerio
Michael Martinez
>
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in message
>news:nduS3.1517$BM.6...@news.uswest.net...
>> weekend, you never really do get out of the house, do you?
>
>Do my opinions offend you?
Is that what you call them? "Opinions". Interesting.
Michael O'Neill
>
> In article <381a8...@einstien.netscapeonline.co.uk>, "Ian" <I...@ispnet.net> wrote:
> >
> >Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in message
> >news:nduS3.1517$BM.6...@news.uswest.net...
> >> Except for the fact you have to report to your parole officer every
> >> weekend, you never really do get out of the house, do you?
> >
> >Do my opinions offend you?
>
> Is that what you call them? "Opinions". Interesting.
Junior here appears to be setting himself up to do a number on certain
aft and rabt personalities with a little help fwom a fwend.
From a free server, no less. WHich appears to be routing through BT
internet.
<heh>
I think he's in northern england, but maybe that's a remote router.
M.
Arrgh!a thorn
Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:381AC7A6...@indigo.ie...
> Michael Martinez wrote:
> >
> > In article <381a8...@einstien.netscapeonline.co.uk>, "Ian"
<I...@ispnet.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in message
> > >news:nduS3.1517$BM.6...@news.uswest.net...
> > >> Except for the fact you have to report to your parole officer
every
> > >> weekend, you never really do get out of the house, do you?
> > >
> > >Do my opinions offend you?
> >
> > Is that what you call them? "Opinions". Interesting.
>
> Junior here appears to be setting himself up to do a number on
certain
> aft and rabt personalities with a little help fwom a fwend.
Nay - just one of my many guises.
> From a free server, no less. WHich appears to be routing through BT
> internet.
Do I look bothered ?
> <heh>
Hiccups?
> I think he's in northern england, but maybe that's a remote router.
>
> M.
Cambridgeshire actually.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:381a8...@einstien.netscapeonline.co.uk...
> I think people are fearful of arguing with you in case they get
> killfiled by you actually
This seems unlikely. Being killfiled is not necessarily a bad
thing. Generally when people bow out of threads or avoid topics it
is to prevent a flame war from starting or continuing.
Michael O'Neill
Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7veqt0$m2u$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
Flame of the West
> Except for the fact that you have to go to the toilet now and again
> you never really do stop reading Tolkien do you ?
Are you insinuating that there's something wrong with reading
Tolkien while on the throne?
> Do you have access to
> secret reference material that nobody else does ? Nope.
Actually, I think he does. I recall his referring to some
unpublished thing or another.
> Most things argued about on this group are
> open ended and ambiguous which renders
> your opinions on them no more valid than anyone else's.
Most things argued about on this group are totally off-topic.
> I think people
> are fearful of arguing with you in case they get killfiled by you
> actually, which leaves you free to carry on with your pompous self
> importance.
Yes, I live in fear that Michael Martinez isn't reading my posts.
> As it says in the header I believe you would even argue with JRRT if
> he were alive and dropped into aft occasionally. You would try and
> tell HIM about the lore of Middle-earth, I'm convinced about that such
> is your bullying insistence.
There are those on this NG that claim that's OK, because the fiction
belongs to the reader and not to the author. Besides, JRRT
appreciated, say, young Christopher pointing out inconsistencies
in the Hobbit.
> Why don't you get a bit of humility and start respecting other peoples
> opinions instead of killfiling them as soon as they dare to disagree
> with the" great god Martinez" ?
These "Martinez is a mean ol' bully" posts seem to hit the NG
every month or so. Perhaps we could arrange to have them
posted automatically, like a FAQ? It would save people like
Ian a lot of time.
--
-- FotW
"A! Elbereth Githoniel!
silivren penna míriel
o menel aglar elenath,
Githoniel, A! Elbereth!
We still remember, we who dwell
In this far land beneath the trees
The starlight on the Western Seas."
JRR Tolkien
Conrad Dunkerson
news:381AFA3C...@erols.com...
> These "Martinez is a mean ol' bully" posts seem to hit the NG
> every month or so. Perhaps we could arrange to have them
> posted automatically, like a FAQ?
* twitch *
You shouldn't tempt me like that. :)
Kingasaurus
the
odds of finding intelligent life within nearby space.---
That's completely erroneous. You are making a huge assumption, which is:
God WANTS us to find him and will provide evidence as such. This is based on
your religious opinions of what "god" is probably like based on your faith.
This ignores the possibility that "god" exists but wishes to remain hidden, or
"god" existed at the time the universe was created but, for some reason,
doesn't exist anymore or isn't interested in what we believe about him. YOUR
particular idea of what "god" is like is not necessarily more likely to be
correct than these other possibilities. Including, I might add, the possibility
that "god" doesn't exist at all.
---Then you've missed the point. Science shouldn't be drawing lines and
saying,
"Here we'll stop trying to learn."---
You're only saying that "science" has stopped "trying to learn" because it
hasn't discovered (or agreed to the existence of) something you believe in very
strongly and has an important part in your life. Instead of considering the
possibility that you might be wrong about this "god" idea, you instead presume
that science just hasn't looked hard enough. Something doesn't smell right
about that, I'm afraid.
---We've invested millions of dollars in searching for extra-terrestial life by
scanning the heavens for organized radio waves. We've even deliberately
beamed one or more messages to space, and we have sent out probes which may
one day be encountered by space-travellers.
But in all that effort, not one scientist has had the temerity to suggest we
should perhaps look a little further and see if maybe there is also evidence
of a God out there.---
I can't believe you're serious. You seem to subscribe to the comic-strip
version of what scientists are like. There are a higher percentage of agnostics
among scientists than among the general population, but there are still plenty
of religious believers in the scientific community. Plenty of them would simply
DIE to get rock-solid proof for the existence of a supreme (or even superior)
being (Some would argue that the early-universe studies are moving in that
direction). But such evidence simply ain't forthcoming right now. I don't know
what you expect them to do. Point a telescope into space really far and hope
they see Heaven? Hope that "god" walks in front of the telescope? You either
believe through faith, or you don't.
Let's use Jesus as an example, although we could use the important tenets of
any religion as well:
He was either:
1. Telling the truth about himself.
2. He was a megalomaniac liar and con-man.
3. He was a lunatic who believed he was god even though he wasn't.
4. He was a real person whose accomplishments were exaggerated, embellished or
misunderstood (or all three) by the people who recorded the events of his life
in the NT.
5. He didn't exist at all, and was a complete fabrication.
Now, without using "faith", please decide which one is correct, or please tell
me exactly what evidence "science" is supposed to gather to make a decision
about these different possibilities. I suppose the gathering of archaeological
evidence would reasonably rule out #5 among most biblical experts, but there is
no way to decide among the remaining four using the techniques that science has
available. There's no conceivable "searching" that scientists could do to
decide between the first 3 possibilities about Jesus, for example. I don't see
how searching for any non-specific "supreme being" turns out to be any
different in practice, if not in theory.
I've been lurking on this discussion for days, and all we've gotten is vague
platitudinous statements about what science should be doing, and how "prophets"
might be a candidate for evidence in favor of the "god" idea.
Let's get down to brass tacks, Michael: What do you think would constitute
verifiable evidence in favor of the god idea? Do you think this evidence is
obvious in the world today and scientists are just ignoring it? Get specific
and then we can discuss whether this "evidence" is trustworthy or not, and
whether scientists should be taking it seriously. I'm not going to agree that
scientists are being arrogant and lazy until you give me something specific and
tangible that they are being arrogant and lazy ABOUT. Until then, we're just
whistling in the wind about this topic.
-King
" I know what fakery looks like" -James Randi
John Smith
ancestor race destroyed by the floods at the end of the last ice age.
There is no spiritual "one true God".
It's as simple as that
John Smith
Kingasaurus
ancestor race destroyed by the floods at the end of the last ice age.
There is no spiritual "one true God".
It's as simple as that---
I can't disprove this. It MUST be true..... ;)
John Smith
yours.
Thankyou.
Kingasaurus <jeop...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991030113317...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
John Smith
Then buy the book "Gods of the new millenium".
A better name for it would be "The Real Bible".
Kingasaurus
yours.
Thankyou.-----
I'll reply however the hell I want. If you want to ignore my responses, feel
free. No one's holding a gun to your head. It's a free country, but my post
wasn't even addressed to you, anyway.
Helm Spammerhand
Kingasaurus <jeop...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991030115737...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
Helm Spammerhand
Nob
>
> > Except for the fact that you have to go to the toilet now and
again
> > you never really do stop reading Tolkien do you ?
>
> Are you insinuating that there's something wrong with reading
> Tolkien while on the throne?
Yes its geeky
> > Do you have access to
> > secret reference material that nobody else does ? Nope.
>
> Actually, I think he does. I recall his referring to some
> unpublished thing or another.
He's lying. He says that to add false authority to his arguments.
> > Most things argued about on this group are
> > open ended and ambiguous which renders
> > your opinions on them no more valid than anyone else's.
>
> Most things argued about on this group are totally off-topic.
Wrong.
> > I think people
> > are fearful of arguing with you in case they get killfiled by you
> > actually, which leaves you free to carry on with your pompous self
> > importance.
>
> Yes, I live in fear that Michael Martinez isn't reading my posts.
Really?
> > As it says in the header I believe you would even argue with JRRT
if
> > he were alive and dropped into aft occasionally. You would try and
> > tell HIM about the lore of Middle-earth, I'm convinced about that
such
> > is your bullying insistence.
>
> There are those on this NG that claim that's OK, because the fiction
> belongs to the reader and not to the author.
Oh so the fiction belongs to the reader?
Then why do you all waste your time trying to make everything clearcut
that's ambiguous?
> > Why don't you get a bit of humility and start respecting other
peoples
> > opinions instead of killfiling them as soon as they dare to
disagree
> > with the" great god Martinez" ?
>
> These "Martinez is a mean ol' bully" posts seem to hit the NG
> every month or so. Perhaps we could arrange to have them
> posted automatically, like a FAQ? It would save people like
> Ian a lot of time.
>
Martinez needs to release his buttplug occasionally.
Michael O'Neill
[...]
Michael Martinez
>These "Martinez is a mean ol' bully" posts seem to hit the NG
>every month or so. Perhaps we could arrange to have them
>posted automatically, like a FAQ? It would save people like
>Ian a lot of time.
LOL!
Somehow, I don't think the big bad meanies would appreciate the humor in your
suggestion.
Brian
Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:381B416B...@indigo.ie...
> Arrgh!a thorn wrote:
> [...]
Flame of the West
> > Are you insinuating that there's something wrong with reading
> > Tolkien while on the throne?
>
> Yes its geeky
Oh! Well, ... *I* never do it.
> > > Do you have access to
> > > secret reference material that nobody else does ? Nope.
> >
> > Actually, I think he does. I recall his referring to some
> > unpublished thing or another.
>
> He's lying. He says that to add false authority to his arguments.
Certainly we can't verify what he says. Jump to "fundamentalism
vs. scientific method" thread.
> > > As it says in the header I believe you would even argue with JRRT
> if
> > > he were alive and dropped into aft occasionally. You would try and
> > > tell HIM about the lore of Middle-earth, I'm convinced about that
> such
> > > is your bullying insistence.
> >
> > There are those on this NG that claim that's OK, because the fiction
> > belongs to the reader and not to the author.
>
> Oh so the fiction belongs to the reader?
> Then why do you all waste your time trying to make everything clearcut
> that's ambiguous?
I'm not saying that *I* believe it. I was referring to the English 101
chicks.
> Martinez needs to release his buttplug occasionally.
I'm having a really nasty mental picture here.
Raven
>>There have been tonnes of people who claimed to be God's prophets. Their
>>record so far hasn't been good. Unless the true ones are hiding, or are
>>being hid.
> This is pure nonsense. No scientific studies have ever been made to
> evaluate the record of history's prophets. There have been tons of
> people who claim God doesn't exist. Unless the facts are genetically
> embedded in their brains, they are simply speaking opinions, not
> facts.
Prophets have more than once predicted the end of the world. Some around
the year 1000, many of them taking the contemporary Viking raids as
indication that the end was near. There have been many other ages during
which prophets have proclaimed that Judgement day and Armageddon is coming.
And the appointed day has come ... and gone.
Other prophecies are of course less easy to check. Such as the Heaven's
Gate maniacs who suicided because their leaders said that the (inaccurately)
reported object trailing comet Hale-Bopp was the big mother ship, which
would take their souls to a higher plane of being.
Of course, we can attribute Bo's claim that they should now kill
themselves as a new stage in a madman's delusions, but we cannot know fer
shure that they *didn't* elevate themselves to a higher plane of being ... I
don't believe very much that they did, of course.
AFAIK, some prophecies have been debunked, some have been left unchecked
(due to negligence or inability), none have been proven accurate, beyond
what would be expected by statistics alone. That is, if I out of the air
make the claim that Oprah Winfrey will be injured in a car crash next year,
the chance is greater than nil that she actually will be.
I think that I have explained that I do not trust the people who claim
the absence of God any more than I do those who claim his existence.
Jon L. Beck.
Raven
> >> > > And what would you consider to BE evidence for the existence of
> >> > > God? What are the criteria you have set up for determining the
> >> > > validity of any evidence.
> >> > My criteria are not a physical phenomenon which cannot be
> >> > explained by current knowledge, or even one which goes against
> >> > current knowledge. My definition of God is as a sentient being,
> >> > who can speak and respond, and who has the power to move
> >> > mountains by willing it and other things. I have seen no evidence
> >> > that such a being exists....
> I never saw your followup, so I'll have to respond here. Whether "such a
> being" exists isn't dependent on what little evidence you have actually
> considered (if any -- nor, for that matter, on what little evidence *I*
> have actually considered, or any other person on this Earth). I do
> know that what people like to call "mind over matter" is supposed to
> have been proven to work in a miniscule way in Virginia with an
> experiment and a random number generator.
I am not sure that I am following you. It is a basic assumption of
science (as I understand it) that the Universe, and objects and phenomena
occurring in it, exist and occur regardless of whether we know about them or
believe in them. It seems you said so above, about God. And to learn what
the Universe is and does, we have to go see. That is, gather evidence. If
we are not in a position to see, if we have no evidence, we don't know.
As far as I have seen, we are in that position about God. Many people
believe that there is one. Some theories explain that belief without
needing God.
Let me ask you: do you believe that there is a God? Whether you believe
or doubt (it seems clear to me that you don't reject the idea out of hand),
how do you define God?
As for the mind-over-matter thing you mentioned from Virginia, I have
read about that, quite a whole ago. Let the experiment be repeated, under
different circumstances and by independent groups. If most of them report
that their random number generators put out more ones than zeroes when the
testers desired that, and more zeroes than ones when the testers desired
that, we have something to work with.
> But your aversion to seeking evidence for or against the existence of God
> certainly disqualifies you as an authority on the subject. I'm afraid
> you'll always be mired in the streets of opinion along the rest of us.
I am not averse to seeking evidence. Nor have I claimed myself as an
authority. My opinion on the existence of God is that I have no opinion.
Would a self-proclaimed authority figure say that? :-)
> > Well I haven't followed theology much, so admittedly, although one of
> > myfeet is on rather secure ground my other foot is not...
> Theology really has nothing to do with it, however. If science is ever
> going to take a crack at determining whether God exists, it will have
> to come up with a dispassionate definition independently of all
> religious ideologies, even if some parallels are developed.
If I had studied theology, perhaps I would have a clearer idea of how to
define God.
Can you?
>>>> ....Such evidence might be some
>>>> physical phenomenon which goes against current knowledge (telekinesis,
>>>> resurrection of a dead person, whatever), and *then* an announcement,
>>>> equally miraculously delivered, saying I Am And I Did This.
> >> But that's exactly what the Gospels say happened.
> > And the equivalent of Gospels of other religions say other things.
> And today's newspapers and magazines, too. The "impossible" has been
> happening throughout history (and before), but it never seems to be
> seriously investigated by those who wish to dismiss it out of
> convenience.
I see no news stories about miracles. I have seen some in eg. Reader's
Digest. One was about a birdstrike into the cockpit of a fighter airplane
which left the pilot unconscious and severely injured. The navigator was
able to bring the plane safely down, but he needed the pilot to do one
thing, or the flight would crashland. He talked to the pilot, and the pilot
awakened sufficiently for a moment to understand what was needed and do it.
So this was attributed to God. God had caused the pilot to wake up for
that moment and so God had saved the two from death. Miracle, they said.
Of course, they did not blame God for putting the bird in the path of
that plane in the first place. But I cannot see this story as a miracle.
Which "impossible" things did you have in mind?
> > Among the ancient Greeks there were some who noticed that their Greek
> >god Zeus was held to be the king of Gods. And that the Babylonians
> >thought that Marduk (IIRC) was, and Zeus and Marduk were not the
> >same according to the tales told about them. So at least one of the two
> >conflicting set of tales must be less than true. And if one, why not
> >both? Perhaps there were no gods, just tales men tell.
> We can deduce that one is probably untrue from the limited evidence
> available, but not both, and once you start making assumptions that
> all such claims are untrue you have not only left the path of logic and
> reason, you have abandoned science altogether.
You're right. At least if you substitute "assumptions" with "the
conclusion". But you have many conflicting stories about God. Some stand
out as more probable than others, but no single one stands out as far more
believable than others.
There is no more evidence for the existence of God than for the absence
of God. But there are theories which, if true, can explain the various
beliefs in God without God.
Many claims of miracles have been made. Some have been investigated, and
discovered to be deliberate hoaxes, delusions, or not miraculous after all.
To my knowledge, which is not complete, none have been found to be evidence
of miraculous intervention.
Nor have there been any neon lights in the sky or any booming voice from
the sky. But some who believe in God scorn the desire for booming voices.
I can maliciously guess why.
> > If there was only the Christian Gospel and the Old Testament, I would
> >be more inclined to think that there must be quite a bit to it.
> Except Judeo-Christian teachings are founded in the principle that men
> have been led astray to worship false gods. Hence, you can't have one
> without the other. The Jewish prophets were trying to lead mankind
> back to the truth. The Christian apostles were trying to announce the
> good news that some of the old promises had been fulfilled.
Say what? If the other religions, false according to the JC teachings,
were absent, there would be no JC teachings about the existence and nature
of God at all? Or are you taking the teaching of one religion that the
other religions are false as evidence that the first mentioned religion must
be true?
> Supposedly, hundreds of people were witness to Jesus' death and subsequent
> appearances, and it was on the basis of their testimonies that thousands
> of other people believed in him as the risen son of the living god. The
> rest then becomes the result of third-hand proselytizing, but history
> acknowlegdes the fact that contemporaries of Jesus proclaimed his
> resurrection (and this is true of some other teachings as well, not just
> the Christian teachings -- a number of "resurrections" have been
> reported).
In earlier centuries, many people were buried in coffins with a little
hole in. Through that hole, from the hand of the deceased, led a string
which could ring a little bell above ground. This was because many people
were scared that they might become skindead, taken for dead, and buried
alive. Some diseases and injuries exist which can leave people alive but
without readily discernible vital signs.
Modern doctors are able to waken people who have had cardiac arrests, but
before brain death.
It takes more than the reports of resurrections to prove a miracle. See
a man have his head chopped off in an accident, and see that head move by
itself back onto his shoulders. See the formerly headless man alive again.
Hear a disembodied voice saying, "I return this man to you." *Then* you
will have what is probably a God to ask the question, "Then what about all
the others who were innocently killed?"
> Science doesn't have the means to confirm or contest such testimonies, and
> unless someone intends to develop a branch of science which CAN confirm or
> contest those testimonies, we have to leave all such stories to the realm
> of articles of faith, just as we have to accept on faith that Alexander
> the Great's army had a week-long orgy after having been separated into
> two groups during a long march. All the evidence we have for THAT
> event is no better than the evidence we have for the resurrection of
> Jesus.
> The same is true of the trial of Socrates. We only have a written account
> to tell us that it occurred -- no physical evidence has survived.
There are more ways than one to determine the veracity of a report from
the past. If many independent sources report the event, it is more likely
to be true. If sources which could not profit from the phenomenon if it
*were* true report it as true, it is more likely that it happened. If the
reported phenomenon does not run counter to what knowledge we have today
about how the Universe works, it is more likely to be true.
To my knowledge (which, again, is incomplete), reports of the
resurrection of Jesus and of those whom he personally resurrected while
alive were made by those who had a stake in it. They were followers of a
man whom they thought were the son of God, and they attributed many miracles
to him.
> But the question of God's CURRENT existence won't be answered by
> examinations of the past.
How *will* it be answered?
Jon L. Beck.
Raven
> >> And Galatians 5:18:
> >> But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
> > Thank you for that quote. It can be used to counter our local
> >xenophobes who hate and fear Islam because, they say, Moslems do not feel
> >obliged to obey our law when they contradict the Quran ---
> I don't see how the New Testament can be used to silence people who
> criticize the followers of another book.
Oh shite, Mikey, I didn't mean this sarcastically. But we have a problem
both in Denmark and Norway with people who say that all Moslems are militant
conquerors, and should be thrown out, before they oppress our Christian
culture. They quote Quran verses and Moslems who *are* militant as proof
that, among other things, all Moslems hold themselves above any secular law.
So I can bash these xenophobes with a Bible verse like that, to indicate
that the same false claim could be made of all Christians with that method.
Jon L. Beck.
Michael O'Neill
IKYABWAI.
Fool.
M.
Gordon Nash
read his or her posts. Its what I do. Some of the stupidest things I've ever
heard have been written by people on this newsgroup. I used to get mad and
argue about them. Now I realize if they are that stupid they won't understand
my argument The great thing about the internet is that everyone can have a
voice. The worst thing is that everyone can have a voice. Of course by my own
arguments I should just let this go but I figure peacemaking is a generous deed
and " generous deed should not be checked by cold councel.
Feanole aka DrWhoFru