http://www.apologetics.com/pages/twentyarguments.html

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 02, 2001

Answers

sample from above link...

1. The Argument from Change

The material world we know is a world change. This young woman came to be 5’2”, but she was not always that height. The great oak tree before us grew from the tiniest acorn. Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. For until it comes to be, it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything.

As for the thing that changes, although it can be what it will become, it is not yet what it will become. It actually exists right now in this state (an acorn); it will actually exist in that state (large oak tree). But it is not actually in that state now. It only has the potentiality for that state.

Now a question: To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved? Obviously, other things must be involved. Nothing can give itself what it does not have, and the changing thing cannot have now, already, what it will come to have then. The result of change cannot actually exist before the change. The changing thing begins with only the potential to change, but it needs to be acted on by other things outside if that potential is to be made actual. Otherwise it cannot change.

Nothing changes itself. Apparently self–moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will–something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it.

Now a further question: Are the other things outside the changing thing also changing? Are its movers also moving? If so, all of them stand in need right now of being acted on by other things, or else they cannot change. No matter how many things there are in the series, each one needs something outside itself to actualize its potentiality for change.

The universe is the sum total of all these moving things, however many there are. The whole universe is in the process of change. But we have already seen that change in any being requires an outside force to actualize it. Therefore, there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe. This is one of the things meant by “God.”

Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the verse is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other. Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change. [TOP] [Back to list]

2. The Argument from Efficient Causality

We notice that some things cause other things to be (to begin to be, to continue to be, or both). For example, a man playing the piano is causing the music that we hear. If he stops, so does the music.

Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now. For remember, on the no–God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands need of being caused to exist.

But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. –But that is absurd: all of reality dependent–but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being is caused, that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd. So there must be something uncaused, something on which all that need an efficient cause of being are dependent.

Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be. If everyone has to borrow a certain book, but no one actually has it, then no one will ever get it. If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us–and like every other link in the chain of receivers.

Question 1: Why do we need an uncaused cause? Why could there not simply be an endless series of things mutually keeping each other in being? Reply: This is an attractive hypothesis. Think of a single drunk. He could probably not stand up alone. But a group of drunks, all of them mutually supporting each other, might stand. They might even make their way along the street. But notice: Given so many drunks, and given the steady ground beneath them, we can understand how their stumblings might cancel each other out, and how the group of them could remain (relatively) upright. We could not understand their remaining upright if the ground did not support them–if, for example, they were all suspended several feet above it. And of course, if there were no actual drunks, there would be nothing to understand.

This brings us to our argument. Things have got to exist in order to be mutually dependent; they cannot depend upon each other for their entire being, for then they would have to be, simultaneously, cause and effect of each other. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A. That is absurd. The argument is trying to show why a world of caused causes can be given– or can be there–at all. And it simply points out: If this thing can exist only because something else is giving it existence, then there must exist something whose being is not a gift. Otherwise everything would need at the same time to be given being, but nothing (in addition to “everything”) could exist to give it. And that means nothing would actually be.

Question 2: Why not have an endless series of caused causes stretching backward into the past? Then everything would be made actual and would actually be–even though their causes might no longer exist. Reply: First, if the kal‹m argument (argument 6) is right, there could not exist an endless series of causes stretching backward into the past. But suppose that such a series could exist. The argument is not concerned about the past, and would work whether the past is finite or infinite. It is concerned with what exists right now.

Even as you read this, you are dependent on other things; you could not, right now, exist without them. Suppose there are seven such things. If these seven things did not exist, neither would you. Now suppose that all seven of them depend for their existence right now on still other things. Without these, the seven you now depend on would not exist–and neither would you. Imagine that the entire universe consists of you and the seven sustaining you. If there is nothing besides that universe of changing, pendent things, then the universe–and you as part of it–could not be. For everything that is would right now need to be given being but there would be nothing capable of giving it And yet you are and it is. So there must in that case exist something besides the universe of dependent things– something not dependent as they are.

And if it must exist in that case, it must exist in this one. In our world there are surely more than seven things that need, right now, to be given being. But that need is not diminished by there being more than seven. As we imagine more and more of them–even an infinite number, if that were possible–we are simply expanding the set of beings that stand in need. And this need–for being, for existence– cannot be met from within the imagined set. But obviously it has been met, since contingent beings exist Therefore there is a source of being on which our material universe right now depends. [TOP] [Back to list]

3. The Argument from Time and Contingency

1. We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies. 2. Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; nonbeing is a real possibility. 3. Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything. 4. Then right now nothing would exist. For 5. If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed–literally– nothing at all. But 6. From nothing nothing comes. So 7. The universe could not have begun. 8. But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built–in possibility not to be. But 9. If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could have been a real possibility at all. So 10. There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary. 11. Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being. 12. This absolutely necessary being is God.

Question1: Even though you may never in fact step outside your house all day, it was possible for you to do so. Why is it impossible that the universe still happens to exist, even it was possible for it to go out of existence? Reply: The two cases are not really parallel. To step outside your house on a given day is something that you may or may not choose to do. But if nonbeing is a real possibility for you, then you are the kind of being that cannot last forever. In other words, the possibility of nonbeing must be built–in, “programmed,” part of your very constitution, a necessary property. And if all being is like that, then how could anything still exist after the passage of an infinite time? For an infinite time is every bit as long as forever. So being must have what it takes to last forever, that is, to stay in existence for an infinite time. Therefore there must exist within the realm of being something that does not tend to go out of existence. And this sort of being, as Aquinas says, is called “necessary.” [TOP] [Back to list]

4. The Argument from Degrees of Perfection

We notice around us things that vary in certain ways. A shade of color, for example, can be lighter or darker than another, a freshly baked apple pie is hotter than one taken out of the oven hours before; the life of a person who gives and receives love is better than the life of one who does not.

So we arrange some things in terms of more and less. And when we do, we naturally think of them on a scale approaching most and least. For example, we think of the lighter as approaching the brightness of pure white, and the darker as approaching the opacity of pitch black. This means that we think of them at various “distances” from the extremes, and as possessing, in degrees of “more” or “less,” what the extremes possess in full measure.

Sometimes it is the literal distance from an extreme that makes all the difference between “more” and “less.” For example, things are more or less hot when they are more or less distant from a source of heat. The source communicates to those things the quality of heat they possess in greater or lesser measure. This means that the degree of heat they possess is caused by a source outside of them.

Now when we think of the goodness of things, part of what we mean relates to what they are simply as beings. We believe, for example, that a relatively stable and permanent way of being is better than one that is fleeting and precarious. Why? Because we apprehend at a deep (but not always conscious) level that being is the source and condition of all value; finally and ultimately, being is better than nonbeing. And so we recognize the inherent superiority of all those ways of being that expand possibilities, free us from the constricting confines of matter, and allow us to share in, enrich and be enriched by, the being of other things. In other words, we all recognize that intelligent being is better than unintelligent being; that a being able to give and receive love is better than one that cannot; that our way of being is better, richer and fuller than that of a stone, a flower, an earthworm, an ant, or even a baby seal.

But if these degrees of perfection pertain to being and being is caused in finite creatures, then there must exist a “best,” a source and real standard of all the perfections that we recognize belong to us as beings.

This absolutely perfect being–the “Being of all beings,” “the Perfection of all perfections”–is God.

Question 1: The argument assumes a real “better.” But aren’t all our judgments of comparative value merely subjective? Reply: The very asking of this question answers it. For the questioner would not have asked it unless he or she thought it really better to do so than not, and really better to find the true answer than not. You can speak subjectivism but you cannot live it. [TOP] [Back to list]

5. The Design Argument

This sort of argument is of wide and perennial appeal. Almost everyone admits that reflection on the order and beauty of nature touches something very deep within us. But are the order and beauty the product of intelligent design and conscious purpose? For theists the answer is yes. Arguments for design are attempts to vindicate this answer, to show why it is the most reasonable one to give. They have been formulated in ways as richly varied as the experience in which they are rooted. The following displays the core or central insight.

1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end–for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. (See also argument 8.) 2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design. 3. Not chance. 4. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design. 5. Design comes only from a mind, a designer. 6. Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer. The first premise is certainly true—even those resistant to the argument admit it. The person who did not would have to be almost pathetically obtuse. A single protein molecule is a thing of immensely impressive order; much more so a single cell; and incredibly much more so an organ like the eye, where ordered parts of enormous and delicate complexity work together with countless others to achieve a single certain end. Even chemical elements are ordered to combine with other elements in certain ways and under certain conditions. Apparent disorder is a problem precisely because of the overwhelming pervasiveness of order and regularity. So the first premise stands.

If all this order is not in some way the product of intelligent design– then what? Obviously, it “just happened.” Things just fell out that way “by chance.” Alternatively, if all this order is not the product of blind, purposeless forces, then it has resulted from some kind of purpose. That purpose can only be intelligent design. So the second premise stands.

It is of course the third premise that is crucial. Ultimately, nonbelievers tell us, it is indeed by chance and not by any design that the universe of our experience exists the way it does. It just happens to have this order, and the burden of proof is on believers to demonstrate why this could not be so by chance alone.

But this seems a bit backward. It is surely up to nonbelievers to produce a credible alternative to design. And “chance” is simply not credible. For we can understand chance only against a background of order. To say that something happened “by chance” is to say that it did not turn out as we would have expected, or that it did turn out in a way we would not have expected. But expectation is impossible without order. If you take away order and speak of chance alone as a kind of ultimate source, you have taken away the only background that allows us to speak meaningfully of chance at all. Instead of thinking of chance against a background of order, we are invited to think of order—overwhelmingly intricate and ubiquitous order—against a random and purposeless background of chance. Frankly, that is incredible. Therefore it is eminently reasonable to affirm the third premise, not chance, and therefore to affirm the conclusion, that this universe is the product of intelligent design.

Question 1: Hasn’t the Darwinian theory of evolution shown us how it is possible for all the order in the universe to have arisen by chance? Reply: Not at all. If the Darwinian theory has shown anything, it has shown, in a general way, how species may have descended from others through random mutation; and how survival of these species can be accounted for by natural selection–by the fitness of some species to survive in their environment. In no way does it–can it–account for the ubiquitous order and intelligibility of nature. Rather, it presupposes order. To quote a famous phrase: “The survival of the fittest presupposes the arrival of the fit.” If Darwinians wish to extrapolate from their purely biological theory and maintain that all the vast order around us is the result of random changes, then they are saying something which no empirical evidence could ever confirm; which no empirical science could ever demonstrate; and which, on the face of it, is simply beyond belief.

Question 2: Maybe it is only in this region of the universe that order is to be found. Maybe there are other parts unknown to us that are completely chaotic–or maybe the universe will one day in the future become chaotic. What becomes of the argument then? Reply: Believers and nonbelievers both experience the same universe. It is this which is either designed or not. And this world of our common experience is a world of pervasive order and intelligibility. That fact must be faced. Before we speculate about what will be in the future or what may be elsewhere in the present, we need to deal honestly with what is. We need to recognize in an unflinching way the extent–the overwhelming extent–of order and intelligibility. Then we can ask ourselves: Is it credible to suppose that we inhabit a small island of order surrounded by a vast sea of chaos–a sea which threatens one day to engulf us?

Just consider how in the last decades we have strained fantastically at the limits of our knowledge; we have cast our vision far beyond this planet and far within the elements that make it up. And what has this expansion of our horizons revealed? Always the same thing: more –– and not less–intelligibility; more–and not less–complex and intricate order. Not only is there no reason to believe in a surrounding chaos, there is every reason not to. It flies in the face of the experience that all of us–believers and nonbelievers–share in common.

Something similar can be said about the future. We know the way things in the universe have behaved and are behaving. And so, until we have some reason to think otherwise, there is every reason to believe it will continue on its orderly path of running down. No speculation can nullify what we know.

And, anyway, exactly what sort of chaos is this question asking us to imagine? That effect precedes cause? That the law of contradiction does not hold? That there need not be what it takes for some existing thing to exist? These suggestions are completely unintelligible; if we think about them at all, it is only to reject them as impossible. Can we imagine less order? Yes. Some rearrangement of the order we experience? Yes. But total disorder and chaos? That can never be considered as a real possibility. To speculate about is as if it were is really a waste of time.

Question 3: But what if the order we experience is merely a product of our minds? Even though we cannot think utter chaos and disorder, maybe that is how reality really is. Reply: Our minds are the only means by which we can know reality. We have no other access. If we agree that something cannot exist in thought, we cannot go ahead and say that it might nevertheless exist in reality. Because then we would be thinking what we claim cannot be thought.

Suppose you claim that order is just a product of our minds. This puts you in a very awkward position. You are saying that we must think about reality in terms of order and intelligibility, but things may not exist that way in fact. Now to propose something for consideration is to think about it. And so you are saying: (a) we must think about reality in a certain way, but (b) since we think that things may not in fact exist that way, then (c) we need not think about reality the way we must think about it! Are we willing to pay that high a price to deny that the being of the universe displays intelligent design? It does not, on the face of it, seem cost effective. [TOP] [Back to list]

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 02, 2001.

Yawn. More tired apologetics from the Argument By Design school of xtian thought. What a waste of bandwidth.

-- You're Not Getting My Wallet (Xtians.are@full.of.it.com), March 02, 2001.

-- guess who (yadda@yadda.yadda), March 02, 2001.

Put a nickle on the drum, save another drunken bum

-- (LeonTrotsky@beingness.nothingness), March 02, 2001.

I'd like to hear why you don't believe these arguments hold water. Anyone?

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 05, 2001.

bygrace-

The problem with your cut and paste article is that it must assume WAAAAAAYYYY too much to prove the existance of a god. For instance, in the first argument, the article states: Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the verse is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other. Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change.

We don't actually know the boundries of the universe- it's quite possible that it is boundless. Even assuming that the universe has limits, there is nothing to say that whatever causes change in our universe is a conscious thing- it could very well be another universe. And of course, if your argument depends on an external cause of changes for this universe on the premise that all change requires an external cause, you beg the question of what caused the change outside our universe to start a change causer that causes change in our universe? And what caused the start of the causer of the changer that made our particular changer, on and on ad infinitium? And how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Sorry, I got carried away.

BTW- this is called "eternal regression" and St. Augustine called it a wicked heresy to even contemplate. It's an old argument.

The rest of your article continues in this vein. The writer takes gaps in our knowledge of the universe and attempts to shove a god- shaped answer into these gaps. However, it only works if you buy into the writer's assumptions and the irony of that is that these arguments could be used to (poorly) argue for the existance of ANY god, Thor, Hera, Vishnu, etc., not just the Christian god (whom I'm sure you mean when you use the word "God").

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 05, 2001.

Thanks Tarzan. How do you believe the universe came into being? or do you believe it always was?

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 07, 2001.

I KNOW therefore I am God.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 07, 2001.

Only God could do this...

-- proof of God (good enough @ for. me), March 07, 2001.

ONLY god could do that? Well, then, "proof," be sure to bang on pots and pans to scare the demons away the next time you're in an eclipse path.

There are plenty of ways an eclipse can happen, but since you don't appear to be interested in them, preferring instead the academically lazy answer of "god did it," I don't see much reason to go into any of them.

ByGrace, here's a tidbit for you to chew on. You posted this --

"Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now."

No. This argument presupposes that nothing can possibly exist without a god. This is an obvious attempt to frame the discussion within a theological reference. The writer attempts to reject the nonexistence of a god, rather than proving the existence of one. Poorly done, sloppy work.

"For remember, on the no–God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist."

No. This is totally incorrect. Why would this be so?

"So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause."

Even if a precursor cause were needed, why would it necessarily be a god? Why could it not be a Big Bang, or a Primordial Egg?

"They can give being only so long as they are given being."

No, no, no. Again with the bullshit imagery of a willful creator GIVING being to things, even though the existence of a creator is not proven. The writer is dishonest and manipulative.

"Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands need of being caused to exist."

No. Might have always existed. This argument presupposes that to be impossible.

"–But that is absurd: all of reality dependent–but dependent on nothing!"

Again, no. Reality may not DEPEND on anything. Reality simply IS. The Argument by Design presumes that no sort of order can exist without intent, and then attempts to convince the hearer that the intent is willful and comes from a deity. However, this argument ignores the very distinct possibility that no willful intervention was required for reality to exist. By definition, reality IS that which exists. So why does that which exists require something to bring it into existence?

Man.

-- You're Not Getting My Wallet (Xtians.are@full.of.it.com), March 07, 2001.

There is energy all around us. Even the vastness of space has a temperature slightly above absolute 0 (3 kelvin). Where does this energy come from? No scientist knows. There are things outside our realm of knowledge, beyond our grasp. Because we are confined to this material world, we don't know all the answers. We know lots about the material world and the laws of physics. We won't know anything beyond that while still bound to this plane. So, for those things unexplained, people believe in God. Call it what you will. But it holds the answers.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 07, 2001.

Bygrace-

I haven't seen any evidence for one theory over another, so it's a neutral subject for me. It's an interesting discussion but about as relevant to my day to day life as whether or not my dogs understand most of what I'm saying to them.

For the record, sometimes I think my dogs understand almost everything I say, and other times I think they are just responding to the sound of my voice in an effort to secure more chicken. Whether or not they understand me, their lives clearly revolve around the acquisition of chicken in all its forms.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 07, 2001.

Chikin salad, chikin creole, boilt' chikin, roas' chikin . . .

-- Bubba (bubba.gump@chicken.co.com), March 07, 2001.

They'll eat any kind of chicken, but they love Chik-Fil-A.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 07, 2001.

Same with mine, Tar. I bake a minimum of ten pounds of leg quarters each week just for my dogs. I can usually find them for 49 cents/lb or less.

bygrace, I do not believe external proof of God can be had. 'God' is a personal experience, IMO. Or rather, one experiences and labels it God - or not. One can testify to their experiences, but this offers no proof. One can attempt - as in the above "Twenty Arguments" - to employ logic. Doesn't work. Tar ripped it to shreds with one hand tied.

All the words, the mightiest prose and most idylic poetry cannot prove God. That occurs in the heart and is a ticket for one. :)

Best -

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 07, 2001.

Good arguments, Tarzan.

To the question "what would it take to prove the existance of a God", I always give the example Carl Sagan gave in his novel Contact. He described how a a bitmap of a circle was found in Pi by the characters in the novel. Pi is a transcendental number that exists in the definition of all circles - It's the ratio of the circumference to the radius.

Trancendental means it goes on literally forever to the right of the decimal point (3.1415926...)

So what they discovered was an image of a circle inside the constant number that appears in every circle in the Universe. This wasn't a signal, it was a number embedded in the universe which would be statistically impossible to have appeared by chance.

In a case like that above, anyone who understands anything about statistics would have to conclude that it was apparent that some intelligent design went into the creation of the universe. Now, whether that was "God" or just some extra-universal super-aliens would be open to question.

But that's the sort of thing it would take for me to believe in intelligent design, some sort of hard proof or statistical probability. I would never trust "miracles", because those could be faked, by us or some tricky advanced species with an agenda.

Right now I would put "God" and trickster aliens in the same category of reality - fun to think about, not much more than that. Of the two, trickster aliens tend to make for better entertainment.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 07, 2001.

-- out (out@damned.italics), March 07, 2001.

Rich: Watch it buddy, you are getting REAL good w/the make it up as we go along plan :-)

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), March 07, 2001.

Is that a jibe or compliment, sumer? You callin' me a fibber? A charlatan? A few cards shy of a full deck? A ham sandwich minus the ham?

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 07, 2001.

"There are plenty of ways an eclipse can happen, but since you don't appear to be interested in them, preferring instead the academically lazy answer of "god did it," I don't see much reason to go into any of them."

Who said I wasn't interested?? Please continue, genius. You can start by telling me what the odds are of finding another planet with intelligent life anywhere in the universe, which happens to have a moon that is the perfect size and distance from its sun, so as to create a perfect solar eclipse.

-- open your eyes (god is @ right here. right now), March 07, 2001.

{a few fries short of a Happy Meal?}

-- flora (***@__._), March 07, 2001.

Ah, The Happy Meal! A misnomer if ever there was one. Another great job of marketing by the poisoned minds at McDonald's. "Here Joan & John Public, make your child HAPPY, HAPPY (and a customer for the rest of their shortened life) with our food-like substances packaged in a joyful little box complete with toy!"

They do make great french fries.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 07, 2001.

Okay, dipshit sock puppet, I'll take you up on that.

"Who said I wasn't interested??"

You did. Your handle of "proof of God (good.enough@for.me)" indicates that you think that eclipses are proof of a god. Not much room for science once you decide that something's caused by the mystic influence of the Cosmic Muffin.

"Please continue, genius."

Not a problem, Einstein.

"You can start by telling me what the odds are of finding another planet with intelligent life anywhere in the universe,"

BZZZZZZT! Intelligent life has nothing whatsoever to do with eclipses. NOTHING. Anytime you have a planet with at least one moon, where the planet orbits around a sun, you have high potential for eclipses. Other planets in our OWN solar system experience eclipses on a routine basis. The eclipses are no less notable simply because there aren't any green men standing around watching them with welder's helmets on.

"which happens to have a moon that is the perfect size and distance from its sun, so as to create a perfect solar eclipse."

BZZZZZZZZZZZT! What, exactly, is a "perfect" solar eclipse? Are you as totally clueless as you appear? Please define "perfect solar eclipse" so I can prove you to be the ignorant ass you apparently are.

-- You're Not Getting My Wallet (Xtians.are@full.of.it.com), March 07, 2001.

"which happens to have a moon that is the perfect size and distance from its sun, so as to create a perfect solar eclipse."

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Looks like someone needs an extremely basic course in science.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 07, 2001.

Ummm.... Actually... It has been noted that the combination of the moon's diameter and it's distance from earth make it, coincidentally, almost the exact same relative diameter as the disk of the sun as seen from earth. So if you're in the area of a total eclipse, the sun is covered completely, but the corona is still visible. It's a neat, notable coincidance that the disks appear to be the same diameter, but to put that forth as proof of a god is silly in an ironic, retrograde way - eclipses were moments of great religeous celebrations in pre and non-christian societies.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 07, 2001.

"Ummm.... Actually... It has been noted that the combination of the moon's diameter and it's distance from earth make it, coincidentally, almost the exact same relative diameter as the disk of the sun as seen from earth."

However, this ignores events like annular and partial eclipses. Quite often, the moon's apparent diameter is smaller than that of the sun, causing annular eclipses rather than total ones. And in partial eclipses, the moon is 'off center' as compared to the sun, and only a 'bite' gets taken out. In any event, the relative apparent angular diameters of the moon and sun do not make eclipses here more "perfect" than those which could be observed elsewhere.

Our religious associate also ignores the fact that the EARTH causes eclipses on the MOON, an event that also happens regularly with several of the major Jovian moons. I believe it also happens on the two Martian moons, but I don't recall for certain.

"So if you're in the area of a total eclipse, the sun is covered completely, but the corona is still visible."

And a lovely event it is, too. Having witnessed three totalities, I can say that no photograph does the event justice.

"It's a neat, notable coincidance that the disks appear to be the same diameter, but to put that forth as proof of a god is silly in an ironic, retrograde way - eclipses were moments of great religeous celebrations in pre and non-christian societies."

Well said, Bemused.

-- You're Not Getting My Wallet (Xtians.are@full.of.it.com), March 07, 2001.

You're -

"For remember, on the no–God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist."

No. This is totally incorrect. Why would this be so? - I'm not sure. Isn't there some law that states that whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being?

"So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause."

Even if a precursor cause were needed, why would it necessarily be a god? Why could it not be a Big Bang, or a Primordial Egg? - In a sense, I believe in the Big Bang theory...God said it, and Bang - it happened. I haven't really looked at either of these theories, but where did the egg come from? What is there that exists which does not have a cause?

"They can give being only so long as they are given being." -

No, no, no. Again with the bullshit imagery of a willful creator GIVING being to things, even though the existence of a creator is not proven. The writer is dishonest and manipulative. - I don't comprehend what the writer was saying.

"–But that is absurd: all of reality dependent–but dependent on nothing!"

Again, no. Reality may not DEPEND on anything. Reality simply IS. The Argument by Design presumes that no sort of order can exist without intent, and then attempts to convince the hearer that the intent is willful and comes from a deity. However, this argument ignores the very distinct possibility that no willful intervention was required for reality to exist. By definition, reality IS that which exists. So why does that which exists require something to bring it into existence? - I don't know why. I could give some examples of how. What exists that does not depend on something else for its existence?

Tarzan -

ok, just wondering.

Rich -

I do not believe external proof of God can be had. 'God' is a personal experience, IMO. Or rather, one experiences and labels it God - or not. One can testify to their experiences, but this offers no proof. One can attempt - as in the above "Twenty Arguments" - to employ logic. Doesn't work. Tar ripped it to shreds with one hand tied. - How about I blindfold him next time? lol. I'm not so sure one can "prove" God exists either. I just thought it was an interesting article and wanted to throw it out there to see what people have to say about it. I believe God is revealed through conscience, creation, and the completed cannon of scripture. Best - you to

Bemused -

What's a bitmap of a circle? I've heard of a circle being compared to eternity before.

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 07, 2001.

Isn't there some law that states that whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being?

The problem is that we don't know enough about our universe to even point to a beginning to have a cause. Even if you resolved that, you still have the problem of eternal regression.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 07, 2001.

ByGrace --

"I'm not sure. Isn't there some law that states that whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being?"

Maybe there's some religious axiom or some such, but there's no such scientific law of which I am aware.

"In a sense, I believe in the Big Bang theory...God said it, and Bang - it happened."

Why does the Big Bang require a god?

"I haven't really looked at either of these theories, but where did the egg come from?"

It was simply there. Matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed, but that can change form, and can even change into each other. Therefore, the precursor elements (energy and/or mass) must have already been in existence at the beginning of what we know as the universe. Some theorists think that multiple Big Bangs may have occurred, with the universe alternately expanding into being and then contracting into another egg or muffin or whatever you want to call it. Boing, boing, boing, universe created, universe destroyed, universe created, universe destroyed, etc. Doesn't appear to need a god.

"What is there that exists which does not have a cause?"

Pretty much everything in the universe except for that which humanity has created. And if I were being cheeky, I would say that your god has a cause, and that cause was human beings. But I won't say that, because you're being polite. :)

"I don't comprehend what the writer was saying."

The writer is (dishonestly) claiming that all things in existence require cause to exist. Then the writer is claiming that a god was the cause. This is putting the cart before the horse. The writer is ignoring the likely possibility that no cause was behind the existence of the universe.

"I don't know why. I could give some examples of how."

How presupposes why. The why must be answered before the how can be. Does that make sense, or should I try a bit harder to explain that?

"What exists that does not depend on something else for its existence?"

As I said, pretty much everything in the universe.

-- You're Not Getting My Wallet (Xtians.are@full.of.it.com), March 07, 2001.

God created man, and man, being a gentleman, returned the favor.

-Mark Twain

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 07, 2001.

Bitmaps can be thought of as pixilated pictures made of numbers. Your PC saves MS Paintbrush images you create as ".BMP" files, you may have noticed - that happens to be a bitmap.

Take the following block of zeros and draw a circle in it, and then change every zero that line touches into a one. That's a simple binary bitmap of a circle, and that's what they found embedded in Pi in the novel. All of a sudden the random sequence stopped and there was a string of zeros, then a one, another string of zeros, then two ones, etc. Placed in block form every N digits, the circle image appeared.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 07, 2001.

Sorry, the above was for bygrace, responding to:

Bemused - What's a bitmap of a circle?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 07, 2001.

bygrace,

I always appreciate your contributions. Peace to you.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 07, 2001.

How many angels fit on the head of a pin? What is is. Don't sweat it.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), March 07, 2001.

"You're Not Getting My Wallet",

Hey dumbass! You still haven't answered my question! You're not to bright are you?

I'll help you out. There are no other moons in our solar system that even come close to being a perfect fit over the sun when they eclipse it.

Apparently it is too much of a strain on your rabbit turd sized brain to even think about such things, but I'll give you one more chance to redeem yourself since you think you're so fucking smart. I'll ask you again dipshit, dipshit, what are the odds of this happening anywhere else in the universe??

-- (come on smartass @ enlighten. us), March 08, 2001.

Basically, all arguments for the existence of God that I've seen or heard boil down to a few relatively simple categories such as: A) I can't imagine the nonexistence of God, B) I don't want to believe the nonexistence of God even though I can, C) God is what I call anything I can't explain otherwise, D) God is an upward extension of the parent-child relationship, E) God is what I use to lend authority to my telling other people what to do, and so on.

This is not to say that the idea of God is of no value or undesirable. Generally, people function better when they are confident that they have efficient methods for deciding courses of action, and the idea that God has laid out certain rules for living can serve this purpose.

However, different people have different opinions of just which rules for living their God has laid out for them and others. This leads to arguments about the rules (* sigh *). Such arguments sometimes turn violent; less often they lead to the realization that God is just an idea.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 08, 2001.

Re: coincidental near-equality of average apparent angular diameters of Sun and Moon when and where there is an intelligent species to notice it --

Indeed, quite beautiful, and surely relatively rare in the universe. All other moons in our solar system are either much larger or much smaller than the Sun when viewed from their respective planets.

Some of you may know that the Moon's average distance from the Earth is slowly increasing. Over the next some-millions of years, total solar eclipses will become less and less frequent (and annular eclipses more frequent) until there comes a time when the Moon's apparent angular diameter is always less than the Sun's.

The present average near-equality may be somewhat less coincidental than it seems, though. A recent book, "Rare Earth", presents a good argument that a relatively large (about 1/81st of Earth's mass -- all other known moons except Pluto's Charon are _far_ smaller fractions of their planets' masses) moon is necessary to stabilize a planet's axial tilt long enough for it to develop intelligent life. Without such stabilization, the axial tilt of an Earth-like planet would vary chaotically as tectonic changes altered its balance, causing catastrophic changes in climate with each change of tilt. The Moon formed in an orbit quite close to Earth, then gradually moved away over the next 4.5 billion years until now.

According to this theory, the time required for evolution of intelligent life has been roughly the same, within an order of magnitude, as the time required for a large moon to move out to a distance where its apparent diameter is about the same as that of the Sun. But the two times could easily have been 50% or more different from each other; we are indeed quite lucky that the actual difference has been so small in our case.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 08, 2001.

"You're Not Getting My Wallet",

Yes, sock puppet?

"Hey dumbass! You still haven't answered my question!"

I have answered your questions, but I will persist, because it is obvious that I am not going slowly enough.

"You're not to bright are you?"

I'm bright enough to spell "too." How 'bout you?

"I'll help you out. There are no other moons in our solar system that even come close to being a perfect fit over the sun when they eclipse it."

You are wrong. ALL moons are a "perfect fit" over the sun when they eclipse it, depending on where you're standing. However, from a dry- footed perspective, Jupiter's moons Adastrea and Metis are close to what you unscientifically term a "perfect fit." Let's try it this way, bonehead. If the moon were a "perfect fit," then why do annular eclipses (in which a ring of the sun's disk is visible around the Moon) occur? If we were truly looking at a "perfect" fit, then how can such "imperfect" eclipses happen?

Further, the path of the Moon's totality on Earth (when a total eclipse does occur) is rarely wider than 60 miles. Now, 60 miles is a pretty wide shadow. Tell us, nitwit, are "perfect eclipses" bound by law to cast shadows 60 miles wide? Are hundred-mile wide paths of totality imperfect? How about 20-mile-wide paths?

Your problem, stud, is that you really aren't informed on the topic which you strive to discuss. Plus, you're using your ignorance as some sort of desperate proof for your made-up god. Give it up, Dudley.

"Apparently it is too much of a strain on your rabbit turd sized brain to even think about such things,"

Well, it is frustrating to have to explain this so slowly to someone who just isn't getting it, but I'll muddle through. Obviously my explaining skills are just as lacking as your reasoning skills.

"but I'll give you one more chance to redeem yourself"

Save your redemption shit for your imaginary god.

"since you think you're so fucking smart."

No. I KNOW I'm so fucking smart.

"I'll ask you again dipshit, dipshit, what are the odds of this happening anywhere else in the universe??"

Chances of eclipses occurring? Quite excellent! They happen with considerable frequency! Anything else you want to know, just ask! :)

-- You're Not Getting My Wallet (Xtians.are@full.of.it.com), March 08, 2001.

An eclipse is merely a function of orbit and perspective. One body (moon, planet, sun) must have an orbit that coincides with another body's orbit to appear to eclipse it. Of course, as You're pointed out, the eclipse is dependant on the observer's location. For instance, a total eclipse in Brazil wouldn't be visible to observers in Buffalo, unless they had equipment.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 08, 2001.

For instance, a total eclipse in Brazil wouldn't be visible to observers in Buffalo, unless they had equipment.

And this would also indicate that at that particular time, the folks in Rio are God's Children while the Buffaloians live in hell....

Hey, maybe there is something to this!

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 08, 2001.

A slow death in Racine

It doesn't prove anything, but I wonder what the typical person thinks about when they know they are about to die?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 08, 2001.

Tarzan -

Isn't there some law that states that whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being?

The problem is that we don't know enough about our universe to even point to a beginning to have a cause. Even if you resolved that, you still have the problem of eternal regression. - So your answer is no? or we can't know whether or not that is true?

You're - "I'm not sure. Isn't there some law that states that whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being?"

Maybe there's some religious axiom or some such, but there's no such scientific law of which I am aware. - Perhaps there's not. Anybody else know? Speaking of awareness....because a person is not aware of something, doesn't necessarily mean is doesn't exist. Do you believe that it is possible that God exists?

"In a sense, I believe in the Big Bang theory...God said it, and Bang - it happened."

Why does the Big Bang require a god? - By "in a sense," I was referring to when God said, "Let there be light, and there was light." and so on... God spoke things into existence. However, I'm sure my belief is not an acceptable answer for those who don't believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I have no other answer for you.

So why does that which exists require something to bring it into existence? "I don't know why. I could give some examples of how." But even if that which exists did not require something else, why would there be a need for eggs, muffins, boings, or bangs?

How presupposes why. The why must be answered before the how can be. Does that make sense, or should I try a bit harder to explain that? I have no idea if that makes sense or not, but it doesn't make sense to me. I don't promise to understand, but please go on.

"What exists that does not depend on something else for its existence?"

As I said, pretty much everything in the universe. - I don't get this at all. Don't all living things depend on blood, water, food, sun, oxygen,etc. for their existence? And if there were no space, then how could anything exist? Doesn't matter require space? Am I making up laws as I go along?

How about love and hate, good and evil, right and wrong...do you believe they exist? They can't really be proved, can they?

Regarding your handle - I've never belonged a church that asked people for money. It is made clear that if you can't give willingly, then don't give, and "Freely you have received, freely give, " which is also the policy on books and tapes. One church even had a long standing policy - If you give something and you regret it later, then come tell me what you gave and I'll return it to you, no questions asked. Not all churches exist for profit. Maybe most, but not all. Fwiw, I've never been asked, hounded, or encouraged to give money at church.

Bemused -

Well, I have no idea what that meant (surprise surprise), but thanks anyway.

Rich -

I enjoy reading you too.

nemesis -

I don't know. If it weren't so easy to say that, I would be sweating it.

No Spam -

Regarding B (even though they can) - I don't see how one can be thouroughly convinced in their own mind that God exists, that respect is of value, that green is green, etc... If I can't possibly see it any other way, then how could I?

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 08, 2001.

So your answer is no? or we can't know whether or not that is true?

Not in the case of the universe.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 08, 2001.

Lars, what a terrible story. Doctors say that death through hunger and thirst is most painful. They describe the breakdown of the body functions, slowly moving from the extremities to the eventual heart and lungs. I don't like to think about this because that's how my father died. He couldn't speak to us during those final days but he went through denial, then an acceptance. The human spirit is amazing in so many ways.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 08, 2001.

Are there any war vets here? I have never been in battle but I must believe that the experience would profoundly influence one's faith, either pro or con.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 08, 2001.

I should have said "one's faith in a loving God, either pro or con".

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 08, 2001.

(bygrace@thru.faith),

>Regarding B (even though they can) - I don't see how one can be thouroughly convinced in their own mind that God exists, that respect is of value, that green is green, etc... If I can't possibly see it any other way, then how could I?

I'm not sure what you mean -- would you mind restating that?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 08, 2001.

No Spam -

A) I can't imagine the nonexistence of God, B) I don't want to believe the nonexistence of God even though I can

The "even though I can" part is what I'm referring. I don't see how I can imagine the nonexistence of God, because I don't believe I am imagining God to begin with. How can I unimagine what I don't believe to be a figment of my imagination?

Anyone -

bygrace said - What exists that does not depend on something else for its existence?"

You're said - As I said, pretty much everything in the universe.

bygrace said - I don't get this at all. Don't all living things depend on blood, water, food, sun, oxygen, etc. for their existence? And if there were no space, then how could anything exist? Doesn't matter require space? Can someone please tell me why matter would not require space?

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 08, 2001.

(bygrace@thru.faith),

>I don't see how I can imagine the nonexistence of God,

Then your argument is case A), not case B).

Case B) is for people who admit (to themselves, at least) that they are capable of imagining the nonexistence of God, but deny (or try to deny) that capability because they find that possibility unacceptable for one reason or another.

Example: Once a woman, who claimed to believe in the existence of a real God outside of human thought, told me she was struggling to understand a quotation from some historical theologian (name began with A: Aquinas? Augustus?). IIRC the quotation was "Man had to create God so that God could create Man." I told her she'd find that quite simple to understand, even obvious, if I converted her to my point of view. She replied, "Don't destroy my illusions."

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 09, 2001.

AETHEISTS ARE ASSHOLES!!!

-- (GOD@IS.GOOD), March 09, 2001.

No spam - ok, thanks

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 09, 2001.

AETHEISTS ARE ASSHOLES!!!

I don't disagree, but wouldn't it be fair to include the rest of the human race as well? I agree with the "I'm an ass, you're an ass" saying, in the sense that "all haved sinned." Not that I could prove it, but I don't believe anyone is excluded.

GOD IS GOOD.

Yes, He is.

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 09, 2001.

FS - I'd like to clear up an assumption I've made. You said - I KNOW therefore I am God.

I assume you meant that to be a joke. I didn't think you believed yourself to be God. Have you changed your belief? Perhaps I misunderstood your belief altogether. After all, what do you expect from an ass?

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 09, 2001.

(bygrace@thru.faith),

Another interpretation of part of what you wrote:

>I don't believe I am imagining God to begin with. How can I unimagine what I don't believe to be a figment of my imagination?

Let's first agree on what we mean by "imagine". I don't mean "imagine" in the sense of "thinking of something that is not real", e.g., a "figment of ones imagination". What I've meant is that one can imagine something if one can consciously think of a mental "image" (which might consist of elements other than visual - sound, touch, etc., or other-than-sensual (i.e., not of the five senses) entities such as abstract ideas or feelings) of that something.

Forming a mental image is not incompatible with perceving that something is "real". For instance, I not only perceive the table at which I now sit by the senses of sight, touch, and sometimes hearing (when I thump it), I can form a mental image of this table at times when I am not in direct sensual contact. If at the grocery store I met a friend (who had previously seen my table) who asked me where he could buy a table like mine, both my friend and I could be forming a mental image of this table, perhaps even incorporating the property of the table that it has folding legs. My friend might be interested in the table precisely because it has folding, not fixed, legs. He might form a mental image of, i.e., he might _imagine_, how it would fit, with legs folded, into a closet. To "imagine", in this meaning, does not mean that such a table with folded-up legs does not exist in a way that almost anyone would agree was "real".

OTOH, suppose my friend comes from a society that has never accepted or taught to its children the atomic nature of matter. Since _I_ have been taught the atomic nature of matter, I _can_ imagine that the table is composed of atoms and that most of the volume I perceive (with my unaided vision) the table top to have is actually empty space between atoms. I also know that with a sufficiently powerful electron microscope I could see that the table top material was composed of individual atoms with empty space betwen them.

However, my friend will probably find it impossible to imagine that the table is composed of atoms and that most of the table top's volume he perceives (with his unaided vision) is actually empty space between atoms. He _can't_ imagine something that I _can_ imagine, and may object to descriptions of the atomic nature of matter unless and until he undergoes a course of education to bridge the gap between his current scientific knowledge and the atomic nature of matter. But the atomic nature of matter will still be considered "real" by those who have had sufficient education and seen sufficient evidence in that direction.

Anyway, back to what you wrote --

I'm guessing that you mean that you consider God to be "real", existing not only in your imagination (the mental image you form when thinking of God), but also outside the human mind. If not, please correct me.

In that case, I presume you have some additional argument for the existence of God outside the human mind. That is not specifically covered by the five cases I listed earlier. However, my experience from discussions with others is that if we sufficiently analyze your argument for God's reality outside the mind, I will eventually be able to point out (in a manner with which you will eventually agree) how elements of your argument are ultimately composed of cases like A)-E) above.

It should be noted that many arguments for the existence of God outside the mind that I have seen contain errors of logic or fact. Such erroneous arguments can generally be discarded upon analysis of the error, without need for further analysis down to cases such as A)-E).

This also applies to the twenty arguments presented at the link above. Just now I picked a few places at random, and at each case found an error. Example: in "13. The Ontological Argument", "Anselm’s Version" contains "2. 'God' means 'that than which a greater cannot be thought'" and "4. Then a greater than God could be thought ...". But item 4 is a contradiction of item 2 (not of item 3 as Anselm apparently would have us believe), so the argument falls apart right there. If a greater-than-God could be thought, then necessarily, by specific counterexample, "God" does _not_ mean "that than which a greater cannot be thought" and either item 4 or item 2 is false. Items 5 and 6 are invalid because they depend on the simultaneous truth of items 2, 3, and 4, but items 2 and 4 cannot be simultaneously true.

Upon further reading, I find that the authors already acknowledge this: "Another (the ontological argument) we regard as fundamentally flawed ...".

So let's try another. In "3. The Argument from Time and Contingency" is "6. From nothing nothing comes."

Now, that may have been thought true a few decades ago, but modern physics has found that not to be true. The current Standard Model of physics finds that its laws, each experimentally verified, predict that if there existed nothing (such as a theoretical situation just before the Big Bang), space-time, matter and energy would spontaneously erupt from the nothingness because of quantum fluctuations in vacuum energy.

So Argument 3 fails (along with some others) because people have learned that some of their statements are not consistent with reality. I'm not saying that everyone is familiar with the details of the Standard Model of physics, but some people are, and they have discovered that ideas such as "From nothing nothing comes" are not necessarily true.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 09, 2001.

One concise summary of the physics findings to which I refer in my next-to-last paragraph above is:

Nothingness is inherently unstable, and spontaneously erupts into somethingness.

Thus, the Big Bang could indeed have occurred with no external entity to "cause" it.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 10, 2001.

No Spam -

Thanks for your comments. >>>>>But the atomic nature of matter will still be considered "real" by those who have had sufficient education and seen sufficient evidence in that direction.

How do you define reality?

>>>>In that case, I presume you have some additional argument

I do not.

-- (bygrace@thru.FAITH), March 12, 2001.

I have proof that theres a GOD.......Bush won!!!!!GUNS,red meat and pussy 4ever!!!

-- Tommy Deatta (progun@hotmail.com), March 12, 2001.

GUNS,red meat and pussy 4ever!!!

Wasn't that the 11th commandment? I hear Moses was an "editor".

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 12, 2001.

Bygrace --

Regarding scientific laws . . . you said "Speaking of awareness....because a person is not aware of something, doesn't necessarily mean is doesn't exist."

Of course. I admitted that I knew of no such scientific law. However, you should know that no scientific law can exist until the scientific method has been applied and tested. And since I am unaware of any peer-reviewed studies regarding the subject we have been speaking of, I think it is a pretty safe bet to claim that no such law exists. If you are aware of any studies I should be looking at on the topic, then please share them with us.

"Do you believe that it is possible that God exists?"

No, I do not believe it is possible. We can go farther with that here, or we can start a separate thread for the purpose.

When I asked you why the Big Bang would require a god, you said "By "in a sense," I was referring to when God said, "Let there be light, and there was light." and so on... God spoke things into existence. However, I'm sure my belief is not an acceptable answer for those who don't believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I have no other answer for you."

Fair enough. We simply have a difference of opinion and no common frame of reference from which to operate. I appreciate that we can agree to disagree.

So why does that which exists require something to bring it into existence? "I don't know why. I could give some examples of how." But even if that which exists did not require something else, why would there be a need for eggs, muffins, boings, or bangs?

Perhaps you misunderstand the kitchen terminology. The "egg" is what scientists theorize to have been the original energy/mass/something else that formed our universe. We know that the universe is expanding, so it is reasonable to assume that the energy and mass that composes the universe occupied an increasingly smaller volume the farther one goes back in time. Carried to its ultimate extreme, one could theorize that all that energy and matter once occupied a single point in the universe -- and that is the theorized egg. Naturally, we can't prove or disprove its existence, but it is a theoretical construct that adequately explains what we have observed and do know about the universe. It is entirely possible that we may find a better explanation and theory one day, but until then, the "egg" does serve science well.

The "muffin" is a slang term that is sometimes used in a derogatory way to suggest the intervention of an intelligence in the creation of the universe. Basically, it is a snide way of referring to your god.

The "bang" is the event in which the "egg" I discussed earlier began expanding outward. Again, we know that the universe is expanding, so the "bang" would be the actual beginning of that expansion which we observe today.

Some scientists have suggested that the universe cannot expand forever, and that it would eventually begin to contract. Some scientists suggest that the end result of that contraction would be the formation of another "egg," followed by another "bang." This contraction-expansion process is sometimes referred to as the "boing."

At any rate, the "egg," the "bang" and the "boing" are simple terms for processes that cosmologists believe figure prominently in the history of our universe. They don't presuppose a creator; rather, scientists theorize that they would be automatic processes, taking place on their own. Such automatic processes would not need the intervention of a creator.

Regarding "How presupposes why," you said . . . "I have no idea if that makes sense or not, but it doesn't make sense to me. I don't promise to understand, but please go on."

I had asked you why something would require something else as a prerequisite for its creation. You said that you could not explain why, but that you could give examples of how. Okay. The problem with that for of reasoning is that you are generalizing from a specific example to a universal one. You are saying "I can come up with an example whereby a precursor is a requirement for existence," but you are then taking a leap and saying that "since I can come up with an example, then everything that exists must require a precursor for its own existence." You are not looking for exceptions to your generalization -- and an exception would demonstrate that precursors are NOT required for existence. I suspect that the prospect of that would be disquieting to you, as it suggests that things exist that are not dependent on your god for their existence.

"I don't get this at all. Don't all living things depend on blood, water, food, sun, oxygen,etc. for their existence?"

No. There are plenty of living things that do not have blood. Probably some virii that don't require water. There are anaerobic bacteria that do not require oxygen to live. You seem to be confusing "required for life" with "required in order to exist."

"And if there were no space, then how could anything exist? Doesn't matter require space? Am I making up laws as I go along?"

Sure, matter requires space. I am maintaining that space has always been there, and needed no Muffin intervention in order to appear.

"How about love and hate, good and evil, right and wrong...do you believe they exist? They can't really be proved, can they?"

I would say no, they can't be empirically proven. But matters of faith and emotion are not subject to being proven scientifically. That's why scientists usually don't bother trying to prove them.

"Regarding your handle - I've never belonged a church that asked people for money. It is made clear that if you can't give willingly, then don't give, and "Freely you have received, freely give, " which is also the policy on books and tapes. One church even had a long standing policy - If you give something and you regret it later, then come tell me what you gave and I'll return it to you, no questions asked. Not all churches exist for profit. Maybe most, but not all. Fwiw, I've never been asked, hounded, or encouraged to give money at church."

I live in the Deep South, and I see/hear of quite a bit of pushy tithing and outright demands for service and help from congregation members. Perhaps our experiences are simply difficult.

-- You're Not Getting My Wallet (Xtians.are@full.of.it.com), March 12, 2001.

The number of things that require that we ring in a god to explain, has been shrinking rapidly for a couple of centuries now. It need not reach zero for most of us to realize that, in principle, no god is necessary to explain anything at all.

So I'll believe a god is possible in the same sense that I'll believe that a totally massless non-interactive subatomic particle is possible, or that invisible fairies make the flowers bloom. All are irrelevant in principle, and better explanations compete with one another via the scientific process in any case.

Perhaps people are story tellers. They are hardwired to prefer superstitious beliefs to probabilities and random or chaotic processes. It takes an effort of will to suspend belief and accept observation, a greater effort than many can bear.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 12, 2001.

Tarzan, in another thread you stated that two different groups of Christians had hit you up for money recently. Could you please elaborate?

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), March 12, 2001.

YNGMW,

You're upset by "pushy tithing". Does that mean you are 4-5 times as upset by pushy, confiscatory taxation of 40-50%? (total of all taxes)

-- (beingness@nothing.ness), March 12, 2001.

(bygrace@thru.FAITH),

>How do you define reality?

(Ah, yes -- brings back memories of my college philosophy class.)

Defining reality gets tricky around the edges. So I'll just list some things I consider real or unreal.

Real - that which can be objectively, consistently, reproduceably observed independently by multiple people. Example: my apartment building, which many different people have independently observed to exist and have agreed was real. Example: my car, which, although its location and velocity are not as consistent during different observations as my apartment building, has also been independently observed to exist and been treated as real by many different people. Example: instrumentally observable properties of, and changes in, human brain functions.

Real (but nearer the tricky edges) example: human thoughts, in general -- it has long been found that multiple people agree that they experience certain things which they label as "thoughts". In recent times, instrumentally observable properties of, and changes in, human brain functions have been found to correlate with what the persons (whose brain functions were being observed) experienced as "thoughts".

Real example: A particular human thought or idea, _the subject of which is, however, not necessarily real_. Example: the thought or idea of ghosts.

Unreal example: ghosts themselves, as distinguished from thoughts or ideas of ghosts within a human mind. So far, competent investigations have found no evidence that ghosts exist in a manner which can be objectively, consistently, reproduceably observed independently by multiple people. Ditto for vehicles of extraterrestrial origin carrying intelligent extraterrestrial beings.

Real example: thoughts and other mental processes within the brain and perceptive systems of someone who is hallucinating that there is a fire-breathing dragon in the same room as themselves (while such dragon is not observable or detectable in the same room at the same time by other people or by instruments).

Unreal example: the aforementioned fire-breathing dragon, actually existing other than in the mind of the aforementioned someone.

Unreal example: "possession" or "spirits" as causative agents of the aforementioned hallucination.

Real example: neurochemical imbalances as causative agents of the aforementioned hallucination.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 12, 2001.

Ok, No Spam, such a stringent view of reality then begs the questions: What is knowledge? What can you really know? Can you *know* anything beyond personal experience, deduction or experimentation? Are they reliable? If you accept statements about subjects of which you have no first hand understanding as facts, is that knowledge or belief?

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), March 12, 2001.

And what does it mean?

-- Alfie (what's_it_@ll.about?), March 13, 2001.

You're -

>>>>Regarding scientific laws . . . you said "Speaking of awareness....because a person is not aware of something, doesn't necessarily mean is doesn't exist."

I was speaking of awareness, not necessarily your awareness of scientific laws. You admitted to being unaware, and I wouldn't know scientific evidence if it bit me, so I thought maybe someone else would know.

>>>>>>>"Do you believe that it is possible that God exists?" No, I do not believe it is possible. We can go farther with that here, or we can start a separate thread for the purpose.

Who is "we".....you got a mouse in your pocket? :) I'm willing to listen, but I think that's about as far as I could go with it, since as you said, " We simply have a difference of opinion and no common frame of reference from which to operate."

>>>>>> I appreciate that we can agree to disagree.

agreed.

>>>>>>>At any rate, the "egg," the "bang" and the "boing" are simple terms for processes that cosmologists believe figure prominently in the history of our universe.

Thanks for clarifying.

>>>>>>Regarding "How presupposes why," you said . . . "I have no idea if that makes sense or not, but it doesn't make sense to me. I don't promise to understand, but please go on." I had asked you why something would require something else as a prerequisite for its creation.

In addition to "I don't know why," I'll add - I don't know why apart from why I believe. So...I believe - "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (Jo 1:3) I believe what the bible says, so "why" is settled for me. That's all I got...no scientific evidence

>>>>>>You said that you could not explain why, but that you could give examples of how. Okay. The problem with that for of reasoning is that you are generalizing from a specific example to a universal one. You are saying "I can come up with an example whereby a precursor is a requirement for existence," but you are then taking a leap and saying that "since I can come up with an example, then everything that exists must require a precursor for its own existence."

I disagree with that last part, but can see where you're coming from. I attempted to separate logic from faith. I don't think it can be done. Would you agree?

No Spam -

Thanks. My definition of reality is - that which is real. My definition of is is - the act of being. I can't quite understand how "reality is just a matter of one's perspective." If my perspective is how I perceive reality, then my perspective is not reality, since reality does not depend on how I perceive something. I could say my perspective is my reality, ie whatever I perceive is real to me. However, since my perspective is often wrong, my perspective of reality is not reality itself.

Would you put wind in the catagory of "invisible realities?" Do you believe logic can be separated from faith?

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 13, 2001.

Flint, you said--

"The number of things that require that we ring in a god to explain, has been shrinking rapidly for a couple of centuries now. It need not reach zero for most of us to realize that, in principle, no god is necessary to explain anything at all.

So I'll believe a god is possible in the same sense that I'll believe that a totally massless non-interactive subatomic particle is possible, or that invisible fairies make the flowers bloom. All are irrelevant in principle, and better explanations compete with one another via the scientific process in any case.

Perhaps people are story tellers. They are hardwired to prefer superstitious beliefs to probabilities and random or chaotic processes. It takes an effort of will to suspend belief and accept observation, a greater effort than many can bear."

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 12, 2001.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You and Tarz and "no-spam" and YNGMW are superbly bright and educated folks but IMO your cosmology lacks something. I am not articulate enough to say what that "something" is but I truly believe that you are mistaken if you think humanity is approaching a point where "in principle, no god is necessary to explain anything at all".

Maybe I misunderstand you but I interpret your words to mean that human reason, as applied through scientific method, can ultimately (indeed, almost already has) explain everything in the physical universe. I assume you don't claim to explain why children die, why there is love, hate, the human spirit, etc. If you can explain those things, please do.

Even in the inanimate world of physics, you know better than I that yesterday's truth is today's fallacy. Don't you think that much of today's truth will be tomorrow's fallacy?

It's interesting how people see the same things differently. You seem to see scientific knowledge growing ever closer to a theory of everything. I see the same advances broadening our knowledge but simultaneously revealing new mysteries---an outwardly propagating wave of knowledge that has an ever-increasing boundary that constantly exposes new mysteries.

World without end, amen, amen.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 13, 2001.

Don't sell yourself short, Lars. These educated folks have consciously and deliberately rejected even the possibility of a Prime Mover as the explanation for our origins in favor of billions of statistical miracles that just "happened." Which requires the greater faith?

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), March 13, 2001.

Lars:

You raise very interesting points. It's nearly impossible to simplify anything this complicated down to a size that will fit this forum, without going to far and creating an impression not very close to what is intended. I'll try to address your points, at the considerable risk that in being too brief or assuming too much, I'll only make things worse.

[Maybe I misunderstand you but I interpret your words to mean that human reason, as applied through scientific method, can ultimately (indeed, almost already has) explain everything in the physical universe.]

I don't regard everything, or even most things, as already explained. But this does not rule out the notion that everything is in principle explainable without saying "it's magic". When you use magic as an explanation, you really explain nothing. You are only admitting that any useful, practical explanation can NEVER be had. I don't believe any semantically meaningful question cannot be answered in principle. And what does "semantically meaningful" mean? Well, it means we agree on what's being asked, and what constitutes an acceptable answer. As you illustrate here...

[I assume you don't claim to explain why children die,]

For the same reasons that any living creature dies -- trauma and disease. But I don't think you are asking about the biological mechanics of death here -- these are fairly well understood. I think you are instead choosing to phrase a sense of grief and loss as a question when it isn't a question at all. And THEN you are expecting an answer. But this is a semantic trick, like asking how high is up. It's not a semantically meaningful question, it's simply one way of cummunicating a feeling of loss and unhappiness.

[why there is love, hate, the human spirit, etc. If you can explain those things, please do.]

And the same with these. Once again, I don't think you'd be satisfied with an answer that detailed biological responses, organic chemical changes, neural organization, glandular secretions, etc. We can stimulate emotions indistinguishable from love and hate by injecting compounds into known locations in the brain. We can call the gestalt of behavior resulting from such injections "the human spirit", because we have found an epiphemenon, an emergent behavior. Otherwise, your question lacks any real meaning. How can you ask why there is a "human spirit" without any useful definition of what that might be. And trust me, there is no useful definition.

[Even in the inanimate world of physics, you know better than I that yesterday's truth is today's fallacy. Don't you think that much of today's truth will be tomorrow's fallacy?]

Some of it certainly. Some of it certainly not. And we do have ways to assign degrees of certainty to physical truths that have proven very reliable and durable. I think you know that yesterday's truths have not (with some exceptions) been rejected in their entirety. They have usually been expanded, modified, or limited in some way. There are levels of abstration involved as well. We have a theory which, if true in this one respect, means this second thing is likely. And if that's true, then this third thing is likely, etc. So even small changes to fundamental theories have ripple effects, causing things at the ends of the ripple to be discarded. As one example, cosmological theories are so abstract and indirect that nearly any observation is guaranteed to trash some of them. But good observations are damn hard to make. Elbow:

Statistical miracles? We can look around at the way things are, and wonder how they came to be this way. Over the course of time, we have proposed many plausible mechanisms. Of this long list, the explanations of magic (divine creation) and random chance are duking it out for the dubious honor of being the very dumbest proposals ever put forth. Arguing as to which of these boneheaded notions is less likely is like arguing about what kind of cheese the moon is made of.

Meanwhile, we have proposed mechanisms which have the several advantages of being highly likely, observable, and testable. These mechanisms are directed (NOT random), and require no magic. Pretending that only the stupidest two proposals exist, and then adhering to one on the grounds that the other is even stupider, does you no credit. Why do it?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 13, 2001.

Beingness --

"You're upset by "pushy tithing". Does that mean you are 4-5 times as upset by pushy, confiscatory taxation of 40-50%? (total of all taxes)"

I pay taxes because I voluntarily live in this country and so enjoy the benefits of residence here. I don't belong to any religion, and so enjoy no benefits from one (though I'd say there are benefits to that arrangement, as well).

If the government decides it needs more money, then it raises taxes or some damn thing. If a church decides it needs more money, then it begs, wheedles and whines for it. IMO, charity and donations come from the heart, not from pressure and demands. Taxes come from obligations.

Bygrace --

>>>>>>>"Do you believe that it is possible that God exists?" No, I do not believe it is possible. We can go farther with that here, or we can start a separate thread for the purpose.

"Who is "we".....you got a mouse in your pocket? :)"

We as in you and I, or you and I and anyone else who wants to join in. :)

"I'm willing to listen, but I think that's about as far as I could go with it, since as you said, " We simply have a difference of opinion and no common frame of reference from which to operate."

Fair enough. I usually hope to reach that accommodation with religious folks. It is conducive to getting along peacefully.

>>>>>> I appreciate that we can agree to disagree.

"agreed."

And seconded. :)

>>>>>>>At any rate, the "egg," the "bang" and the "boing" are simple terms for processes that cosmologists believe figure prominently in the history of our universe.

"Thanks for clarifying."

You're most welcome.

>>>>>>Regarding "How presupposes why," you said . . . "I have no idea if that makes sense or not, but it doesn't make sense to me. I don't promise to understand, but please go on." I had asked you why something would require something else as a prerequisite for its creation.

"In addition to "I don't know why," I'll add - I don't know why apart from why I believe. So...I believe - "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (Jo 1:3) I believe what the bible says, so "why" is settled for me. That's all I got...no scientific evidence"

I understand your reasoning. I don't accept it, but we have agreed that we just don't have a common frame of reference.

>>>>>>You said that you could not explain why, but that you could give examples of how. Okay. The problem with that for of reasoning is that you are generalizing from a specific example to a universal one. You are saying "I can come up with an example whereby a precursor is a requirement for existence," but you are then taking a leap and saying that "since I can come up with an example, then everything that exists must require a precursor for its own existence."

"I disagree with that last part, but can see where you're coming from. I attempted to separate logic from faith. I don't think it can be done. Would you agree?"

If I read you correctly, then no, I don't agree with you. I think logic and faith have to be separate. Elements of logic can be used to demonstrate the internal consistency of a religion, but in the end, faith is required in order to accept the basic tenets of that religion, and those tenets will not be subject to logical testing and review.

"Would you put wind in the catagory of "invisible realities?"

I wouldn't. I can empirically demonstrate the existence and action of wind using various scientific tools and experiments.

Lars --

"You and Tarz and "no-spam" and YNGMW are superbly bright and educated folks but IMO your cosmology lacks something. I am not articulate enough to say what that "something" is but I truly believe that you are mistaken if you think humanity is approaching a point where "in principle, no god is necessary to explain anything at all".

Sounds like another legitimate difference of opinion. But IMO, you have mischaracterized my position, and perhaps all of ours.

"Maybe I misunderstand you but I interpret your words to mean that human reason, as applied through scientific method, can ultimately (indeed, almost already has) explain everything in the physical universe."

Can eventually do so. Has not yet happened, has not even come close. Has not even explained half of what goes on in the universe. That's where I think you are misreading us.

"I assume you don't claim to explain why children die, why there is love, hate, the human spirit, etc. If you can explain those things, please do."

I think I already dealt with part of that topic, but I'll revisit it, if you wish.

"Even in the inanimate world of physics, you know better than I that yesterday's truth is today's fallacy. Don't you think that much of today's truth will be tomorrow's fallacy?"

Certainly. That's why I didn't make the indefensible claim that we have explained "almost everything in the universe." Science will march on, correcting itself and adjusting its positions. We come closer to truth with each uncovered nugget of knowledge, with each newly discovered scientific property and with each disproven theory.

"It's interesting how people see the same things differently. You seem to see scientific knowledge growing ever closer to a theory of everything."

Absolutely. Don't you? I have known religious scientists who believed that science allowed them to know their god's mind through discovering its handiwork. Do you, as a religious person, not believe that men can do that?

"I see the same advances broadening our knowledge but simultaneously revealing new mysteries---an outwardly propagating wave of knowledge that has an ever-increasing boundary that constantly exposes new mysteries."

So do I. We're always discovering how much we don't know.

Elbow --

"Don't sell yourself short, Lars. These educated folks have consciously and deliberately rejected even the possibility of a Prime Mover as the explanation for our origins in favor of billions of statistical miracles that just "happened." Which requires the greater faith?"

A made-up god requires more faith. We have before us a universe of tremendous complexity. You posit a being of even greater complexity that was required to create said greatly complex universe. Seems to me that believing in the existence of the more complex item would require greater faith. QED.

And if there was a great being that created the universe, then what created the great-being-creator? An even more complex item or being? This is the problem of infinite regression. Far easier and more rational to disbelieve the existence of a god from the get-go.

Flint --

"Statistical miracles? We can look around at the way things are, and wonder how they came to be this way. Over the course of time, we have proposed many plausible mechanisms. Of this long list, the explanations of magic (divine creation) and random chance are duking it out for the dubious honor of being the very dumbest proposals ever put forth. Arguing as to which of these boneheaded notions is less likely is like arguing about what kind of cheese the moon is made of."

Well said.

-- You're Not Getting My Wallet (Xtians.are@full.of.it.com), March 13, 2001.

Who is this "We" you keep referring to? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? This "we" implies some sort of participation on your part. How much original/field/lab research have you done personally? What mechanism(s) have you proposed? Is it published? Talk about semantic tricks. Likewise with the "directed mechanism" euphemism. Simply meaningless semantics.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), March 13, 2001.

Elbow:

Just out of curiosity, have you considered joining KoFE as a tax protester? Except for a few keywords, the arguments are identical. "Positive feedback? Bah, semantic nonsense! Taxes are a fraud!"

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 13, 2001.

Flint,

It must be embarassing for you and your shadow that the mechanism you defended so fervently yesterday is the boneheaded notion of today. Lest you've forgotten which side of the argument you're on, it's the solid case *against* randomness that has forced the evolutionist to propose something else.

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), March 13, 2001.

For the self-proclaimed bigot:

>>A made-up god requires more faith. We have before us a universe of tremendous complexity. You posit a being of even greater complexity that was required to create said greatly complex universe. Seems to me that believing in the existence of the more complex item would require greater faith. QED. <<

There are three errors in your hypothesis. The first you will never figure out, the second is a contradiction in terms from *your own* point of view. Maybe you can guess the third.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), March 13, 2001.

Elbow:

If randomness is such a critical problem for evolutionists, why have none of them bothered to mention they have ever encountered any such problem, at least anywhere I have read.

Could you explain what this problem might be, that nobody else realizes they have? Maybe if they knew they had this problem, they might all change their minds at once and reject their lifes' work. Hey, it's worth a try, right? So, what is this problem?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 13, 2001.

Flint,

If you must resort to such disingenuousness, then we are done here. A mighty lame tactic, but effective in this case. I have intelligent people to converse with.

Later

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), March 13, 2001.

I ask for information and you run off immediately? Uh huh. Why am I not surprised.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 13, 2001.

I ask for information and you run off immediately? Uh huh. Why am I not surprised? I believe you will find the EZboard forum quite chock full of people whose intelligence and convictions you will find congenial. Enjoy.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 13, 2001.

Flint, you don't happen to be know as Ceemeister over at sleazy do you?

-- just wondering (there@are.similarities), March 14, 2001.

"You're not getting my wallet",

"If the government decides it needs more money, then it raises taxes or some damn thing. If a church decides it needs more money, then it begs, wheedles and whines for it. IMO, charity and donations come from the heart, not from pressure and demands. Taxes come from obligations."

You sir are the type of loyal, obediant, slavish citizen that we love here in DC.

Your taxes will be increased next year. Be sure to pay promptly or you will be incarcerated.

Rest assured they will be used wisely. I have an important project in mind---there is a narrow bridge to Chappaquidic island that needs some work.

-- (SenTedKennedy@Moriarity's.Pub), March 14, 2001.

Lars, let me just extend your thinking, if I may. The question isn't why do children die, but more why do children live? If it *is* all random, based on chaos, why do we (human beings) hold on so dearly to life? Why do we bother to try to maintain order? Why do we have laws if it is truly random and in effect meaningless.

Why should we know "right" from "wrong"? Why should we care about the environment? We are here only a short time, not even a blink of an eye in terms of age of the universe. If in the end it doesn't matter what we do, why bother doing anything?

Who cares about good or evil, if no other meaning or cause for the universe exists? And by "cause" I mean any thing beyond our current comprehension, something on a different plane on conscienceness, call it what you will. Lots of questions there with no explanation.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 14, 2001.

"conscienceness" - God made me do it, even though I had reached a higher consciousness about it.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 14, 2001.

Come on folks. Read some of the latest physics books. There are multiple worlds, and there are multiple models of reality.

God is both alive and dead. He is alive in those consiousnesses that believe him to be alive, and dead in those who believe him to be dead.

You really can have it both ways.

-- David Deutch (saint&sinner@multiverse.man), March 14, 2001.

Maria--

Agree, as usual. If I truly thought the world to be as cold and mechanistic as some do, I would have no basis for reverence of anything. Shoot, I have nihilistic tendencies at the best of times.

I believe that our existence is more than mere process and I am glad that I do. I have no proof and some would call such belief a crutch. So be it.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 14, 2001.

Elbow --

"Who is this "We" you keep referring to?"

That depends on the particular passage in question. Sometimes it is the impersonal "we," meaning "people in general." Sometimes it refers to the scientific community in general. Sometimes it refers to atheists. Sometimes it refers to everyone participating in this discussion. Sometimes it refers to me and the person I am addressing. If you're unclear, then feel free to ask me which usage applies. I'll be glad to help you out.

"Do you have a mouse in your pocket?"

I already answered that question. Now you are just being obtuse.

"This "we" implies some sort of participation on your part."

Not necessarily. Depends on the usage. To which specific passage are you referring?

"How much original/field/lab research have you done personally?"

Some. Enough to have it published several years ago.

"What mechanism(s) have you proposed?"

Haven't proposed any.

"Is it published?"

I have published research that is not applicable to this specific discussion. Yes, it is in the ERIC database (or it was, the last time I checked). No, I'm not going to discuss it here, primarily because it doesn't apply.

"Lest you've forgotten which side of the argument you're on, it's the solid case *against* randomness that has forced the evolutionist to propose something else."

T'aint much of a case against randomness. If you think there is one, then please feel free to present it for us all to enjoy.

"For the self-proclaimed bigot:"

Well, I didn't proclaim myself a bigot, but it appears you are addressing me. BTW, your bigotry against atheists is manifest. Put 'er there, fellow bigot!

>>A made-up god requires more faith. We have before us a universe of tremendous complexity. You posit a being of even greater complexity that was required to create said greatly complex universe. Seems to me that believing in the existence of the more complex item would require greater faith. QED. <<

"There are three errors in your hypothesis."

No. There are none. This is the problem of infinite regression, which theists have a great deal of trouble refuting. Essentially, it boils down to theists believing in the existence of something MORE complex than the universe, though they will not accept the existence of the universe without a creator. The simple analysis of that position reveals its inherent dishonesty, to wit: "the universe is too complex to have come into being on its own. However, the infinitely more complex deity that I believe in is NOT too complex to have come into being on its own, and to have thereupon created the universe.

Tell us, Elbow -- if the universe is so complex that it requires a creator, then isn't your posited creator so much MORE complex that IT would require a creator, too?

"The first you will never figure out,"

Mostly because it doesn't exist. Insert quarter, try again.

"the second is a contradiction in terms from *your own* point of view."

Unless you are running Microsoft Telepath for Windows, you don't know what my point of view is. You will have to try harder.

"Maybe you can guess the third."

And if I can't, maybe you can make something up, right? :)

Senator Kennedy --

"You sir are the type of loyal, obediant, slavish citizen that we love here in DC."

And if I lived in Massachusetts, I'd vote your fat, stinking, drunken ass out of office. Drop to your knees and service me, secretary- killer.

"Your taxes will be increased next year."

And I will vote against any lawmakers in my district who vote to increase my taxes. Oh my! Did the sock puppet forget about that? I didn't say that I rolled over for tax increases, child. I oppose them. However, I do pay my taxes. Maybe people like you don't do so.

"Be sure to pay promptly or you will be incarcerated."

Be sure to have another Chivas and soda, Senator. Freshen that drink up for you?

"Rest assured they will be used wisely."

I doubt they will. I like to write letters to my lawmakers and remind them that their constituents are watching. Keeps everybody honest.

"I have an important project in mind---there is a narrow bridge to Chappaquidic island that needs some work."

So do the brakes on your car, Senator. And your driving skills could probably use some work.

-- You're Not Getting My Wallet (Xtians.are@full.of.it.com), March 15, 2001.

YNGMW and any other "atheist" who cares to answer,

Do you believe that life is precious? If so, why? If not, why not?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 15, 2001.

You're -

>>>>I wouldn't. I can empirically demonstrate the existence and action of wind using various scientific tools and experiments.

When I said invisible realities, I was referring esp. to something one cannot see, but also the 5 senses that cannot give evidence for the existence of wind. I include touch because I can't grab the wind and hold on to it. What do you mean by "empirically demonstrate?" Can you demonstrate the existence of wind without measuring the action of it? If you wouldn't classify wind as an invisible reality, how would you classify it....known reality? Or do you believe reality can be known?

>>>>>If I read you correctly, then no, I don't agree with you.

By logic, I mean, "4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty." I can't know something without having faith, nor can I reason, without believing something.

>>>>>I think logic and faith have to be separate

I don't understand this. Could you give me an example? What can you know that doesn't require faith?

>>>>>>Elements of logic can be used to demonstrate the internal consistency of a religion, but in the end, faith is required in order to accept the basic tenets of that religion, and those tenets will not be subject to logical testing and review.

How about something not "religious" .... How about a chair - I must believe a chair will hold me up before I sit down on it. There is no logical testing and review that can be done to make be believe the chair will hold me up. I must choose to believe (whether I'm conscious of that belief or not) that it will hold me up before I sit down. It can't be proved to me that the chair will hold me up, but it will take faith for me to believe that it will.

I'm also interested in your answer to Maria's question. "Do you believe that life is precious? If so, why? If not, why not?"

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 15, 2001.

bygrace:

Never had a chair collapse under you? Most people have. This is called empirical observation. We *trust* that chairs won't collapse, because this is assumed to be inherent in the design and purpose of a chair, and because collapsing chairs are very rare for most of us.

But I knew a guy who weighed 450 pounds. He didn't view chairs the way most people do...

You are confusing faith and knowledge into a semantic garble. The result, as we've seen, is the rather extraordinary argument that scientific knowledge cannot exist! After all, if we doubt what we know, it cannot be knowledge. And if we do NOT doubt, then it cannot be science!

This sort of "reasoning" is only possible when words mean whatever you want them to mean, and they shift and morph about like perspective in a M.C. Escher drawing. If you do this because you are confused, this is OK because confusion can always be cleared up with effort and experience. But if you're doing this (as Elbow does) from deliberate (and highly practiced) dishonesty because you know your position cannot be defended otherwise, then shame on you.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 15, 2001.

Flint, you don't go by the name Ceemeister on another forum do you?

-- romo (romo@likes.it), March 15, 2001.

romo:

No, I don't post on any other forum except for Poole's, and I always use my own name when I post and never any aliases. But If you're talking about the EZboard forum, I'm amazed this Ceemeister hasn't been banned.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 15, 2001.

Flint -

>>>>>> You are confusing faith and knowledge into a semantic garble.

into what? just kidding.

>>>>>>The result, as we've seen, is the rather extraordinary argument that scientific knowledge cannot exist!

I believe there is truth in science.

>>>>>>>This sort of "reasoning" is only possible when words mean whatever you want them to mean,

Or what I think they mean.

>>>>> and they shift and morph about like perspective in a M.C. Escher drawing.

I have this one - http://www.worldofescher.com/gallery/DrawingHands.html

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 16, 2001.

What happened to the "atheists"? No one wants to respond.

OK I'll go first. There are no atheists in the world. Tar, LN, and YNGMW and who ever else responded on this thread and other threads do in fact believe in a "God". They may not believe in organized religion or a particular religious philosophy but they definitely believe in something beyond. I'll try to explain (knowing I can't because no one will respond to my question).

Let's suppose that in fact, there's no cause, no reason for the universe to begin. It just "happened", some random beginning out of some kind of chaos. But of course it turned into order, an order that scientists can explain very nicely. (I personally find this contradictory). So we're here only because of some random sequence of events that lead to just the right temperature, mixture of water and oxygen, and the extinction of species (lots of other things there too). We have the ability to think and rationalize just by some fluke. The dinosaurs didn't rationalize but had instincts which ensured their proliferation. Human beings share these same instincts. Why do we? The atheists (I think, again, no one has answered my question) would say just another fluke. Life instinctively wants to survive. Ok maybe I can accept this. But if there's truly no purpose, no meaning to us being here, then the atheists would steal whatever they want, rape whomever they choose, murder whoever gets in their way with no regard for life and no values whatsoever. Why should we (human beings) have any order when it's all just a fluke? Who cares about life when this is just some random sequence of events? So atheists out there help clear this up for me.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 16, 2001.

There are no atheists in the world. Tar, LN, and YNGMW and who ever else responded on this thread and other threads do in fact believe in a "God". They may not believe in organized religion or a particular religious philosophy but they definitely believe in something beyond.

Since you obviously know more about the beliefs and opinions of everyone on this board better than they themselves, why bother asking any questions at all?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.nett), March 16, 2001.

Maria,

I'm not an athiest, but I'm not very religious. I kind of float between deism (a God or First Cause who somehow started everything, but then splits) and agnostisism. So, I don't know that there's a life beyond this one -- although I have some theories.

But I think that it's precisely BECAUSE there may be nothing beyond this life that I find my life, and others' lives, even MORE precious. So, I passionately savor every moment here (I'd like to think I would anyway, though) ESPECIALLY because it may be all I'll ever get.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 16, 2001.

That's a good point, Eve.

I think each of us has to find a way to imbue our lives with meaning.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 16, 2001.

Eve, never thought of it that way. So, because this is it, no meaning, no purpose, we're here because we're here; let's make the best of it. So, in effect, make it a better place than when we found it? I'm still stuck with why?

Certainly you could have more fun by indulging yourself, not caring about the impacts on others. But (and I'm inferring here) you seem to care about relationships, the interconnectedness of life with no cause for it.

I may be able to understand your personal view but why procreate? Why perpetuate this meaningless environment? You personally may have found "good" in life but the next person may not. The next person may be suffering horrible pain. Could you further explain?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 16, 2001.

Maria:

You have produced one of the more amazing paragraphs I've ever seen. I'll try to disassemble it because you want a response. But you've piled false assumptions so deep I doubt I can get to the bottom of it.

[Let's suppose that in fact, there's no cause, no reason for the universe to begin. It just "happened", some random beginning out of some kind of chaos.]

OK, good starting point. Currently, we consider this most likely, but cosmologists admit they are in the dark. There are precious few useful data, most of which permit a fairly wide range of interpretation. But "we don't know" is an acceptable answer. Most scientists today would rather say "I don't know" than say "It happened by magic, and I refuse to consider any other possibility."

[But of course it turned into order, an order that scientists can explain very nicely. (I personally find this contradictory).]

What do you mean by "it"? Entropy still reigns as much as it ever has; this has not changed. There are local organizing principles (such as life), but these don't reverse entropy by any means. They merely trade more organization here for less organization there, with a total net loss of organization. It (the universe) has never stopped becoming more and more disorderly.

[So we're here only because of some random sequence of events that lead to just the right temperature, mixture of water and oxygen, and the extinction of species (lots of other things there too).]

But this is working backwards. If you toss a pebble in the air, the number of precise locations it could come down is infinite, but the probability of it coming down in *some* precise location is unity. It's not logical look at where it came down, and argue that since the probability of landing precisely there is infinitely small, therefore a miracle occurred! That pebble HAD to come down SOMEWHERE.

Same with "just the right" everything. If things were a different, we would be different as well, and STILL some of us would be marveling at how "just right" everything is! Reality is like that pebble -- it HAD to land SOMEWHERE. The probability of reality being some way is unity. The probability of it being any particular way is infinitesimal, because there is an infinite number of possibilities.

[We have the ability to think and rationalize just by some fluke.]

Again, this depends on what you mean. If you mean, we think the way we do and no other way by some fluke, then I agree. That pebble landed where it did by a fluke, no doubt about it.

[The dinosaurs didn't rationalize but had instincts which ensured their proliferation.]

I'm not sure what this might mean. It's likely the dinosaurs were fairly intelligent, within a fairly wide range. We certainly cannot rule out their ability to learn from experience. After all, we've "trained" most animals to avoid us in the wild, because we tend to kill them. So this is not pure instinct. The dinosaurs may have been at least as intelligent as a pig, for all we know.

[Human beings share these same instincts.]

Which same instincts? We reproduce, to be sure. But instinct seems less influential among human beings, which is a big advantage in some ways (we can outsmart our prey), but a disadvantage in other ways (like a *very* long period of dependent childhood).

[Why do we? The atheists (I think, again, no one has answered my question) would say just another fluke. Life instinctively wants to survive.]

Well, yes and no. Life operates by a feedback mechanism. Organisms that don't survive, don't breed. Organisms that make no effort to survive don't survive. So maybe life itself arose by sheer fluke, but it continues because survival is its own reward, and characterists that tend to promote survival are exactly those which get reinforced as they are passed from one generation to the next.

[Ok maybe I can accept this. But if there's truly no purpose, no meaning to us being here, then the atheists would steal whatever they want, rape whomever they choose, murder whoever gets in their way with no regard for life and no values whatsoever.]

Now this is plan and simple absurd! We've already decided (haven't we?) that one of our purposes here is to breed more of us. This means we'd better stay alive to do so! And when we look at the rest of life on earth, none of which (to our knowledge) has evolved any religion or even needed to, we find that none of it just randomly goes around behaving this way.

So values can be powerful, useful and probably necessary, *without* any need to base them on the local brand of superstition. Athiests also like to live safe, interesting, rewarding lives. So the values we've evolved are a quid pro quo -- the golden rule is *practical*, and not religious in nature. And why does life lose its purpose or meaning without superstition? This description of how "athiests" ought to behave is hilarious. We can SEE that they do not do so.

[Why should we (human beings) have any order when it's all just a fluke? Who cares about life when this is just some random sequence of events? So atheists out there help clear this up for me.]

We have order because we like it. Because it makes life comfortable. Because it provides a structure within which we can better achieve our various goals, whatever they might be. Because events are not random, we can control many of them to our own advantage. We don't NEED to dream up some imaginary being who then turns around and tells us what we invented him to tell us. We already KNEW that in the first place.

Maria, we don't need to dream up a ritual of leaving teeth under the pillow, and create a tooth fairy to come during the night and trade a coin for a tooth. But this charade amuses our children, and provides some "meaning" for them to help them through the painfull process of losing all their teeth. Eventually, they outgrow it and recognize that the tooth fairy charade was simply a means of conceptual assistance, much like Santa Claus. If they grow up all the way, they realize that the Christian God serves the same purpose, for people who need it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 16, 2001.

Maria,

You've opened up incredibly vast vistas for discussion here, but in the hopes of at least getting a post in today, I'll dribble (yeah -- the terrific finishes to those games last night are still hangin' with me :)) out a few thoughts...

[So, because this is it, no meaning, no purpose, we're here because we're here; let's make the best of it. So, in effect, make it a better place than when we found it? I'm still stuck with why?]

I guess I don’t understand the question. Why do we need a “why”? Life just “is”. I mean, for example, if we knew that the answer to “why” was because “well, that’s the way God wanted it”...how would this answer be any more satisfying (other than we were being ‘cared for’)?

[Certainly you could have more fun by indulging yourself, not caring about the impacts on others. But (and I'm inferring here) you seem to care about relationships, the interconnectedness of life with no cause for it.]

Actually, I have far more fun indulging in activities that (while primarily for myself) either don’t harm others or make them happy.

[I may be able to understand your personal view but why procreate? Why perpetuate this meaningless environment?]

For the sheer, indescribable joy, awe and wonder that it brings me.

[You personally may have found "good" in life but the next person may not. The next person may be suffering horrible pain. Could you further explain?]

Believe me, Maria – my life has its share of problems. And I’ve suffered terribly in the past. I guess the thing that helps is that when I’m suffering I take special care to review and focus on all of the good things in my life, and it helps to take some of the pain away. (having been blessed by a few wonderful friendships have helped me here as well).

But the next person (or myself again someday) may be suffering unbearable, unrelenting pain. What then? This has happened to me (emotionally), too – a couple of times almost up to a year or so. But I know others have suffered, and are suffering worse -- at least physically -- and, as far as I know, probably emotionally too -- than I ever will. I have some things to say on how we might persevere, or when IMO it might finally be time to say “goodbye” -- but in terms of “why”, though, Maria -- I don’t have any answer for this. What would YOU say?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 16, 2001.

The probability of reality being some way is unity. The probability of it being any particular way is infinitesimal, because there is an infinite number of possibilities.

This has to be one of the most succint, yet insightful, statements of yours that I have ever read.

There is one statement of yours that I'd like to address. You said, "...the golden rule is *practical*, and not religious in nature."

I think it's worth pointing out that the so-called golden rule is universal among human society.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 16, 2001.

Flint,

OK you begin with "we consider this [chaos?] most likely...but we don't know" and end the second paragraph with "the universe has never stopped becoming more and more disorderly. Just trying to understand here, so here goes, we have disorder, get order ("organizing principles") then become more and more disorderly. Are you suggesting a cycle?

"That pebble HAD to come down SOMEWHERE." Exactly and because of the order of things, gravity, (and the other variables in our mathematical expression), the pebble landed. Hope I'm communicating here. We have order; we have a way of explaining physical properties; earth, moon, stars rotation around gravitational bodies. So these "random" sequences have order, can they really be random? Another example, we have a random drawing of lottery numbers and some numbers have to be selected. But there's order there, "cause and effects", not chaos. The numbers have been randomly (now I realize that was a bad word to choose) selected but based on an orderly manner of behavior.

"The probability of reality being some way is unity" Not arguing that. And I'm not "marveling at how just right everything is". Just that things happened because of order, not chaos. We explained physical causes and effects through our understanding of behavior of matter, time and space. From my point of view, it doesn't matter where we are, just that we got here through order.

Don't agree that "there is an infinite number of possibilities" of getting someplace. I think it's finite based on the laws of physics, our understanding of order. "That pebble landed where it did by a fluke, no doubt about it." No it didn't. There was only a finite number of places it could land based on the law and order around us. It followed laws to come to rest on the ground. My statement [We have the ability to think and rationalize just by some fluke.] was not so much a declaration but more of a question. Now I think you answered it (at least to me). It's not at all a fluke.

I didn't mean to try to measure the dinosaurs' intelligence, just that they had the instinct for self-preservation and to perpetuate the species, something that we humans share. And basically ask why? Why do we have these instincts? Your explanation, though somewhat clinical, does state, "So maybe life itself arose by sheer fluke, but it continues because survival is its own reward" Hmmm

You seem to believe in "fluke" for convenience. Survival is its own reward because? Wouldn't survival also be a fluke, some survive, some don't, no order, just flukyness (Sorry I'm creating my own words)

"We've already decided (haven't we?) that one of our purposes here is to breed more of us."

I haven't decided that. That's my whole question in "do you value life". I'm asking why? Why do we want to breed? That can't be one of the purposes when we have NO purpose (a stand from the atheists side, I think).

"Athiests also like to live safe, interesting, rewarding lives. So the values we've evolved are a quid pro quo -- the golden rule is *practical*, and not religious in nature. And why does life lose its purpose or meaning without superstition?" I'll ignore your opinion on absurdity. Please explain the "practical". Why is it practical? And also if you don't need to have a "superstition" for a meaningful life, then explain the meaning and purpose of life.

"We have order because we like it." No, we have order because there is order in the universe (that's with a captial O). And I can further ask why do we "like" order?

"Because it provides a structure within which we can better achieve our various goals, whatever they might be." Why? Why do you have goals? Goals that do what, just end within a certain timeframe? What's your ultimate purpose? (I guess that's with a capital P)

"Because events are not random, we can control many of them to our own advantage. We don't NEED to dream up some imaginary being who then turns around and tells us what we invented him to tell us. We already KNEW that in the first place." No comment, you're getting into religious grounds here. My stance purposely ignored "organized religion or a particular religious philosophy. I'm getting at very specific questions. I don't even want to call it God.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 16, 2001.

Maria,

This might help to clear some things up. I haven't read it in detail yet, and I KNOW it couldn't possibly answer all your questions (it's way, way too brief), but it appears to be a very good introduction to a relatively new (this century), very illuminating system of ethics.

Also, since I haven't yet seen the whole thing, I may disagree with parts of it; so please don't yet assume this is my system too. First off, my system includes benevolence as a virtue, and I'm not sure if that's covered here.

A Reality-Based Ethics

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 16, 2001.

(bygrace@thru.faith),

>My definition of reality is - that which is real.

Well -- that's dictionary-circular, and doesn't tell anyone else how you decide what's real and what's not.

>I can't quite understand how "reality is just a matter of one's perspective."

Sometimes it's just a catchy phrase used to avoid substantive discussion. Other times, it might refer to a situation such as I mentioned above where one person knows the atomic nature of matter but another doesn't, and it could be argued that those persons have two differing definitions of reality in regard to whether the atomic nature of matter is significant or not.

>If my perspective is how I perceive reality,

I see what you mean, but let's not confuse "perspective" with "perception".

I'd say that your perspective is the point from which you receive your perceptions of reality.

If one is at the North Pole, one sees only half the sky (astronomically speaking) all the time, whereas if one is at the Equator, one sees the whole sky during the course of a day (or in the course of a year, if one is considering only the nighttime sky).

In isolation, a person always at the North Pole might consider only the constellations in the northern celestial hemisphere to exist, to be real. But if that person has communication with others who can view the other half of the sky, that person might expand his/her conception of the reality of the sky to include the southern constellations.

So part of one's perception of reality consists of the communications one receives from other people who have other perspectives, and therefore possibly other perceptions.

Where I wrote earlier: "Real - that which can be objectively, consistently, reproduceably observed independently by multiple people", I was implicitly referring to communications one receives from other people with different perspectives. How can I know what other people objectively, consistently, reproduceably, and independently observe? By my perception of communications I receive from those other people, directly or indirectly.

I've never actually operated an electron microscope, but I've perceived enough communications from other people, independently but consistently, to convince me that electron microscopes do exist and that photographs alleged to be of very small objects viewed through electron microscopes are truly so (setting aside considerations of deception).

Part of my acceptance of such indirect observations is based on their consistency with my direct obse4rvations. I do have a telescope, and my direct observations through it are consistent with those reported in reputable astronomical publications. So I trust that other observations communicated to me through the same or similar channels also are genuine, even though I may be unable to personally verify those observations directly with my own telescope.

>reality does not depend on how I perceive something

Okay -- in one sense I agree.

But in another sense (and that's what leads to lots of confusion in discussions like this -- different people use different senses of their words sometimes), anyone's reality _must_ depend upon the combination of their perceptions and their internal thoughts, because they have nothing else with which to work. I think the table at which I'm sitting is real, but if I were blind I would not have seen it, only felt or heard it, and my concept of the reality of the table would significantly differ from that of a sighted person.

Or, let's use a real, not hypothetical example:

According to communications I have received from other people starting in childhood, I have a partial color-vision deficiency.

I see, and can distinguish between, thousands of colors and tints and shades (which is why I'm not using the misleading term "color blindness" which might lead others to think I do not see thousands of different colors, tints, and shades). But according to what I've read and heard from other people, including vision tests I've taken, my visual perceptions of colors in the red and green portions of the spectrum are weaker than those of most people, and most people see even _more_ thousands of different colors than I do.

I can see red (that is, what I've been taught since childhood was "red"), but it's almost never a "bright" color to me, as at least some shades apparently are to most people -- ditto for green. Grass looks green to me, but blood isn't red (real blood, that is -- some blood drive posters _do_ use a bright-even-to-me shade of red, but I've never seen real blood that's that color). Sometimes, I have to carefully study and compare two different colors in order to distinguish between them, while most other people can tell them apart at a glance. My sister used to kid me about confusing light pink with light blue. When driving, I have to be careful to pay attention to traffic lights because the red and green colors look dull to me and do not readily catch my attention in peripheral vision.

So my personal direct color vision perception is not the same as those with full color vision. And my perceptions are _real_. But I accept that the majority view differs from mine (that's a pun, son), and so I do not write to my legislators to lobby for a different choice of traffic signal colors. I accept that outside of my mind the color scheme of things appears different to other people, and so I have developed habits to compensate for some of that difference insofar as it affects me ordinarily. E.g., when talking about colors I avoid making assertions about colors I know I perceive weakly. E.g., when shopping for clothing, I readily ask other people for advice on colors. I avoid wearing clashing colors, insofar as my knowledge allows me to, even though I think it's all kind of silly, because I've found that other people make rude remarks when I wear certain combinations that look fine to me. Such things are part of my reality (and a small percentage of other men's, and a very small fraction of women's, realities).

>Would you put wind in the catagory of "invisible realities?"

Well, wind is real. Though air is transparent, the effects of wind are almost always visible because it moves opaque objects such as leaves and hair and clouds. I suppose wind is invisible when there doesn't happen to be anything opaque that it's moving in my field of vision.

>Do you believe logic can be separated from faith?

Well, "logic" and "faith" are not synonyms, so, sure, they can be separated. But I see by your comments to "You're" that your intent is more complicated. If I'm to respond further, we'll have to have a more well-defined question.

- - -

In response to comments you addressed to "You're" rather than me:

>but also the 5 senses that cannot give evidence for the existence of wind.

Of course they can!

>I include touch because I can't grab the wind and hold on to it.

But you can feel the pressure on your skin, and that's "touch". Surely you've _felt_ wind if you've ever been outdoors, so it is perceptable to at least one of your five senses.

>What do you mean by "empirically demonstrate?"

On a windy day, sit next to a window and hold one arm out through the window while keeping the other arm inside away from the window. Surely you will perceive differences in how your two arms feel.

>Can you demonstrate the existence of wind without measuring the action of it?

See above.

Or if you're going to argue that any perception of feeling is a measurement, and any observation of visible objects moved by the wind is a measurement, and any perception of the sound of wind passing by your ears is a measurement, then I suppose you can boil down the definition of "wind" to "moving air" but disallow any perception of such motion as a measurement.

>If you wouldn't classify wind as an invisible reality, how would you classify it....known reality?

Some real things are invisible, but is that more meaningful than that some real things are unsmellable, some real things are nontasteable, some real things are unfeelable, or that some real things are unhearable?

Are you using "invisible" as a synonym for "unknown"? Please don't -- that just leads to confusion.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 16, 2001.

Eve, I wanted you to expand on the "it may be all you get", "nothing beyond". I guess I don't see the connection to why you consider life precious. I also think you're saying that life's too short, so make the best of it, make it count. Well, would you feel the same way if we lived four hundred years, a thousand years? What I'm asking, is there a time limit for your feeling that life is precious? And to go even further, what if we lived infinitely?

"well, that's the way God wanted it"...how would this answer be any more satisfying (other than we were being 'cared for')?" No way. Personal belief here, I don't follow any organized religion; I think that there isn't one out there that I would agree with totally and I don't have the time to research them all. So I have my own views of who God is and the laws of nature. I wasn't soliciting an answer even remotely close to God wanted it. Call it the universal one, the total consciousness, the thing beyond our grasp that doesn't want or even remotely have human emotions and needs, feelings, desire, just is, in all of us, nature and life. Sorry can't explain it any more than that without getting really wordy.

"For the sheer, indescribable joy, awe and wonder that it brings me." Sorry I'm trying to understand again. Why do you extract so much you? Why is life precious? What is this instinctive "thing" we humans have to value life? Where does it come from? How did we get it? How did it come out of the chaos (I don't believe in the chaos, just assuming the atheists' belief)?

Sorry to hear of your sufferings but we all do, I think, to some degree or another. And I too focus on the good. But why do we do that? I think again it goes back to the self-preservation and the value we place on life. Just trying to understand where this comes from.

Just saw your link, been busy, I hope I can get to it today, thanks.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 16, 2001.

Lars,

>You and Tarz and "no-spam" and YNGMW are superbly bright and educated folks

Thank you. Feel free to write my nym as "No Spam" or "NSP" (without the quotes) as most others do.

>IMO your cosmology lacks something. I am not articulate enough to say what that "something" is

My guess is that the "something" is religious faith or belief. You're entitled to your opinion.

>but I truly believe that you are mistaken if you think humanity is approaching a point where "in principle, no god is necessary to explain anything at all"

Well, as I wrote earlier in this thread, the idea of "God" (or "god") is useful to refer to a certain category of thoughts and ideas that many people have. But I have seen no convincing argument that a god exists other than as a set of ideas within human minds.

>I interpret your words to mean that human reason, as applied through scientific method, can ultimately (indeed, almost already has) explain everything in the physical universe.

The scientific method is one of the most effective ways ever found to avoid fooling ourselves.

Religion and the scientific method often wind up opposed because religion involves a lot of fooling oneself.

As for explaining "everything in the physical universe" -- there's a long, long way to go. But reason can explain more than some religions want to admit.

>I assume you don't claim to explain why children die,

Yes, we do. Flint said it well.

>why there is love, hate, the human spirit, etc. If you can explain those things, please do.

Flint's response was good.

Alternatively:

There is "love" because the English language has defined "love" to refer to certain things. We could call those things "asdfn", but that's not what the English word is.

Ditto for "hate" and "human spirit".

>Even in the inanimate world of physics, you know better than I that yesterday's truth is today's fallacy.

No.

Yesterday's truth becomes today's special case of a more general truth.

Newtonian physics in not fallacy; it's a special case of relativistic physics. Relativistic physics is more general, covers more situations, than Newtonian physics.

>Don't you think that much of today's truth will be tomorrow's fallacy?

No.

I think much of today's truth will be tomorrow's special case of a more general truth.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 16, 2001.

Maria, what questions! What wonderful stuff for my ravenous appetite for contemplation and introspection! Seriously, this stuff, just a half-hour nap and a good cup of coffee or two, and I'd easily be good for an all-nighter. DOING PHILOSOPHY, that is. (No jokes from the peanut gallery, now. :))

Unfortunately I'm going to be a little busier tonight, but I'd love to take 'em all on if you've got the time and the patience -- probably piecemeal, if that's ok.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 16, 2001.

LBO Grise,

>in favor of billions of statistical miracles that just "happened."

Perhaps you misunderstand either the nature of statistics or the statistics of nature.

When oxygen molecules are in proximity to hydrogen molecules, there is a statistical distribution of probabilities, depending on various factors, that they will interact to form a water molecule (and release energy).

If I have a one-liter or quart flask in which there is one oxygen molecule, two hydrogen molecules, and nothing else but vacuum, and put the flask in a freezer, it might be a very, very long time -- perhaps millions of years, on average -- before those molecules react to form two water molecules.

If I move the flask from the freezer into sunlight, the expected average time for the reaction will be shorter -- perhaps only a hundred years -- because there is more energy impinging on the molecules.

If I add 10^20 oxygen, and 2x10^20 hydrogen, molecules to the flask in sunlight, then the expected average time until there is a chain reaction producing a cloud of water vapor (and an audible pop) drops to a small fraction of a second. In fact, it's very, very, very close to certain that this will happen within one second. You could run this last case every second of your life and be 99.9% certain that you would never, ever, in your lifetime see the reaction take more than one second.

It's not faith; it's arithmetic.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 16, 2001.

Eve, Me too. So if you'd like to start another thread, great. Or you could e-mail me at maria947@hotmail.com

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 16, 2001.

LBO Grise,

Can you please supply a link to a Web page that presents what you consider to be a "solid case *against* randomness that has forced the evolutionist to propose something else"?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 16, 2001.

LBO Grise,

Whoops. I hadn't noticed your first set of questions addressed to me.

>Ok, No Spam, such a stringent view of reality

I gave examples of reality and unreality, but not limits to either. Why do you consider my view of reality to be "stringent"?

Do you consider any of the following to be real? (A) ghosts, (B) fire-breathing dragons, or (C) "possession" or "spirits" as causative agents of hallucinations.

>begs the questions: What is knowledge? What can you really know?

Mighty broad topics. If what I've written previously does not imply satisfactory answers to you, can you please pose more specific questions?

>If you accept statements about subjects of which you have no first hand understanding as facts, is that knowledge or belief?

Could be either.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 16, 2001.

NSP,

No, I have no link, but in response to your previous post I ask:

Given optimal conditions: material, energy, environment; What is the statistical probability for the formation and replication of a DNA molecule? Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), March 16, 2001.

NSP--

I partly misspoke. I agree that today's truth often becomes a special case of tomorrow's truth. Newtonian physics is a good example. At one time, the "best and brightest" thought that Newton had freed us from superstition by revealing a predictable, clockwork universe. An entire ethic was built upon Newton's universe until Einstein and Bohr showed that Newton's laws were only approximations to a greater truth. A useful approximation nonetheless, an approximation that remains in use today and has allowed us to build airplanes and almost every machine that moves.

Yet many perceived truths do not evolve into special cases of larger truths. Medical discoveries come to mind. "Modern" psychiatry in the 30s and 40s considered lobotomy surgery as state of the art. Now it has all the status of trephining.

I am blabbing on and forget my intended point. It had something to do with my being in favor of searching for scientific truths and measuring them when possible but also being humble enough to realize that finite minds cannot totally comprehend the infinite universe (you do agree the universe is infinite?).

Yes, what is missing for me in materialistic cosmology is Faith. Thank you for granting me entitlement to my opinion. Likewise, I grant you entitlement to yours. If the theory-of-everything is determined in the next 20 years (my lifetime), I will issue a public acknowledgement of the brilliance of linear thinking.

Please know that I am selling nothing. I would be happy to acknowledge whatever is.

PS--memory fails. Are you from Menonomee Falls?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 16, 2001.

LBO Grise,

>Given optimal conditions: material, energy, environment; What is the statistical probability for the formation and replication of a DNA molecule?

100%.

Happens in each of our bodies thousands of times a day.

(You wrote "optimal" -- did you intend something else, or did you mean to put limits on the material, energy, or environment?)

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 16, 2001.

Lars,

>It had something to do with my being in favor of searching for scientific truths and measuring them when possible but also being humble enough to realize that finite minds cannot totally comprehend the infinite universe

Of course.

>(you do agree the universe is infinite?).

The observable universe is very large, but finite. However, for most everyday purposes it's close enough to infinite to be considered so.

I like the theory that outside our observable universe are an infinity of other universes, each a sort of bubble in a cosmic froth. Scientific American magazine had an article on this a couple of years ago. As the theory goes, each bubble comes into being with its own Big Bang and has its own randomly generated set of natural constants. That is, the gravitational constant, charge of an electron, Planck's constant, and so on, just pop up with different values in each bubble. In all but a teeny tiny fraction of cases, the combination of values of natural constants does not allow the formation of atoms or anything resembling normal matter or space-time (i.e., an "unlucky" universe), so the bubble simply collapses an instant after its formation. Once in a while, a viable universe forms and expands such as ours has. Once in a while in one of those whiles, the conditions allow the formation of life (a "lucky" universe). We're in one of those "lucky" universes simply because we would never have come into being in any "unlucky" universe. Utterly unprovable theory AFAIK, but interesting.

>Yes, what is missing for me in materialistic cosmology is Faith.

Or else, the cosmologies to which you refer have not included a "materialistic" definition of Faith that was satisfactory. I would say that "faith" refers to a certain set of ideas, with such-and-such definitions and delimitations, but prefer not to try constructing more detail now.

>the brilliance of linear thinking.

But many scientific advances have been the result of _non_linear thinking -- e.g., the guy who figured out the configuration of the benzene ring in a dream.

>Are you from Menonomee Falls?

Yes

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 16, 2001.

NSP,

>>I gave examples of reality and unreality, but not limits to either. Why do you consider my view of reality to be "stringent"? <<

If your point was to contrast one with the other, then you have indeed set limits, else how do you tell them apart? But that's just nitpicking. My impression is that your "reality" must be measurable, or capable of being sensed directly. By "stringent", I meant "narrowly defined".

>>Do you consider any of the following to be real? (A) ghosts, (B) fire-breathing dragons, or (C) "possession" or "spirits" as causative agents of hallucinations.<<

Though I've never seen or experienced either, let's say I keep an open mind regarding (A) and (C) with caveats, but have serious doubts about the existence of (B). Grouping (A) and (C) together as "spirits" or "spiritual influence", I think they could be "real" or "unreal" depending on how you choose your definition, but still exist in either case.

>> >If you accept statements about subjects of which you have no first hand understanding as facts, is that knowledge or belief?

Could be either. <<

That's rather equivocal. Do you have any examples in mind?

In a court of law, such a condition is inadmissible as "hearsay" for good reason. When would this not be true?

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), March 16, 2001.

NSP,

>>Happens in each of our bodies thousands of times a day.<<

That's poor, NoSpam. I will rephrase for your benefit.

(You wrote "optimal" -- did you intend something else, or did you mean to put limits on the material, energy, or environment?)

Given optimal conditions: material, energy, environment; What is the statistical probability for the *initial* formation and replication of *the first* DNA molecule?

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), March 16, 2001.

Maria,

>What happened to the "atheists"? No one wants to respond.

(*pant* *pant*) I'm catching up as fast as I can. :-)

>Do you believe that life is precious?

I can think of more than one definition of "precious" that might fit. Can you restate or expand upon this, please?

>who ever else responded on this thread and other threads do in fact believe in a "God".

Not except as I stated previously.

>they definitely believe in something beyond.

Beyond what? I don't believe in the supernatural.

>Let's suppose that in fact, there's no cause, no reason for the universe to begin. It just "happened", some random beginning out of some kind of chaos.

As I wrote earlier, it appears that the natural laws of physics as presently understood in the physics community would inevitably have lead to the creation of the universe, given an initial condition of nothingness.

>But of course it turned into order, an order that scientists can explain very nicely.

Well, scientists have observed various kinds of order.

>(I personally find this contradictory).

I'm not saying you _have_ to study physics, but if you did you might find that the seeming contradiction disappears.

>So we're here only because of some random sequence of events that lead to just the right temperature, mixture of water and oxygen, and the extinction of species (lots of other things there too).

Well, yes, in a sense. But "random" does not mean "nonsensical". In my example of oxygen and hydrogen reacting to form water, there is a small "random" probability that three particular molecules will get together in such a way as to react within one second, but given a large enough collection of molecules in sufficient conditions, the individually random occurrences add up to so close to a certainty as to not be distinguishable from 100% for all practical purposes.

>We have the ability to think and rationalize just by some fluke.

Not exactly. We are the result of evolution and natural selection in which the ability to think and rationalize was survivally advantageous for some of our ancestors. And the nerve structure of the brain is the way it is because of the combination of properties of various substances. Maybe a "fluke", but a fluke constrained and driven by the total combination of properties of the natural world.

>The dinosaurs didn't rationalize but had instincts which ensured their proliferation. Human beings share these same instincts. Why do we?

You've answered your own question -- those instincts ensured proliferation. Animals lacking such instincts didn't leave progeny.

That is not to say that the only way to become extinct is to lack instincts for proliferation. Having the wrong adaptations or specializations to survive environmental changes is another way.

>The atheists (I think, again, no one has answered my question) would say just another fluke.

No. See preceding response.

(You sound eager to declare that atheists are not answering your questions, without your having waited very long for we busy atheists (no God to help, you know ;-) to post such answers. Take it easy.)

>Life instinctively wants to survive.

Yeah. Life lacking such instinct tends to leave fewer progeny than life that does have such instinct. Sorry - repetitious.

>But if there's truly no purpose, no meaning to us being here,

Wait a minute!! Just two sentences earlier you declared that life has an instinct to survive!! That's purpose.

Life is what reproduces itself. Nonlife is what doesn't.

Now, the number of different ways in which life can reproduce itself is very, very, very large -- each species represents a different way.

Do you have an instinct to survive or not? If you do, you have purpose and meaning. If you don't, who's posting with your name?

>then the atheists would steal whatever they want, rape whomever they choose, murder whoever gets in their way with no regard for life and no values whatsoever.

That statement is slanderous propaganda, not a supportable conclusion from facts. Did you get that from some anti-atheist source?

First you say life has an instinct to survive, then you say some life, with whom you have certain philosophical differences, has no regard for life. You're contradicting yourself.

>Why should we (human beings) have any order when it's all just a fluke?

Please post a clear definition of what you mean by "fluke", keeping in mind that by your own words your "fluke" led to human life with an instinct for survival.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 16, 2001.

LBO Grise,

>That's rather equivocal. Do you have any examples in mind?

Well, some acceptances of statements about subjects of which one has no first hand understanding as facts might be knowledge, but others might be beliefs.

Examples: you go first. Give us a couple of examples of acceptances of statements about subjects of which one has no first hand understanding as facts.

>In a court of law, such a condition is inadmissible as "hearsay" for good reason. When would this not be true?

Dunno. I have no formal legal education.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 16, 2001.

LBO Grise,

>Given optimal conditions: material, energy, environment; What is the statistical probability for the *initial* formation and replication of *the first* DNA molecule?

Sincerely, the answer is still "100%". If it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here.

My education and reading about a variety of scientific subjects has led me to conclude that the initial formation and replication of the first DNA molecule did not require the existence of God, if that's what you're getting at.

During just my lifetime, a wide variety of organic molecules has been discovered to be present in various extraterrestrial places in our galaxy and others. Amino acids have been found in meteorites (and yes, the scientists studying those meteorites were well aware of the potential for contamination by earthly amino acids after the meteorites landed and were sincerely trying to determine whether the amino acids they found were of extraterrestrial origin). Amino acids are precursors to nucleic acids. Early Earth had millions of years and millions of cubic kilometers of environment in which amino acids arriving via meteorites (not to mention those formed on Earth) could percolate into nucleic acids.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 16, 2001.

NSP, sorry for jumping in before an “atheist” could answer. You've been busy! :)

Why do you believe life is “precious” (fill in whatever definition you wish)?

>who ever else responded on this thread and other threads do in fact believe in a "God".

>>Not except as I stated previously.

Sorry I missed it. Please restate. It may be exactly what I’m trying to drive at. And do you consider yourself atheist?

>they definitely believe in something beyond.

>>Beyond what? I don't believe in the supernatural.

Beyond our current body of knowledge. Is that your definition of supernatural? As Lars pointed out above, we can’t think infinitely with our finite mind. (Sorry Lars, I paraphrased from what I remembered of the quote.)

>>As I wrote earlier, it appears that the natural laws of physics as presently understood in the physics community would inevitably have lead to the creation of the universe, given an initial condition of nothingness.

I agree with this. So you believe in order not a chaotic initial condition or you disagree with this scientific stand?

>(I personally find this contradictory).

>>I'm not saying you _have_ to study physics, but if you did you might find that the seeming contradiction disappears.

Do you mean that the laws of physics say that order can come out of chaos? I’m coming from the term chaos, no cause, as in how the universe began. (I thought I read that in one of the earlier posts)

>We have the ability to think and rationalize just by some fluke.

>>Not exactly. We are the result of evolution and natural selection . . .

Not disagreeing with evolution. I was starting with the premise (that I thought I read from the atheists) that the beginning of the universe was random, chaos, no cause. This lead to order, which lead to thinking rationalize humans. Initial situation “fluke”, current situation us.

>>You've answered your own question -- those instincts ensured proliferation. Animals lacking such instincts didn't leave progeny.

I can agree but where’s that first life form with this “instinct”. How that form acquire this instinct?

>Life instinctively wants to survive.

>>Yeah. Life lacking such instinct tends to leave fewer progeny than life that does have such instinct. Sorry - repetitious.

I apologize for the same. How did this first come into being?

>>Wait a minute!! Just two sentences earlier you declared that life has an instinct to survive!! That's purpose.

That’s not THE purpose. Just because through some kind of learning ability, the strong survive, doesn’t imply that’s our purpose, one of survival. Survival to what kind of ultimate end (last I looked we were still mortal)? To become dust or worm food? How did this first survival instinct initiate itself? Again what is the meaning and purpose?

>>Life is what reproduces itself. Nonlife is what doesn't. Yes, and how did we happen into the reproductive column? How did this “instinct” for life start? I certainly understand how it evolved but it’s that initial condition that’s unclear. Unclear from an atheist standpoint. From my standpoint it’s God, the universal one, the whatever you want to call it.

>>Do you have an instinct to survive or not? If you do, you have purpose and meaning. If you don't, who's posting with your name?

I value life; I believe in something beyond our grasp of knowledge with all the answers. The atheist doesn’t believe in this “something”. People who value life, value life for a reason beyond this instinct that we discussed above, are not atheists. This life that they value is the “something” beyond, the purpose for life, the meaning for life. Did you follow that? I may not be explaining but I’m in a hurry.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 16, 2001.

Maria:

No, I'm not suggesting any kind of cycle. I believe you are unclear about what physicists mean by "order". Physicists consider order in terms of energy concentrations. So for example oil is relatively orderly, even though it might not look it. When we use the energy in oil to produce all kinds of neatly ordered products, we are actually spending more energy than our local bits of order (the products) represent. The result is a net loss. Always.

So energy is becoming increasingly diffused. We can "steer" this process to local order and advantage, but the process is irreversible. If it were not, we'd have perpetual motion.

[So these "random" sequences have order, can they really be random?]

They are not random. Large celestial bodies become spheres because a sphere requires least energy to maintain. Bodies orbit the way they do because orbital motion requires least energy to maintain. There is definitely a pattern here. Spheres orbiting in circles are maximizing disorder! To a physicist, "order" isn't the same as straightening up your room.

[The numbers have been randomly...selected but based on an orderly manner of behavior...Just that things happened because of order, not chaos.]

No, not quite. The universe is running down, has been from the start (however it got started), and always will. We can cleverly take advantage of local energy and potential gradients to produce the local appearance of order. It really *is* order, here and there and temporarily. The price we pay is accelerated diffusion of energy potential.

I mentioned oil for a reason. Almost no alternative energy sources produce more energy than they consume extracting that selfsame energy. What's fooling you is the *use* of the energy. What we constantly strive to do is take energy in a form we can't make good use of, and waste MOST of it so that the remainder is useful to us. We are spending a dollar's worth of otherwise useless energy to buy a dime we can actually spend. And you are pointing to that dime and saying "Look! Order!", while ignoring the 90 cents we blew buying that dime.

[There was only a finite number of places it could land based on the law and order around us.]

False. The number of places was infinite. Think about it.

[You seem to believe in "fluke" for convenience. Survival is its own reward because? Wouldn't survival also be a fluke, some survive, some don't, no order, just flukyness (Sorry I'm creating my own words)]

Nope. Survival selects for itself. So the "instinct for self- preservation" leads to survival in much the same way that studying hard leads to good grades. But as John Muir wrote, nature is careless of the few and careful of the many. Not everyone who studies hard gets good grades.

[Why do we want to breed? That can't be one of the purposes when we have NO purpose (a stand from the atheists side, I think).]

This is semantic confusion. We want to breed because creatures that do so survive while creatures that don't breed die off. Over a few billion years of this life-and-death struggle, the winners are the baddest, breedingest muthas nature can concoct. Nor do athiests claim life has no purpose. Life is neat and fun, potentially rewarding. I suspect the search for something in life beyond living a satisfying life lies in the fear of death, and the desire to somehow wish death away.

[Please explain the "practical". Why is it practical?]

Because it works. Regardless of your religion of philosophy, this simple policy (the golden rule) tends to consistently produce the greatest good for the greatest number. It does so for athiests as well as theists.

[explain the meaning and purpose of life.]

I can't explain yours, this is for you to decide. My life seems to me to have plenty of meaning and purpose. I have goals, and preferences, and values that suit my purposes quite well. I don't need the conceit of some overriding Order or Purpose or whatever to make my life more meaningful. In my experience, these concepts have no percepts, they don't relate to anything. I'm perfectly content to accept that things became the way they are by chance, by a sequence of accidents and coincidences and forces beyond my knowledge. And so what? We are born, we live, we die. We make the best of this, and some of us are more satisfied than others, and some are luckier than others. I might well be the luckiest man on the face of the earth. I often think so.

And I certainly don't need to believe that any part of me will survive my own death. I'm in no hurry to die, but I don't fear it either.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 16, 2001.

Maria,

Just the Cliff's Notes version of the Cliff's Notes for now...:)

[Eve, I wanted you to expand on the "it may be all you get", "nothing beyond". I guess I don't see the connection to why you consider life precious. I also think you're saying that life's too short, so make the best of it, make it count. Well, would you feel the same way if we lived four hundred years, a thousand years? What I'm asking, is there a time limit for your feeling that life is precious? And to go even further, what if we lived infinitely?]

I really think I would feel the same way no matter how long life was – but you’d have to explain the infinite thing. I mean, would we be indestructible?

It’s not an issue of how long or how short life is. The crucial point is that it’s a one-time shot; it’s what we’re familiar with, and it contains every element for a potential, ultimate, and lasting happiness – but the ONLY kind of happiness we know anything about. Given this -- and even assuming those setbacks, frustrations, pain and suffering that’s a natural part of all of our lives – I guess I don’t get it -- what other kind of overall, unknown “existence” (unlike “life”) could we want or expect?

[Why is life precious?]

I could tell you why it’s precious to me, but the post would probably take hours to write, and it would be emotionally draining for me. I’ll try to come up with something relatively short and get back to you on it – either on the forum, or through e-mail.

[Where does it (I assume life’s preciousness) come from?]

I think that my answer to the above would give you some pretty good insight, at least to where it comes from within myself.

Are you also asking where it comes from as part of our nature? In other words, why do we, as humans, regard anything at all as precious?

[I too focus on the good. But why do we do that? I think again it goes back to the self-preservation and the value we place on life.]

I think you just answered your own question! And brief, yet excellent answers! The self-preservation and life-as-the-ultimate- value premises that we hold are really at the root of it all.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 17, 2001.

Flint,

[There was only a finite number of places it could land based on the law and order around us.]

False. The number of places was infinite. Think about it.

No, not at all infinite. It couldn't land in China. It couldn't land on the space probe. It couldn't land in Jupiter. I've name places where it couldn't land. It could only land actually in that very spot that it did land, based on trajetories, wind calculations, speed, gravitational pull and the laws of physics.

I appreciate the physicists' definintion of chaos and I guess I chose the wrong word. Again I was basing my answer to why is life precious on some of the posts above, trying to take the atheists stab at this answer. It's not necessarily my view. You've told be why you think life is precious to you. Does that mean you don't believe that life is precious in and of itself? (I know you have to give me your view of it but I'm trying to take the "i" out of the question)

Eve, (I knew you would be able to tackle the question :)

Are you also asking where it comes from as part of our nature? In other words, why do we, as humans, regard anything at all as precious?

Exactly the question.

I've been thinking the self-prevservation thing. It's a clinical answer to the question. OK we survive. Survive for how long? Not even a blink of an eye in geological time calculations. We can't avoid the inevitable; we will die. And further, based on the fact that 99% of the species that ever walked the earth, we as a species will die.

So what's the big picture? What is our goal or purpose? Simply to survive for a second in time and that's it, dust again. I look forward to your thoughts.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 17, 2001.

Sorry, And further, based on the fact that 99% of the species that ever walked the earth are now extinct, we as a species will die.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 17, 2001.

Maria,

In terms of whether or not I think this is all there is, I was wondering if you saw the following that I posted on the Board a few months ago. I've been batting this around in my head for a while. What do you (and anyone else here please feel free to chime in) think?

(By the way, I definitely have more to say on your topic in general)

Anyway, here's the post...

My theory of reincarnation may not be original -- I don't know. I do know that there's a theory out there called "eternal recurrence" that stems, I believe, from Nietzsche that may be similar -- although I haven't investigated it in any reasonable depth.

Keep in mind that this is rather loosely put together; in fact, I'm sure you'll find holes in it. But I'm enthralled by the possibilities.

Anyway, here we go, starting with some definitions, postulates, premises 'n' stuff...

1) I'll use the term "existence" to mean everything that exists;

2) Existence is eternal -- no beginning and no end;

3) There is a finite amount of matter (including energy) within existence;

4) There is nothing "outside" existence; or at least no "matter" outside of it;

5) The matter continually changes position and acts on other matter within the universe;

6) Matter neither comes into, nor goes out of, existence;

7) It follows from the above, then, that all of eternity consists of different arrangements of matter;

8) And that since existence is eternal, there is an infinite number of arrangements;

9) But, since the amount of matter is finite, the arrangements will eventually repeat themselves -- and repeat them selves an infinite number of times;

Now note that, given the above, all of existence which includes the relatively tiny window of the existence of the earth would represent one specific chain of arrangements of matter. Since our bodies are matter, our lives are a part of this particular sequence of arrangements. Our souls may be separate entities of matter in the form of energy. If so, they're subject to the same laws as solid matter.

Given the above, we're destined to not only live the same lives over and over again an infinite number of times, we'll also live everyone else's life (since souls and bodies would be interchangeable, being different forms of matter) and all other possible lives. A never- ending number of times.

Oh, oh...this means I'll have to sit through the Ice Capades again...and again...

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 17, 2001.

...we'll also live everyone else's life ... and all other possible lives. A never- ending number of times.

So at some point I'm going to have to be Don King. Well, that's just great. Can I at least change my hair?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 17, 2001.

Maria:

[False. The number of places was infinite. Think about it.

No, not at all infinite. It couldn't land in China. It couldn't land on the space probe. It couldn't land in Jupiter. I've name places where it couldn't land. It could only land actually in that very spot that it did land, based on trajetories, wind calculations, speed, gravitational pull and the laws of physics.]

False again, you did not think. There is an infinity of points on any straight line of finite length. This is straight math. Even within a single square inch (or area of ANY nonzero size) on a plane, there is an infinity of locations. Please think this through.

But the important point was that we cannot work backwards, a stunt Elbow is trying to pull once again (I see), by trying to "calculate" the odds of a given molecure that exists today. He is equating DNA to that pebble's location, and based on a logical blunder deciding both must have been caused by a miracle! Once again, the probability of reality being SOME way is unity. You can't logically argue that since the way it is is infinitely unlikely, a miracle must have happened.

A moment's thought tells us that in that case, reality is powered by an infinity of miracles every instant! That entails some real heavy- lifting belief, all of it unnecessary.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 17, 2001.

NSP,

>>Sincerely, the answer is still "100%". If it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here. <<

Wrong on two counts. By your logic, it is equally valid for me to assert that God created us; if He hadn't, we wouldn't be here. Secondly, the probability of "heads" when flipping a coin is 1 in 2 regardless of the actual outcome. The probability of the spontaneous formation of a DNA molecule is the product of probabilities for each of the material components and the probabilities for factors such as environment and energy. That probability is vanishingly small. It is indeed a statistical miracle.

>>During just my lifetime, a wide variety of organic molecules has been discovered to be present in various extraterrestrial places in our galaxy and others. <<

I must disagree again. There may be *indications* or *evidence* of organic molecules in "our galaxy and others" but you'd be hard- pressed to obtain the molecules themselves.

>>Early Earth had millions of years and millions of cubic kilometers of environment in which amino acids arriving via meteorites (not to mention those formed on Earth) could percolate into nucleic acids. <<

It's a huge leap of complexity from amino acids arriving via meteorites to DNA. But if amino acids, why not DNA via meteorite? If it hadn't happened that way, we wouldn't be here, right?

That one word "percolate" hides a tremendous quantity of unknowns as well. Surely you have evidence that there were millions of years of the proper stable environment and the correct amounts of energy and elements conducive of the formation of DNA? What exactly are the conditions required anyway? Do you have the recipe?

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), March 17, 2001.

Bemused, LOL! Hey, though -- don't fret too much -- just tough it out. I mean things could be worse. You could be his wife.

Oh, wait. You will.

Um.....good luck.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 17, 2001.

Eve, I remember that thread, that would be cruel and unusual punishment. Joking aside, we end up with entropy i think.

Flint, False again, you did not think. There is an infinity of points on any straight line of finite length. This is straight math. Even within a single square inch (or area of ANY nonzero size) on a plane, there is an infinity of locations. Please think this through.

That what's I expected from you. The answer depends on how you define the variables. Of course, there are an infinite number of rational numbers between zero and one. But how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Stop dancing around like a fool. If you had given that answer to your professor in college he would have marked you wrong smarty pants. The integral from negative infinity to positive infinity of any pd function in math is always one. But you don't have to measure all the variables. You can narrow your answers. The probability that the thing lands at a certain point within a certain CEP (circular error probability) is one. I don't consider that infinite. The integral for the finite range (even though it's a continuous pd) is one. I don't care that there are an infinite number of rational numbers within that finite range. Mathematians would never consider a finite range infinite.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 18, 2001.

Maria,

I had said,

“Are you also asking where it comes from as part of our nature? In other words, why do we, as humans, regard anything at all as precious?”

You replied,

[Exactly the question…I've been thinking the self-prevservation thing. It's a clinical answer to the question. OK we survive. Survive for how long? Not even a blink of an eye in geological time calculations. We can't avoid the inevitable; we will die.]

Well, in geographical time calculations, anything short of infinity is, at least relatively speaking, the “blink of an eye” – right? I really think the focus should be on the QUALITY of our lives – not the QUANTITY. Further, once we can really focus on this aspect, I believe all our useless worries about how old (or young) we are will naturally fade away.

I don't know, Maria...maybe my cup's half full; yours is half empty? You indicate that you will (we all will) die; while I practically can't seem to keep from shouting "I'm alive!"

You said,

[And further, based on the fact that 99% of the species that ever walked the are no extinct, we as a species will die.]

I don’t agree at all. The human being is the ONLY species that survives by the use of his/her REASON. So I have every confidence (barring global nuclear war or other sudden worldwide catastrophe) that we’ll continually think our ways through most, if not all, problems or threats that might arise.

For instance, sometime before the sun burns out, I think we’ll probably have found a way to harness the power of the sun to heat the earth.

You said,

[So what's the big picture? What is our goal or purpose? Simply to survive for a second in time and that's it, dust again.]

What do you mean by “big”? Quantitatively, how “big” would something have to be to qualify as “big? Qualitatively, I see the “big” picture as right here. We’re living it.

And our "goal" or "purpose" is simply the fulfillment of our lives, in the process allowing others (or in certain cases helping them to achieve) the fulfillment of theirs. What could be more natural than that?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 19, 2001.

Eve I finally got around to looking at the site you posted above. Great words!

These ethical systems are usually quite vague. They argue that an act is evil (or at best morally neutral) if it is performed for one's own benefit. They teach that an act's moral value is in proportion to how far from one's own benefit one's motivations in performing the act are. In fact, as Rand observed, the word `selfish' has become nearly synonymous with evil.

This is sorta what we've been discussing the "I" part of survival versus the global part of survival. Religion has "forced" a belief that if we don't make sacrifices then there's no salvation for us. Hence, the guilt or sin associated with selfishness. Does this imply that atheists do not have guilt for selfish interests?

The fact of reality involved here is that man's survival is not a given; it is not based upon automatic reflexive responses. Man must use his mind, and this process is volitional. . . . . If the results of a man's choices did not matter at all, that is, they did not affect a man's state (or survival), he would have no need of morality. . . . To make choices, one must have a standard of value.

Man has a choice to survive or not survive. The bolded text above is the basis for my "defeatist" attitude about the atheist. I mean, that we will die so the choices don't matter and we have no need for morality. Eve, I can understand that you feel our species may live but eventually, the sun will die and so will we. But that's a different topic. Moving on the values.

Man possesses no built-in instinctive survival mechanism. He must use his mind to survive. There is no place on earth where a man can survive without exercising his volitional consciousness. Even in a jungle free of predators filled with delicious fruits for the plucking, a man must still decide that when he is hungry, he will eat. He must direct consciously the process of picking the fruits and must put them in his mouth. He must decide which promote his health and which do not.

The exercise of mind is a uniquely individual process. Competence comes only with prolonged use, continued feedback from reality, and after a long `apprenticeship' called childhood. Man cannot survive by species reflex alone. Men possess no group consciousness. Every new idea arises in an individual mind.

I think man does have a group consciousness. We get the feedback from reality and the impacts of our actions on the universal, not just individual. Also I'm not so sure that new ideas arise from individuals. I think that we can tap into this group consciousness. Ever wonder why you and a friend have the same thought? You can complete your SO's sentences. I think its because of this group consciousness and we're more in tune with some individuals.

Justice is the virtue of evaluating people's conduct and character accurately and objectively and rendering to each person what he deserves, what he has earned. Justice is rationality in one's affairs involving others -- adherence to reality in the sphere of interpersonal relationships. Karma balances. This is so extremely based in God.

The moral code of Objectivism is based on objective reality. It states that the process of determining man's `proper values' is the scientific process of determining what is of value to a man. Pleasure is a corollary of moral conduct, that is, it automatically flows from achieving values. One's choice of what one considers one's values, however, cannot be based on pleasure; the dependency runs precisely in the other direction. What is the process of determining the value to man? Why do we do good? What is this scientific process? It comes from within, from God.

I agreed with this article but found that it did not "prove" or show that morality can not be based on the existence of God. The author still didn't provide an answer, why do we have this morality or ethics or value. What is this "reality"? Right, we think for the good of man. But why? It doesn't disprove the ultimate basis for objectivism could be the existence of God. "Only because God can't be proven, then it is not reality" is sidestepping my question. The rational system of ethics is because of God, not necessarily religion but God. I don't see that God and science are in conflict. Let me explain my point of view.

God is interwoven into the fabric of life. We value life because it is the life force, not a part of our four dimensional world but into our very being, beyond our consciousness, beyond our five senses. It (not he, God has no gender) is the total conscience of the universe in every aspect of being. We're all a part of it; not just I but the universal. It drives us to have morals based on a rational system. It is the little voice in us, telling us right from wrong, providing us the values for our choices. It doesn't care what we choose. It is the justice system for interpersonal relationships. Karma keeps track of the rights and wrongs. My God doesn't damn you to eternal hell if you make the wrong choices but that justice (or Karma) will balance your wrongdoing. We rationalize based on this "objective reality" or objectivism because we sub- consciously know of this underlying fabric which I call God. If we do something selfishly we may have a temporary satisfaction from it. But if it doesn't promote the good of nature, then we don't continue.

http://www.origins.org/truth/1truth12.html

It states that the reason atheists don't believe in God is because they desire personal satisfaction with no guilt.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 19, 2001.

Maria,

>Why do you believe life is “precious” (fill in whatever definition you wish)?

Okay. Let's say "valuable" is a synonym for "precious". I believe life is valuable because I am living and because I depend on other living things for my sustenance. I believe life is valuable from an academic perspective because it has been found that there are so many wonderful aspects of life that were not known as recently as a few hundred years ago. I believe life is valuable for other reasons I am not going to take the time to detail now.

>>>Not except as I stated previously.

>Sorry I missed it. Please restate.

"God" is one of the ideas that exist in human minds. "God" does not exist outside of minds.

>do you consider yourself atheist?

When filling in forms, usually my answer to "Religion" is "humanist". I consider myself to be in the atheist category.

>>>Beyond what? I don't believe in the supernatural.

>Beyond our current body of knowledge.

Some people define "God" as whatever they can't explain otherwise (category C in my first March 8 posting). I don't.

Do I believe in something beyond our current body of knowledge? Yes, of course. I'm sure there's lots more to know than we do now. During just my lifetime I've seen many, many things pass from the category of "beyond our current body of knowledge" to the category of "within our current body of knowledge".

(Taking your question a step further) Do I believe in something that will be forever unknowable (to people)? Yes, there will always be something unknowable -- one of the remarkable and wonderful things about mathematics is that mathematicians have _proved_ that there are always some theorems that cannot be proven or disproven within any given framework of mathematics. (How can they prove that? Well, I've seen and understood the proof, and anyone else with sufficient mathematics background can, too. It was an interesting part of one of my junior-year college math classes. If you have sufficient mathematics background, you'll know how to look it up on the WWW or in some textbook.) So _just in the particular field of mathematics, not to mention other fields of knowledge,_ there will always be something unknowable. But I think calling that God is silly and not useful.

>Is that your definition of supernatural?

The supernatural is what is considered to have some properties that do not conform to natural laws. I don't think any such thing exists in reality, though they can be imagined.

>So you believe in order not a chaotic initial condition

Order can exist within what is commonly known as chaos, and vice versa. Maybe it would help our discussion if you defined what you mean by "chaos" and "order".

Until you provide us explanations of what you mean by "fluke" and "chaos", I'm generally responding as though "random" and "randomness" were satisfactory synonyms.

Quantum physics has at its core a "randomness". That is, each particle or wave exists as a probability distribution. An unstable nucleus might fission in the next second, or not for a billion years, and _there is no way_ of exactly predicting how long it will take -- the best that can be done is a probabilistic distribution.

Does this fit in your idea of "chaos"?

>or you disagree with this scientific stand?

Which scientific stand?

>Do you mean that the laws of physics say that order can come out of chaos?

Yes.

>I’m coming from the term chaos, no cause, as in how the universe began.

If you mean that "chaos" means "no cause", then maybe I'll have to revise or extend some of my previous answers.

"as in how the universe began" -- Well, some people think there was no "cause" for how the universe began. Other people think there was a cause.

As I wrote earlier, the current physics consensus is that our universe started as a Big Bang which was caused by the combination of the properties of nature (as represented by the laws of physics) and the initial conditions (i.e., no space, time, matter or energy existed except for vacuum energy).

>I was starting with the premise (that I thought I read from the atheists)

I think you're making a mistake if you're treating all atheists' views as though they were all part of some "atheist" religion. I don't necessarily agree with someone else's views just because that person hs labelled "atheist".

>I was starting with the premise that the beginning of the universe was random, chaos, no cause.

Well, if that's what you want to believe ... But it's not the only existing premise for the beginning of the universe. If you're assuming than any "atheist" agrees with that, just because some other "atheist" thinks it, you're going to keep running into communication difficulties.

>beginning of the universe was random, chaos, no cause. This lead to order, which lead to thinking rationalize humans. Initial situation “fluke”, current situation us.

One problem here is that _the details of what you mean_ by "random", "chaos", "order", and "fluke" may differ significantly from what I mean by them. It would help if you would present some more extended explanation of what you mean by each of those ideas.

>where’s that first life form with this “instinct”. How that form acquire this instinct?

The "instinct" is simply a reference to the collective properties of organisms that cause them to "live", that is to ingest food, expel wastes, procreate, and so on. Amino acids have the properties that they hold themselves together better than other types of molecules, and have more ability to catalyze the formation of more molecules like themselves than most other types of molecules. When they got together to form nucleic acids, these living properties were enhanced. As nucleic acids became more complex, their living properties got better and better (because the ones with better living properties survived and propagated themselves better than other molecules). Along the way, the amino/nucleic acids developed the ability to surround themselves with subordinate types of molecules to help protect them (e.g., cell walls. At some point in this process, there was what we would now call a cell - a unicellular organism.

At what point in this process do you want to assign a "living instinct" to the organism?

>That’s not THE purpose. Just because through some kind of learning ability, the strong survive, doesn’t imply that’s our purpose, one of survival. Survival to what kind of ultimate end (last I looked we were still mortal)? To become dust or worm food? How did this first survival instinct initiate itself? Again what is the meaning and purpose?

What sorts of purposes will you allow as answers to your questions, and what sorts will you disallow?

>Yes, and how did we happen into the reproductive column?

Study modern biology, and find out. I wrote a brief summary above, but have to refer you to the modern writings of other scientists for the details. Browse back issues of Scientific American or other leading science publications for more detailed outlines.

>How did this “instinct” for life start?

See above.

>I certainly understand how it evolved but it’s that initial condition that’s unclear.

Well, scientists are learning more about those initial conditions as the years go by.

It is not widely known to many people that studies of the rocks brought back from the Moon by the Apollo astronauts have played a key role in our current understanding. From them, we have learned a lot about the timing of early events. For example, we now know that the Moon formed when an approximately Mars-sized planet hit the early-Solar-System Earth 4.6-4.5 billion years ago and some of the debris knocked loosed from the Earth coalesced into an orbiting body that is our Moon. We now know that both the Earth and Moon underwent an intense bombardment by other objects during the period from 4.5 billion years ago to 4.0 billion years ago.

>Unclear from an atheist standpoint.

Your biases are showing.

>From my standpoint it’s God, the universal one, the whatever you want to call it.

So does that mean that your idea of God boils down to my category C of my first posting in this thread: "C) God is what I call anything I can't explain otherwise"? :-)

>I value life; I believe in something beyond our grasp of knowledge with all the answers. The atheist doesn’t believe in this “something”.

You seem eager to belittle astheists, or at least to declare that atheists are more limited in some way than theists.

>People who value life, value life for a reason beyond this instinct that we discussed above, are not atheists.

Gee, I hope that isn't merely a parroting of religious propaganda.

It kinda sounds like religious propaganda, rather than a conclusion carefully drawn from consideration of facts.

>Did you follow that?

Yes, I think so.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 19, 2001.

LBO Grise,

>Wrong on two counts. By your logic, it is equally valid for me to assert that God created us; if He hadn't, we wouldn't be here.

Nope, not equal. We can reproduceably and publicly demonstrate the formation of DNA from lesser units in a laboratory. You cannot do so for your theory with God. My theory can be proven; yours cannot. They are not equal, and mine has more evidence supporting it than yours does.

>Secondly, the probability of "heads" when flipping a coin is 1 in 2 regardless of the actual outcome.

More precisely, _before_ one flips a coin, the probability of heads is 1 in 2.

_After_ the coin flip, the probability of whichever side landed up is 100%, and the probability of whichever side landed down is 0%.

>The probability of the spontaneous formation of a DNA molecule

is 100% because it already happened.

But let's continue with the understanding that we are discussing our ideas of what the probabilities were _before the formation of any DNA molecule_, if that's what you mean.

>is the product of probabilities for each of the material components and the probabilities for factors such as environment and energy. That probability is vanishingly small.

The probabilities may have been thought to be vanishingly small at one time.

But during the last half of the 20th century, it has been found that those probabilities were much higher than formerly thought, so much higher as to almost reach inevitability on early Earth.

>There may be *indications* or *evidence* of organic molecules in "our galaxy and others" but you'd be hard- pressed to obtain the molecules themselves.

You don't trust science much, do you?

The spectral signatures of organic molecules are quite distinct and can be precisely measured in laboratories then compared to the spectra of light from extraterrestrial sources, using various instruments. There have been thousands of exact matches, and there is no known explanation other than that the observed spectra came from light emitted or absorbed by the identified organic molecules.

Can _you_ provide an alterative explanation (that the organic molecules are _not_ out there) that is consistent with the known facts?

>It's a huge leap of complexity from amino acids arriving via meteorites to DNA.

Laboratories are currently constructing DNA from amino acids. The physical conditions required are well within the conditions that existed on early Earth, according to current knowledge.

>But if amino acids, why not DNA via meteorite?

Maybe someday we'll find some. It's not impossible.

>If it hadn't happened that way, we wouldn't be here, right?

Wrong. As I've pointed out previously, DNA could have formed in the conditions thought to have been present on Earth four+ billion years ago, without the intervention of meteorites.

I cited the meteorite findings to show that there is direct evidence for existence of extraterrestrial organic molecules.

>That one word "percolate" hides a tremendous quantity of unknowns as well.

Of course. So do did the blank spots on maps of Antarctica, before satellite mapping, that is.

>Surely you have evidence that there were millions of years of the proper stable environment and the correct amounts of energy and elements conducive of the formation of DNA?

Since you are rightly skeptical of taking my word for it, I'll refer you to sources you can investigate for yourself -- check the back issues of Science, Nature, and similar scientific publications in your public or university libraries. (I'll throw in a plug for a recent book: Read "Rare Earth" for an overview.)

>What exactly are the conditions required anyway?

See the publications to which I referred you above, or look for answers on the Web. If you refuse to do so, you are willfully hiding from the answers to your questions.

> Do you have the recipe?

For more detail than I've already given, I'd have to refer to a large number of books and other sources I've read during my adult life.

If you are sincere in wanting the recipe, you can find it in scientific publications.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 19, 2001.

Maria,

I had a look at http://www.origins.org/truth/1truth12.html

I noticed that much of its arguments fit in my category D) "God is an upward extension of the parent-child relationship." Is that part of your view, too?

>It states that the reason atheists don't believe in God is because they desire personal satisfaction with no guilt.

... and the obvious comeback is that the reason theists do believe in God is that they desire personal satisfaction with no responsibility.

Come on -- let's have some deeper thinking here.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 19, 2001.

Ah caint get no satisfackshun.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), March 19, 2001.

Interesting thread, but it takes about 10 refreshes for me to get it to load anymore, and maybe 15-20 minutes of trying. Not worth the effort. Can we start a new one?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 19, 2001.

I second that.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 20, 2001.

Stats on this thread:

As of Tue Mar 20 09:10:02 CST 2001 :



# Lines:          # Posts:         Name:
----------------  ------------     ------------------------
   864 (23.7%)     20 (14.4%)      no spam please
   662 (18.2%)     21 (15.1%)
   478 (13.1%)      9 ( 6.5%)      you're not getting my wallet
   420 (11.5%)     15 (10.8%)      maria
   375 (10.3%)     13 ( 9.4%)      flint
   213 ( 5.9%)      8 ( 5.8%)      eve
   152 ( 4.2%)     10 ( 7.2%)      lbo grise
   130 ( 3.6%)     11 ( 7.9%)      tarzan the ape man
   114 ( 3.1%)      7 ( 5.0%)      bemused
    92 ( 2.5%)      7 ( 5.0%)      lars
    41 ( 1.1%)      4 ( 2.9%)      rich
    12 ( 0.3%)      1 ( 0.7%)      open your eyes
    10 ( 0.3%)      1 ( 0.7%)      david deutch
     7 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 0.7%)      tommy deatta
     7 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 0.7%)      sumer
     7 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 0.7%)      proof of god
     7 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 0.7%)      dr. pibb
     7 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 0.7%)      bubba
     6 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 0.7%)      romo
     6 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 0.7%)      out
     6 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 0.7%)      just wondering
     6 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 0.7%)      guess who
     6 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 0.7%)      futureshock
     6 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 0.7%)      flora
     6 ( 0.2%)      1 ( 0.7%)      alfie

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 20, 2001.

Link to the continuation thread: Existence of God?, Part II at http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004q0E

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 21, 2001.