Guest Al Klein Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:29:52 -0800, Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: >Here's a thought (and I'm not really serious, I was just being facetious >with another colleague earlier... And decided to share it here in an >appropriate thread): >Postulate: The Universe is Infinite and Life evolved from a random >biological event. Reminds me of the mathematical proof that 2 = 1. I wonder who can spot the incorrect assumption? (I doubt any fundies could.) -- rukbat at optonline dot net Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore totally all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all, who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us, who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. - Isaac Asimov (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:12:07 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >To acknowledge that "everything that exists and has always existed >and always will exist" is to acknowledge that God exists. As long as you don't imbue this "God" with any personal characteristics, that's completely true - the universe (all that there is) DOES exist.. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "A myth is a fixed way of looking at the world which cannot be destroyed because, looked at through the myth, all evidence supports the myth." - Edward De Bono (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 21:20:04 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >The point you are making has also been made in many comedy skits >where an actor pretending to be very distraught in the interaction >taking place with another actor on the stage with him suddenly >throws up his arms in a gesture of despair and exclaims "Oh, God!" >Then a very deep and resounding voice coming from above the stage >says "Yes, you called?" Most believers and probably all atheists >in the audience who had never seen that kind of comedy routine >before would laugh. Those who had seen that one many times before >would boo. Of course the actors and the audience know that the >voice is just the voice of the make-believe God, not the voice of >the real one. Unlike some theists, who believe that the voice they think they're hearing is the real voice of some real god. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "In matters of faith never trust your own judgment, but always humbly submit to the decisions of the Holy Church." (page 77, _A Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion_, Fr. Joseph De Harbe, S.J.) (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On 17 Dec 2006 22:22:37 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: >I don't think that the burden of proof lies soley with objective >evidence. Since science has concluded that the universe did have a >beginning Aw, gee. You were doing so badly, and then you had to blow it and make this up. Objective evidence is, by definition, the only valid evidence. Science has not concluded that the universe had a beginning, unless you redefine "universe", "beginning" or both. >Paul, the author of the book of Romans, spent a considerable amount of >time in a letter writing to the church of Rome making an argument that >all mankind is without an excuse. Excuse for what? We don't need an excuse for anything. >I think it is no accident that almost every culture has some concept of >a deity. Even if EVERY SINGLE human being had a concept of deity, that's not evidence that there is a deity. It's only evidence that the human brain has the need for the concept. At one time, every human being believed that the sun went across the sky - that didn't make the sun go across the sky. >All you have to do is simply look up and see the awesomeness >of the universe. Argumentum ad Ignorantium. All you have to do is hear thunder to know that Thor is causing it by hitting his anvil with his hammer. >So, when you look up and look at the vastness of the >universe, your "instinct" is not -- created by chance, rather it is >created by something divine. This isn't evidence of the divine, it's evidence that most people think the universe was created by a creator. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether it actually was created. >Science may show some interesting things about how God has setup the >universe, but I think it seems very inconclusive of how the universe >happened. And if you absolutely must have reasons for everything, if "we don't know yet" isn't sufficient for you, then believe in a god. But don't try to convince adults that the fact that it's dark under your bed is proof that there are monsters under it. >So, the argument here is that if your first instinct is God, yet you >deny his existence, worship idols, claim to be wise (not you!), then >your hearts will be darkened Which has nothing to do with people who don't accept your assertion that there's a god. Our first instinct on hearing your assertion isn't "there's a god", but "there goes another deluded child". >Paul states the the "work of the law is written on their hearts". No >one has to tell us murder, stealing, hurting another person is wrong; >we know instinctively. This moral law is written on our hearts. We >feel shame like no other creature on this planet. Except ALL other anthropoid species, elephants, dolphins ... (those are only the ones we know about - there may be more). > Think about the kind >of things you've felt shame for, disrespecting yor parents, lieing, >cheating, etc.. This separates us from any other creature. As I said, it doesn't. Man is an animal, nothing more. We're not special in any way, except that we're a little more intelligent than most other species. >None of these things can be proved through objective evidence though. >Just as you can't prove the concept of love; yet everyone believes >there is such a thing as love. But shame and love DON'T objectively exist. >.. It is a sense, feeling, emotion that there is no objective evidence for. You're arguing my side - these things, for which there's no objective evidence, don't exist outside the mind of the person feeling them - the same as your god. >I hope this helps in my meaning of the phrase "without excuse." Since there's nothing to be excused FOR, it's as meaningless as the rest of the Bible. And just as dangerous. But thank you for proving that your god doesn't exist in any more concrete form than "shame" does. Can you show me a "shame"? Can a "shame" care with whom I have sex? Can a "shame" create the universe (or even a word on a piece of paper)? Nope - it's just something that exists in someone's mind, and no one else really cares about it. "God" just happens to be an emotion that the masses are deluded into believing (at a VERY young age) is more than that. As you've pointed out, it isn't. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back." - - Tolstoy as/on Jesus (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said: <...> >> >> In any event, I do not believe that the idea that everything exists >> in one and only one sense (mode) leads to either the attainment that >> (1) there is a thing referred to by uttering "God, or (2) the thing >> referred to by the word "God" exists. >> -- Jim07D6 > >The point you are making has also been made in many comedy skits >where an actor pretending to be very distraught in the interaction >taking place with another actor on the stage with him suddenly >throws up his arms in a gesture of despair and exclaims "Oh, God!" >Then a very deep and resounding voice coming from above the stage >says "Yes, you called?" Most believers and probably all atheists >in the audience who had never seen that kind of comedy routine >before would laugh. Those who had seen that one many times before >would boo. Of course the actors and the audience know that the >voice is just the voice of the make-believe God, not the voice of >the real one. if you think that is the point I am making I won't bother further. Cheers, -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: > > > Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: > >>> > >>> Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > >>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Someone wrote: > > <snip> > > >> Correct. If you have come to know God as The Invisible Pink Unicorn > >> then you should share your religious experience with others, just like > >> John Lennon shared with millions of others his experience of knowing > >> God as Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. > > > > Huh? Lennon was an atheist. And if you look at the initials of the > > title of the song, they form the word "LSD." > > Lennon was a seeker after God and spirituality and he was into > Eastern religion, especially some of the teachings of the Hindus. > The Beatles visited the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi at his ashram in > India. They were involved for a while with his Transcental > Meditation movement. Because of the affinity that the Beatles > felt for Hinduism they started a big short-lived fad and fashion of > wearing Nehru-style jackets. You're confusing John Lennon with George Harrison. They all went to India, but it was George Harrison who was interested in the religion. John Lennon seemed to have gone there to get laid and have a good time. And the fad wasn't short lived. The Beatles in India spawned a whole spiritual movement to the '60's that wasn't there before. Millions of people developed an interest in Eastern mysticism. It still reverbarates today, with the massive New Age movement, the interest in Asian spirituality and activities like Tai Chi. > According to snopes there is no truth in the popular urban legend > that Lennon got the idea of the title of his song from the name > of the hallucinogenic drug LSD. I never believed that. Have you actually listened to the lyrics? I think the Beatles denied it was about acid in order to maintain a semi clean-cut public image. > "http://www.snopes.com/music/hidden/lucysky.htm" > Urban Legends Reference Pages: Music (Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds) > > > Which is what the song is > > about. It is about drugs. You know, an acid trip. It is laughable > > that you would claim that, out of all the songs out there, as a > > tribute to your god. > > The Beatles were admitted users of LSD and it certainly does appear > that many of their songs might have been inspired by drug-induced > hallucinations. In the medical literature on LSD you can read that > many people taking this drug frequently report seeing visions of a > beneficent religious nature or having beautiful religious thoughts > and ideas. I find it interesting that people can take a hallucinogenic drug, have hallucinations, and then conclude that they had a visit from God. They took DRUGS. That's like when religious freaks have an operation and then thank God for their (temporary) survival, and ignore the doctor and the medical profession and science that actually saved their ass. > The problem with recommending to anyone the taking of > this drug is that there are many reports of people taking it who > have experienced very bad trips and freaking out and going insane. > Just because one has a good trip the first time doesn't mean he will > have a good one the next time. > > It seems to me that you have very little appreciation for religious > poetry if you cannot envision or imagine the song as a tribute to God. "Picture yourself on a boat on a river With tangerine trees and marmalade skies..." There is no mention of God in this song. Tell me exactly where you think the lyrics are a tribute to God. Exactly. Because I think all it means is you've never tried acid and have no idea what you're talking about. Anyone who HAS (like me) immediately recognizes the lyrics as a psychedelic hallucinogenic experience. I find it amazing that I've tried LSD and from my perspective theists like you seem to me like you're on a life-long acid trip, and you astoundingly believe your hallucinations are real. > >> http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Lucy-in-the-Sky-with-Diamonds-lyrics-The-Beatles/268F467B6ECC8C7148256BC20013FDB3 > >> THE BEATLES - LUCY IN THE SKY WITH DIAMONDS LYRICS > > <snip> > > > But only to the person postulating it, That postulate is not > > automatically a postulate for anyone else. So, I don't accept your > > proposal as a postulate. You are attempting one of the single most lame > > and dishonest proofs of God I've ever come across. God's existence is a > > postulate therefore God exists. Really? You ought to be embarrassed. > > A postulate isn't an argument nor is it a proof. A postulate is just > an assertion accepted as true. We're arguing about whether your postulate is accepted or not. It isn't, so it's not a postulate outside of your religion. > >>> It may be a > >>> postulate within the framework of Christianity, but it ain't no > >>> postulate outside of it. > >> > >> It is a basic assumption accepted as true by all world religions that > >> I am aware of. > > > > 1. How come different religions postulate different Gods? > > 2. Just because lots of people think something doesn't mean it's true. > > With the exception of those very few religions which by their own > claims worship Satan, different religions do not postulate different > Gods. That will come as a huge surprise to Hindus. Or Christians, to find out their God is the same as Zeus. For instance. I think you'll find almost everyone disagrees with you, theists and atheists alike. > And of course I agree that just because lots of people think something > doesn't make it true. > > <snip> > > Sam Heywood > -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: > > > You just made Carl Sagan spin in his grave. Carl Sagan was an ATHEIST. > > According to himself and according to you, but not according to me. And that makes you wrong once again. Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 Al Klein wrote: > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:39:20 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" > <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: > > >On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Jim07D6 wrote: > > >> If a proof is valid, it is valid whether or not anybody realizes this > >> fact That is, in a word, an objective state of affairs. > > >In the context of this thread, what is meant by "objective" proof > >is a proof that may be derived from the results of investigating > >something that may be investigated within the boundaries of science > >and by using the scientific method and testable hypotheses, etc. > > > >Because science does not investigate God, it seems really ignorant for > >one to demand of a believer that he post an objective proof of God. > > Science doesn't investigate God because science hasn't seen anything > TO investigate. Science needs an objective observation to start with, > and there hasn't yet been ANY objective observation of ANY god EVER. Or is it that science does investigate God but the investigation takes all of 30 seconds when it is discovered that the evidence for God isn't valid evidence? By invalid evidence for God, I mean earnest testimonials by people (and the books they write) who swear it's true. Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 Jim07D6 wrote: > "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said: > > <...> > >> > >> In any event, I do not believe that the idea that everything exists > >> in one and only one sense (mode) leads to either the attainment that > >> (1) there is a thing referred to by uttering "God, or (2) the thing > >> referred to by the word "God" exists. > >> -- Jim07D6 > > > >The point you are making has also been made in many comedy skits > >where an actor pretending to be very distraught in the interaction > >taking place with another actor on the stage with him suddenly > >throws up his arms in a gesture of despair and exclaims "Oh, God!" > >Then a very deep and resounding voice coming from above the stage > >says "Yes, you called?" Most believers and probably all atheists > >in the audience who had never seen that kind of comedy routine > >before would laugh. Those who had seen that one many times before > >would boo. Of course the actors and the audience know that the > >voice is just the voice of the make-believe God, not the voice of > >the real one. > > if you think that is the point I am making I won't bother further. I was wondering what the correct response to that post was. Congratulations. Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Weatherwax wrote: > > > > > "Samuel W. Heywood" wrote > >> > >> There is only one God, and He is known by many names. > >> Call Him Spinoza's God or the God of Abraham or call him The Great Spirit. > >> It doesn't matter. By whatever name, > >> we are speaking of only The One True God. > >> > >> Spinoza's God does not differ from the God of Abraham > >> by realization. He differs only by attempted description. > > > > There are numerous incompatible conceptions of God. I can give you > > three examples right now: > > <snip> > > You don't have to give me any examples of incompatible conceptions. > I already know that there are incompatible conceptions, just like in > the ancient Hindu parable about the three blind men who had come > across an elephant. Each blind man tried to figure out what it is. > One of them felt the elephants tail and another felt the elephant's > tail and another felt the elephant's ear. They each had different > conceptions of what it was even though they were all perceiving the > same thing. It explains a lot that you think an elephant's trunk and an elephant's ass are the same thing. Quote
Guest Weatherwax Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote > Weatherwax wrote: >> "Samuel W. Heywood" wrote: >> >>> >>> In the context of this thread, what is meant by "objective" proof is a >>> proof that may be derived from the results of >>> investigating something that may be investigated within the >>> boundaries of science and by using the scientific method and testable >>> hypotheses, etc. > >>> Because science does not investigate God, it seems really >>> ignorant for one to demand of a believer that he post an >>> objective proof of God. > >> It is not science which refuses to investigate God. It is the >> believers in God who objects to any scientific evidence on the >> subject, thus placing God outside of the area of scientific >> investigation. >> >> --Wax > > I have never heard of any scientific evidence of God. > > It is science itself that places God outside the area of > scientific investigation. > > Many believers want science to investigate God, but they fail > to understand why it is that science cannot investigate God. Science has shown that the sky is not a dome upon which the stars are place, and in which God lives. Therefore Christianity has translated the Hebrew word for "sky" ("Shamayim") as "Heaven" which somehow is not supposed to exist in this world. The same sly trick was played in the New Testament where the Greek word for "sky" ("ouranos") has also been falsly translated as "heaven", thus removing it from the realm of scientific investigation. --Wax Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Weatherwax wrote: > > "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote >> Weatherwax wrote: >>> "Samuel W. Heywood" wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> In the context of this thread, what is meant by "objective" proof is a >>>> proof that may be derived from the results of >>>> investigating something that may be investigated within the >>>> boundaries of science and by using the scientific method and testable >>>> hypotheses, etc. >> >>>> Because science does not investigate God, it seems really >>>> ignorant for one to demand of a believer that he post an >>>> objective proof of God. >> >>> It is not science which refuses to investigate God. It is the >>> believers in God who objects to any scientific evidence on the >>> subject, thus placing God outside of the area of scientific >>> investigation. >>> >>> --Wax >> >> I have never heard of any scientific evidence of God. >> >> It is science itself that places God outside the area of >> scientific investigation. >> >> Many believers want science to investigate God, but they fail >> to understand why it is that science cannot investigate God. > > Science has shown that the sky is not a dome upon which the stars > are place, and in which God lives. Science investigates the sky. Science does not investigate the sky for the purpose of determining if God lives up there, nor for the purpose of determining if the sky is described accurately in the Bible. > Therefore Christianity has translated the Hebrew word for "sky" > ("Shamayim") as "Heaven" which somehow is not supposed to > exist in this world. The same sly trick was played in the New > Testament where the Greek word for "sky" ("ouranos") has also > been falsly translated as "heaven", thus removing it from the > realm of scientific investigation. > > --Wax God is removed from scientific investigation regardless of however they translate or mis-translate the Bible. Science does not investigate God. Period. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Weatherwax Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 "Someone" <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote >"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote: >> "Someone" <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote >>> >>> Here's a thought (and I'm not really serious, I was just being facetious >>> with another colleague earlier... And decided to share it here in an >>> appropriate thread): >>> >>> Postulate: The Universe is Infinite and Life evolved from a random >>> biological event. >>> >>> (1) The Universe, being infinite, contains an infinite number of >>> possibilities. Because of the infinite number of possibilities, the >>> prerequisites for life exists on an infinite number of planets. >>> >>> So far, so good, right? >>> >>> (2) Since there are an infinite number of life-bearing planets in the >>> Universe, there must be an infinite number of planets that contain >>> intelligent life. >>> >>> (3) Since there are an infinite number of intelligent beings in the >>> Universe, there must be an infinite number of instances of -me- (or >>> beings >>> so close to be like -me- that the difference is indiscernible) in the >>> Universe. >>> >>> (4) Furthermore, there must be an infinite number of -me- that have >>> produced the capacity to instantaneously transport themselves anywhere >>> within space/time. >>> >>> (5) There must be an infinite number of -me- that have instantaneous >>> transport capability that have decided to transport themselves to my >>> space/time in order to reveal to me the Mysteries of the Universe . >>> >>> (6) Since no instances of -me- have materialized in front me to have >>> that discussion, one of my initial postulates must be incorrect. >>> >>> Conclusion: Either the Universe is NOT infinite or Life is not a random >>> biological event. >>> >>> >>> Hey, isn't that a gas! >>> >> >> It only proves that you do not understand infinity. >> >> For example, at number (3) you state, "Since there are an infinite number >> of intelligent beings in the Universe, there must be an infinite number >> of >> instances of -me-." That is incorrect. There could be an infinite >> number >> of intelligent beings in the Universe without there being even one of >> you. >> There could be an infinite number of intelligent beings in the universe >> without there being any two which are alike. > > But we're talking probability in an infinite set of results here, right? > So, give it a number, what is the probability that another creature > biologically the same as me (or "close enough that the difference is > indiscernible") exists? If you can put a finite number on that > probability, > then in an infinite result set, it must exist. You are assuming that in an infinite universe that all possibilities must exist. That is not true. Assuming that there is an infinite number of possibilities, you can have an infinite universe with only a small fraction of all possibilities present. For example, if I have a hotel which had an infinite number of rooms, and each room had its number painted on the door, how many room numbers will end in double zero? The answer is easy. There will be an infinite number of rooms whose number ends in double zero. You ask: "what is the probability that another creature biologically the same as me (or "close enough that the difference is indiscernible") exists?" Accepting that the number of possiblities is infinite, that is like picking a winning number in a lottery with an infinite number of tickets. The probability of there being another creature biologically the same as you would be 1 in infinity, which is the same as Zero. > > Of course you can be right and it may be impossible for there to be a > sequence of events that can yield another like -me-... Or that the > consciousness I call -me- is unique in the Universe. Not impossibly. Just that the odds are infinitely against it. > Actually, the fallacy I caught (when discussing this with my colleague) is > that it may be physically impossible to do instantaneous transportation > (although Hawking in BHOT suggested that it might be possible if you have > enough energy). It never occurred to me that -I- could be unique, being > the > result of a completely biological process. > >> >> Infinity is a funny thing. If you divide it in half, it does not >> decrease >> in size. If you double it, it is still the same size as it was before, >> yet >> some infinities are be larger than other infinities. >> >> The number of natural numbers (i.e. 1, 2, 3, etc.) is infinite. The >> number >> of even numbers (i.e. 2, 4, 6, etc.) is also infinite. In fact, both >> sets >> of infinities are the same size. But the number of points on a line is a >> larger infinity than the number of natural numbers. You will have to >> study >> up on infinity to understand why. >> >> --Wax >> >> > > Actually, you're right of course. The entire exercise falters if you > consider the cardinality of infinite sets--the Universe as I describe > assumes that the Universe's possibilities belong to the cardinal set under > the Zermelo-Fraenkel continuum hypothesis (ZFC) (which makes it about > equal to Aleph-one) although it is impossible to prove it; of course that > assumption could be wrong and the Universe may not be in the cardinality > of > Real Numbers, but something "less." You're also right because I can't > seem > to get my mind around the idea that the possibilities in our infinite > Universe is, for example, Aleph null. > > Speaking of which (to resurrect another argument in this selfsame thread), > many mathematicians (Godel, Cantor, etc.) had tried to prove the continuum > hypothesis--and failed. An infinite universe would be Aleph null. The number of possibilities is Aleph-one, because there is an infinite number of possible infinite universes. --Wax Quote
Guest Weatherwax Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote > Weatherwax wrote: > >> >> "Samuel W. Heywood" wrote >>> >>> There is only one God, and He is known by many names. >>> Call Him Spinoza's God or the God of Abraham or call him The Great >>> Spirit. >>> It doesn't matter. By whatever name, >>> we are speaking of only The One True God. >>> >>> Spinoza's God does not differ from the God of Abraham >>> by realization. He differs only by attempted description. >> >> There are numerous incompatible conceptions of God. I can give you >> three examples right now: > > <snip> > > You don't have to give me any examples of incompatible conceptions. > I already know that there are incompatible conceptions, just like in > the ancient Hindu parable about the three blind men who had come across an > elephant. Each blind man tried to figure out what it is. > One of them felt the elephants tail and another felt the elephant's > tail and another felt the elephant's ear. They each had different > conceptions of what it was even though they were all perceiving the > same thing. I don't see how your analogy helps you. You forget that not one of the three blind men identified the object as an elephant, or anything close. They were all three dead wrong. But then, I guess that does describe religion. --Wax Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On 12/18/06 11:15 AM, in article zNBhh.520879$QZ1.354290@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote: >> But we're talking probability in an infinite set of results here, right? >> So, give it a number, what is the probability that another creature >> biologically the same as me (or "close enough that the difference is >> indiscernible") exists? If you can put a finite number on that >> probability, >> then in an infinite result set, it must exist. > > You are assuming that in an infinite universe that all possibilities must > exist. That is not true. Assuming that there is an infinite number of > possibilities, you can have an infinite universe with only a small fraction > of all possibilities present. For example, if I have a hotel which had an > infinite number of rooms, and each room had its number painted on the door, > how many room numbers will end in double zero? > > The answer is easy. There will be an infinite number of rooms whose number > ends in double zero. > > You ask: "what is the probability that another creature biologically the > same as me (or "close enough that the difference is indiscernible") exists?" > Accepting that the number of possiblities is infinite, that is like picking > a winning number in a lottery with an infinite number of tickets. The > probability of there being another creature biologically the same as you > would be 1 in infinity, which is the same as Zero. > You reason that the numbers on each room in the Universe is part of the natural set (i.e. Aleph Null) without indicating how each room became constrained that way--but the only reason such a constraint exists is because a consciousness (i.e., you and me) -conceive- it is so; but that analogy may not apply to the Universe at large. Quantum based theories of reality that supposes that every possible choice actually exists and only the observer actually "locks in" a particular possibility--anyway, that's my gist of Deutsch's "The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes and Its Implications." Of course, unlike Deutsch, I'm not separating Universes into "the observable Universe" and then "parallel Universes," I'm calling the whole multiverse the Universe. > >> >> Of course you can be right and it may be impossible for there to be a >> sequence of events that can yield another like -me-... Or that the >> consciousness I call -me- is unique in the Universe. > > Not impossibly. Just that the odds are infinitely against it. > I still do not see how the odds are infinitely against it. Let's suppose that I don't exist (hey, that's a Cartesian supposition if I ever heard one). What is the probability that random events in the Universe can form a being exactly like me? That probability has got to be greater than zero since, such random events have lead to the creation of me, right? If that probability is greater than zero, then in an infinite Universe there must exist the possibility that another biologically identically being like me exists as well, ad infinitum. This doesn't contradict Deutsch's assertion that every possibility already exists in the Universe; and then just touches upon one of his hypothesis that human thought and evolution are the things that are bringing these parallel Universes to be more alike. Deustch can be wrong too, btw, but it is an intriguing mental exercise. >> Actually, the fallacy I caught (when discussing this with my colleague) is >> that it may be physically impossible to do instantaneous transportation >> (although Hawking in BHOT suggested that it might be possible if you have >> enough energy). It never occurred to me that -I- could be unique, being >> the >> result of a completely biological process. >> >>> >>> Infinity is a funny thing. If you divide it in half, it does not >>> decrease >>> in size. If you double it, it is still the same size as it was before, >>> yet >>> some infinities are be larger than other infinities. >>> >>> The number of natural numbers (i.e. 1, 2, 3, etc.) is infinite. The >>> number >>> of even numbers (i.e. 2, 4, 6, etc.) is also infinite. In fact, both >>> sets >>> of infinities are the same size. But the number of points on a line is a >>> larger infinity than the number of natural numbers. You will have to >>> study >>> up on infinity to understand why. >>> >>> --Wax >>> >>> >> >> Actually, you're right of course. The entire exercise falters if you >> consider the cardinality of infinite sets--the Universe as I describe >> assumes that the Universe's possibilities belong to the cardinal set under >> the Zermelo-Fraenkel continuum hypothesis (ZFC) (which makes it about >> equal to Aleph-one) although it is impossible to prove it; of course that >> assumption could be wrong and the Universe may not be in the cardinality >> of >> Real Numbers, but something "less." You're also right because I can't >> seem >> to get my mind around the idea that the possibilities in our infinite >> Universe is, for example, Aleph null. >> >> Speaking of which (to resurrect another argument in this selfsame thread), >> many mathematicians (Godel, Cantor, etc.) had tried to prove the continuum >> hypothesis--and failed. > > An infinite universe would be Aleph null. The number of possibilities is > Aleph-one, because there is an infinite number of possible infinite > universes. > > --Wax > > I don't believe that an infinite universe is Aleph null (and neither do most proponents of ZFC). But since we can't prove the Continuum Hypothesis (the hypothesis that created a difference between the Alephs), then you certainly may be right. If I recall, Godel tried to prove the CH. He failed but in doing so proved that CH couldn't be disproved). Rings a bell, don't it? Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On 18 Dec 2006 09:27:28 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> Science doesn't investigate God because science hasn't seen anything >> TO investigate. Science needs an objective observation to start with, >> and there hasn't yet been ANY objective observation of ANY god EVER. >Or is it that science does investigate God but the investigation takes >all of 30 seconds when it is discovered that the evidence for God isn't >valid evidence? By invalid evidence for God, I mean earnest >testimonials by people (and the books they write) who swear it's true. Science doesn't spend even 30 seconds on assertion. How long does it take to say, "evidence?" Two seconds? -- rukbat at optonline dot net "Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore totally all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all, who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us, who would invade our schools and libraries and homes." - Isaac Asimov (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Weatherwax Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote > Weatherwax wrote: > >> >> "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote >>> Weatherwax wrote: >>>> "Samuel W. Heywood" wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> In the context of this thread, what is meant by "objective" proof is a >>>>> proof that may be derived from the results of >>>>> investigating something that may be investigated within the >>>>> boundaries of science and by using the scientific method and testable >>>>> hypotheses, etc. >>> >>>>> Because science does not investigate God, it seems really >>>>> ignorant for one to demand of a believer that he post an >>>>> objective proof of God. >>> >>>> It is not science which refuses to investigate God. It is the >>>> believers in God who objects to any scientific evidence on the >>>> subject, thus placing God outside of the area of scientific >>>> investigation. >>>> >>>> --Wax >>> >>> I have never heard of any scientific evidence of God. >>> >>> It is science itself that places God outside the area of >>> scientific investigation. >>> >>> Many believers want science to investigate God, but they fail >>> to understand why it is that science cannot investigate God. >> >> Science has shown that the sky is not a dome upon which the stars >> are place, and in which God lives. > > Science investigates the sky. Science does not investigate the > sky for the purpose of determining if God lives up there, nor for > the purpose of determining if the sky is described accurately in > the Bible. The sky is exactly where Christians, Jews and many others believed that God existed. Science proved that it was not so. Therefore religion found someplace else to place God. >> Therefore Christianity has translated the Hebrew word for "sky" >> ("Shamayim") as "Heaven" which somehow is not supposed to >> exist in this world. The same sly trick was played in the New >> Testament where the Greek word for "sky" ("ouranos") has also >> been falsly translated as "heaven", thus removing it from the >> realm of scientific investigation. >> >> --Wax > > God is removed from scientific investigation regardless of however > they translate or mis-translate the Bible. Science does not > investigate God. Period. Numerous people have tried to prove the existence of God by the use of science. They failed. God is outside of scientific investigation only because there is nothing to investigate. Period. --Wax Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 Someone wrote: > On 12/17/06 7:08 PM, in article > Pine.NEB.4.62.0612172137510.27734@sdf.lonestar.org, "Samuel W. Heywood" > <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:17:47 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" > >> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Libertarius wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > >> "He" differs, in that Spinoza was referring to the universe, not to a > >> being. Why call the universe "God" - it already has a perfectly good > >> letter string to refer to it by. Of course, it didn't create itself, > >> it doesn't care about your sex life and it takes almost no note of > >> humankind. > > > > Look, boys and girls, Al Klein is now saying that the universe > > didn't create itself! > > > > Then he went on to describe some other things that the universe > > doesn't do, and I agree with him about all that too. There are > > many things that the universe does, but, as Al says, "Of course, > > it didn't create itself" > > > > Al Klein came out of his denial and he is now acknowledging himself > > as a member of the Believers' Club. > > > > Welcome aboard, Al! > > > > Sam Heywood > > -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 > > Here's a thought (and I'm not really serious, I was just being facetious > with another colleague earlier... And decided to share it here in an > appropriate thread): > > Postulate: The Universe is Infinite and Life evolved from a random > biological event. > > (1) The Universe, being infinite, contains an infinite number of > possibilities. Because of the infinite number of possibilities, the > prerequisites for life exists on an infinite number of planets. > > So far, so good, right? > > (2) Since there are an infinite number of life-bearing planets in the > Universe, there must be an infinite number of planets that contain > intelligent life. > > (3) Since there are an infinite number of intelligent beings in the > Universe, there must be an infinite number of instances of -me- (or beings > so close to be like -me- that the difference is indiscernible) in the > Universe. > > (4) Furthermore, there must be an infinite number of -me- that have > produced the capacity to instantaneously transport themselves anywhere > within space/time. > > (5) There must be an infinite number of -me- that have instantaneous > transport capability that have decided to transport themselves to my > space/time in order to reveal to me the Mysteries of the Universe . > > (6) Since no instances of -me- have materialized in front me to have that > discussion, one of my initial postulates must be incorrect. Yes, your first one, to begin with. The infinite possibilities that may exist cannot violate the laws of physics (or by extension, chemistry, biology, etc.). And your second one is not true, too, you don't know if there are an infinite number of planets. I don't think there are. And I think you're committing the fallacy of generalization. Just because you can find one instance of something (a life bearing planet) doesn't mean you can find an infinite number of them. Also, you don't know if time travel/spontaneous transport of macroscopic objects is possible. FInally, I think you're confusing the quantum world with the macroscopic world of closed systems. > Conclusion: Either the Universe is NOT infinite or Life is not a random > biological event. > > > Hey, isn't that a gas! Sort of like flatulence. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:50:44 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: - Refer: <03edo21pe6d5stio3ej8ga0059ls1kej1c@4ax.com> >On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 21:33:21 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" ><sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: > >>> Since it only occurs in your mind, it's an opinion; it's not >>> objective. You can believe that you experienced anything you want to >>> believe you experienced but, outside your mind, no one cares. > >>Many people report having the same experience and they want >>to share it with others. > >So share it with those who want to share it with you. Atheists don't >care about your god-experiences since the only way they affect us is >if YOU affect us. > >>Non-realization is a delusion. > >The fact that we don't share your experience is a delusion? Wasn't it you who doubted my diagnosis of Mr. Heywood? "Certifiable" was the jist of it. Closer to changing your mind? -- Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: > Al Klein wrote: >> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:39:20 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" >> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Jim07D6 wrote: >> >>>> If a proof is valid, it is valid whether or not anybody realizes this >>>> fact That is, in a word, an objective state of affairs. >> >>> In the context of this thread, what is meant by "objective" proof >>> is a proof that may be derived from the results of investigating >>> something that may be investigated within the boundaries of science >>> and by using the scientific method and testable hypotheses, etc. >>> >>> Because science does not investigate God, it seems really ignorant for >>> one to demand of a believer that he post an objective proof of God. >> >> Science doesn't investigate God because science hasn't seen anything >> TO investigate. Science needs an objective observation to start with, >> and there hasn't yet been ANY objective observation of ANY god EVER. > > Or is it that science does investigate God but the investigation takes > all of 30 seconds when it is discovered that the evidence for God isn't > valid evidence? By invalid evidence for God, I mean earnest > testimonials by people (and the books they write) who swear it's true. There do exist many testimonials about lots of things, including religious things, but testimonials are not scientific proof, regardless of the integrity and credibility of the persons providing the testimonials. Testimonials are often the basis of many superstitions. The logical fallacy is the irrational presumption of cause and effect, as in: The event "A" happened, then the event "B" happened. Therefore, the event "A" caused the event "B" to happen because the event "A" happened first, and then the event "B" happened. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: > > > Al Klein wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:39:20 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" > >> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Jim07D6 wrote: > >> > >>>> If a proof is valid, it is valid whether or not anybody realizes this > >>>> fact That is, in a word, an objective state of affairs. > >> > >>> In the context of this thread, what is meant by "objective" proof > >>> is a proof that may be derived from the results of investigating > >>> something that may be investigated within the boundaries of science > >>> and by using the scientific method and testable hypotheses, etc. > >>> > >>> Because science does not investigate God, it seems really ignorant for > >>> one to demand of a believer that he post an objective proof of God. > >> > >> Science doesn't investigate God because science hasn't seen anything > >> TO investigate. Science needs an objective observation to start with, > >> and there hasn't yet been ANY objective observation of ANY god EVER. > > > > Or is it that science does investigate God but the investigation takes > > all of 30 seconds when it is discovered that the evidence for God isn't > > valid evidence? By invalid evidence for God, I mean earnest > > testimonials by people (and the books they write) who swear it's true. > > There do exist many testimonials about lots of things, including > religious things, but testimonials are not scientific proof, > regardless of the integrity and credibility of the persons providing > the testimonials. Which was my point. Testimonials is all you have. There is no other evidence being offerred. So the scientific examination of the claims for god's existence ends right there. Not because existence can't be tested, but because you haven't got any valid evidence. > Testimonials are often the basis of many superstitions. LIke religion. > The logical fallacy is the irrational presumption of cause and > effect, as in: > > The event "A" happened, then the event "B" happened. Therefore, > the event "A" caused the event "B" to happen because the event > "A" happened first, and then the event "B" happened. No, that's different. We're not talking about cause and effect. You can't show that event A even happened, event A being God's existence. The argument I'm talking about goes like this "I really sincerely believe that God exists, therefore God exists." Which is a variation on your "I postulate that God exists, therefore God exists." Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: > Samuel W. Heywood wrote: >> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Weatherwax wrote: >>> "Samuel W. Heywood" wrote <snip> >>> There are numerous incompatible conceptions of God. I can give you >>> three examples right now: >> >> <snip> >> >> You don't have to give me any examples of incompatible conceptions. >> I already know that there are incompatible conceptions, just like in >> the ancient Hindu parable about the three blind men who had come >> across an elephant. Each blind man tried to figure out what it is. >> One of them felt the elephants tail and another felt the elephant's >> tail and another felt the elephant's ear. They each had different >> conceptions of what it was even though they were all perceiving the >> same thing. > > It explains a lot that you think an elephant's trunk and an > elephant's ass are the same thing. Nope. It explains why none of the three blind men can perceive that it is an elephnt because they can't behold the whole thing at once like the people of vision can. Thank you very much for your reply. I really needed that because I have been waiting for an appropriate opportunity to tell all my fellow newsgroup readers a very interesting story I heard about you. It was reported that you were recently seen riding an elephant along the avenue. As you and your mount passed by a couple of pedestrians they pointed at you and they laughed and snickered while exclaiming "Look at the asshole on that elephant." Then you dismounted from the elephant, and you walked around to the rear end of the elephant, and you lifted up its tail to take a look. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote: > > > Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > > >> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Weatherwax wrote: > > >>> "Samuel W. Heywood" wrote > > <snip> > > >>> There are numerous incompatible conceptions of God. I can give you > >>> three examples right now: > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >> You don't have to give me any examples of incompatible conceptions. > >> I already know that there are incompatible conceptions, just like in > >> the ancient Hindu parable about the three blind men who had come > >> across an elephant. Each blind man tried to figure out what it is. > >> One of them felt the elephants tail and another felt the elephant's > >> tail and another felt the elephant's ear. They each had different > >> conceptions of what it was even though they were all perceiving the > >> same thing. > > > > It explains a lot that you think an elephant's trunk and an > > elephant's ass are the same thing. > > Nope. It explains why none of the three blind men can perceive that > it is an elephnt because they can't behold the whole thing at once > like the people of vision can. See now, that isn't what you said. Re-read your last sentence, "They each had different conceptions of what it was even though they were all perceiving the same thing," and tell me that you didn't say they were all perceiving the same thing. One had an ear, the other had a tail, the other had a tail (2 of them had the tail! what were they, Siamese Twins?) They were conceiving different things (well, some of them were, anyway...nice storytelling), according to you. If you could write in a clear manner and read for comprehension (even with your own writing!) it might help. > Thank you very much for your reply. I really needed that because > I have been waiting for an appropriate opportunity to tell all my > fellow newsgroup readers a very interesting story I heard about you. > > It was reported that you were recently seen riding an elephant along > the avenue. As you and your mount passed by a couple of pedestrians > they pointed at you and they laughed and snickered while exclaiming > "Look at the asshole on that elephant." Then you dismounted from the > elephant, and you walked around to the rear end of the elephant, and > you lifted up its tail to take a look. Nice. You fuck up a parable and blame it on me. You're a real gem. Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:08:46 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" > <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: >>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:17:47 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" >>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Libertarius wrote: > >> <snip> > >>> "He" differs, in that Spinoza was referring to the universe, not to a >>> being. Why call the universe "God" - it already has a perfectly good >>> letter string to refer to it by. Of course, it didn't create itself, >>> it doesn't care about your sex life and it takes almost no note of >>> humankind. > >> Look, boys and girls, Al Klein is now saying that the universe >> didn't create itself! > > No one ever claimed that it did. Cretinists (those who insist on > remaining stupid) claim that atheism claims that it does, but who > takes note of the opinion of a cretin? Can you refer me to some web sites where some people who claim to be atheists say that the universe did not create itself? It is contradictory to maintain that the universe did not create itself while denying any belief in the existence of God. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 18, 2006 Posted December 18, 2006 On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:57:48 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" > <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 04:51:44 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" >>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:25:40 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" >>>>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Someone wrote: >> >>> The problem is that there IS NO objective evidence of any god, and >>> never has been. Because no god has ever objectively existed. >> >> The fact that there is no objective evidence of God is not a problem >> because God has not been objectively investigated. > > Investigation only starts once an objective observation has been made. > Science doesn't investigate assertions. Post an objective observation > of your god and science will investigate it. > > But, until you can, don't make assertions that your god objectively > exists. I did not make any assertions saying that God "objectively" exists and I don't understand what you mean by "objective" existence. The "objective existence" phrase is yours, not mine. That's your thing. To me there is only one mode of existence for all things. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.