What was God doing before he created the universe?

[Guest Jim07D6]

"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said:

 

<...>

>

>It is contradictory to maintain that the universe did not create

>itself while denying any belief in the existence of God.

<...>

 

Not if you postulate that there was no time when the universe did not

exist. (Read this very carefully.)

-- Jim07D6

[Guest Jim07D6]

"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said:

>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.

 

Yes, but you seem to be withholding your definition of "thing".

 

-- Jim07D6

[Guest Samuel W. Heywood]

On Mon, 18 Dec 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.

 

I do not know of any objective observations about love. All the

observations about love that I've ever heard about are subjective

observations. Does that mean that love does not exist?

> Post an objective observation of a god and science will investigate

> it.

 

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

[Guest Weatherwax]

"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote

>

> I do not know of any objective observations about love. All the

> observations about love that I've ever heard about are subjective

> observations. Does that mean that love does not exist?

 

That is interesting. You do not know of any objective observations about

love, therefore you assume that there is none.

 

The fact is that science has studied love. They have studied the brain

impulses, hormones, the effects of smell and numerous others factors

involved in love.

 

Take a look at this website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/

 

--Wax

[Guest Al Klein]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:50:33 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>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?

 

No, since no one but cretinists make claims about what caused the

universe, if anything did.

>It is contradictory to maintain that the universe did not create

>itself while denying any belief in the existence of God.

 

False dichotomy. An anomaly in space-time created the universe. There

goes your contradiction, unless you can prove me wrong. (Assuming you

understand what I said, which I doubt.)

--

rukbat at optonline dot net

"Never in human history have such genocide and cruelty been

witnessed. Such a genocide was never seen in the time of the pharaohs nor

of Hitler nor of Mussolini."

- Mehmet Elkatmi, head of Turkish parliament's human rights commission

on Bush's genocide in the Iraq war. 11-28-2004

(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

[Guest Samuel W. Heywood]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Jim07D6 wrote:

> "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said:

>

>> 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.

>

> Yes, but you seem to be withholding your definition of "thing".

 

I am not witthholding my definition of "thing". I just have not

yet formulated my definition into words. The most simple and basic

concepts are often the most difficult to describe and define by words.

 

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

[Guest Ted King]

In article <9s7eo25e5i5am5r60oq33hoh97o48p2knc@4ax.com>,

Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said:

>

> <...>

> >

> >It is contradictory to maintain that the universe did not create

> >itself while denying any belief in the existence of God.

> <...>

>

> Not if you postulate that there was no time when the universe did not

> exist. (Read this very carefully.)

> -- Jim07D6

 

That's a good one, Jim. Gave me a smile. :-)

 

Ted

[Guest Al Klein]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:09:36 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:57:48 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

>> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>> 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

 

A god that only subjectively exists is an idea. If you claim that

your god is anything more than a figment of your imagination

(subjective existence), you're making the claim that it exists

objectively.

>and I don't understand what you mean by "objective" existence.

 

Outside your mind, as opposed to only in your mind. The kind of

existence for which there's physical evidence. That's what you're

claiming for your god, that its mode of existence is the kind for

which there's physical evidence..

>The "objective existence" phrase is yours, not mine.

 

No more than "is yours" is your phrase not mine. "Objective

existence" is plain English.

> That's your thing. To me there is only one mode of existence for all things.

 

So a baseball bat and happiness both exist in the same way? If I

swing "happiness" at your knee it'll have the same effect as if I

swing a baseball bat at your knee? Your god exists like happiness,

not like the bat.

--

rukbat at optonline dot net

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your

Christ."

- Mohandas Gandhi

(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

[Guest Samuel W. Heywood]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>

> 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?)

 

OOPs. I meant to say that one was feeling the foot, another an ear, and

another the tail.

> 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.

 

<snip>

 

I should have proofread it better before posting. Anyhow,

it was the kind of mistake where one should have been able

figure out very quickly what I really meant to say.

 

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

[Guest Al Klein]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:10:06 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Dec 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.

>

>I do not know of any objective observations about love.

 

Love doesn't objectively exist - it's purely subjective. Can you

produce an ounce of love, or an inch of it? Three of them? Love is

something that exists solely in the mind. If there were no life,

there wouldn't any such thing as love.

> All the observations about love that I've ever heard about are subjective

>observations. Does that mean that love does not exist?

 

Objectively? It sure does, If your god is just another emotion, why

would anyone care? Do you care if I don't accept your assertion that

you love your mother? Why would you care if I don't accept your

assertion about another emotion you feel?

 

Why would people want laws passed based on your emotion? Why did

someone write a book 2,000 years ago about the son of your emotion?

--

rukbat at optonline dot net

"Christianity has already had the chance to govern

the world according to its own ethical standards.

It was called the "Dark Ages".

- Bill, The Avender

(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

[Guest Samuel W. Heywood]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Jim07D6 wrote:

> "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said:

>

> <...>

>>

>> It is contradictory to maintain that the universe did not create

>> itself while denying any belief in the existence of God.

> <...>

>

> Not if you postulate that there was no time when the universe did not

> exist. (Read this very carefully.)

> -- Jim07D6

 

I did read it very carefully and I thought about it for about twenty

minutes. I do not understand the implications of such a postulate.

 

I do not know what is meant by "time" in this context.

 

If we were to hypotheically or provisionally accept the postulate as

true, even without fully understanding it, what arguments could be

used based on the postulate to prove that it is not contradictory to

maintain that the universe did not create itself while denying any

belief in the existense of God?

 

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

[Guest Samuel W. Heywood]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>

> 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:

>

>> 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.

 

Existence is neither a happening nor an event. Existence is

beingness.

> The argument I'm talking about goes like this "I really sincerely

> believe that God exists, therefore God exists."

 

I don't know anyone who uses an argument like that. Do you?

 

Believing that something exists doesn't make it exist.

> Which is a variation on your "I postulate that God exists,

> therefore God exists."

 

The above isn't even an argument. It is a redundant re-assertion

of a postulate.

 

I never said anything like that.

 

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

[Guest Weatherwax]

"Someone" <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote

>"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.

 

The major difficulty with the "parallel Universes" theory is that if true,

it would not be testable or provable. Nor would there be a possibility of

communications between the universes. The theory is dependent upon our

ignorance of what causes the probability field to collapse. As we gain a

better understanding of quantum physics, the parallel universe hypothesis

could easily disappear. See: Lee Smolinm "The Trouble with Physics"

(Scientific American Book Clud Selection.)

 

Your original postulate was: "The Universe is Infinite and Life evolved

from a random biological event."

 

It is common to assume such unproven postulates for the purpose of

discussion and examination, which is what I was doing. By "infinite" I

inferred a universe which was infinite in time and/or space. However, you

are interpreting an infinite universe as one in which every possibility

exists an infinite number of times. That is not a likely or reasonable

description of 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.

 

The odds for a past event to occur is always one hundred percent. The

probability that you exist is one hundred percent. This can be proven by

your existence. After all, life had to take some form, and it just happened

to take yours.

 

If you drew a number from a barrow, even if there is an infinite number of

choices, you will still come up with some number. It is the chance of that

same number coming up again that verges upon zero. And even in an infinite

universe, there is no reason why it would have to.

 

Your postulate assumes that life evolved from a random biological event.

This does not specify which form life will assume, which leaves an infinite

number of possibilities. Natually life will assume some form, and in your

case, you are merely one of the forms life did assume out of the infinite

number of possibilities. To draw the same combination again approaches

zero probability.

>

>>> 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?

>

 

--Wax

[Guest Samuel W. Heywood]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:50:33 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>

>> 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?

>

> No, since no one but cretinists make claims about what caused the

> universe, if anything did.

 

You stated at the bottom of your post that an anomaly in space-time

created the universe.

>> It is contradictory to maintain that the universe did not create

>> itself while denying any belief in the existence of God.

>

> False dichotomy. An anomaly in space-time created the universe. There

> goes your contradiction, unless you can prove me wrong. (Assuming you

> understand what I said, which I doubt.)

 

I hope you aren't just speculating about what happened. Did you get

some verifiable information from somewhere about what happened before

the Big Bang? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

[Guest Samuel W. Heywood]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Weatherwax wrote:

> "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote

>>

>> I do not know of any objective observations about love. All the

>> observations about love that I've ever heard about are subjective

>> observations. Does that mean that love does not exist?

>

> That is interesting. You do not know of any objective observations

> about love, therefore you assume that there is none.

>

> The fact is that science has studied love. They have studied the brain

> impulses, hormones, the effects of smell and numerous others factors

> involved in love.

>

> Take a look at this website:

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/

>

> --Wax

 

I did take a look at it. It is a very interesting and educational

web site, but it isn't about love. It is about, as you said, "the

brain impulses, hormones, the effects of smell and numerous other

factors involved in love", but it isn't about love.

 

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

[Guest Someone]

On 12/18/06 5:48 PM, in article mvgeo2l9gfvvuu3k6pam2si9ol3o5ia8cn@4ax.com,

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:10:06 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

> <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>

>> On Mon, 18 Dec 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.

>>

>> I do not know of any objective observations about love.

>

> Love doesn't objectively exist - it's purely subjective. Can you

> produce an ounce of love, or an inch of it? Three of them? Love is

> something that exists solely in the mind. If there were no life,

> there wouldn't any such thing as love.

>

 

How sad for you, then... I bet you that line doesn't work very well in the

bars.

[Guest Weatherwax]

"Ted King" <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote

> A postulate is a basic assumption that is accepted as true

> without proof.

 

But the postulate must be accepted by all people participating in the

discussion. Otherwise, it is useless.

 

--Wax

[Guest Weatherwax]

"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote

> Weatherwax wrote:

>

>> "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote

>>>

>>> I do not know of any objective observations about love. All the

>>> observations about love that I've ever heard about are subjective

>>> observations. Does that mean that love does not exist?

>>

>> That is interesting. You do not know of any objective observations

>> about love, therefore you assume that there is none.

>>

>> The fact is that science has studied love. They have studied the brain

>> impulses, hormones, the effects of smell and numerous others factors

>> involved in love.

>>

>> Take a look at this website:

>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/

>>

>> --Wax

>

> I did take a look at it. It is a very interesting and educational

> web site, but it isn't about love. It is about, as you said, "the

> brain impulses, hormones, the effects of smell and numerous other

> factors involved in love", but it isn't about love.

 

Love is an emotion, and emotions exist and can be studied.

 

--Wax

[Guest Weatherwax]

"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote

> Jim07D6 wrote:

>> "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said:

>>

>> <...>

>>>

>>> It is contradictory to maintain that the universe did not create

>>> itself while denying any belief in the existence of God.

>> <...>

>>

>> Not if you postulate that there was no time when the universe did not

>> exist. (Read this very carefully.)

>> -- Jim07D6

>

> I did read it very carefully and I thought about it for about twenty

> minutes. I do not understand the implications of such a postulate.

>

> I do not know what is meant by "time" in this context.

>

> If we were to hypotheically or provisionally accept the postulate as

> true, even without fully understanding it, what arguments could be

> used based on the postulate to prove that it is not contradictory to

> maintain that the universe did not create itself while denying any

> belief in the existense of God?

 

You spent twenty minutes on it and still could not understand the

implication? How sorry.

 

Postulate: There was no time when the universe did not exist.

 

In other words: The universe always existed, therefore it was not created.

No creation, no need for a creator god.

 

This is not a refutation of the Big Bang. The universe could be cyclic in

nature, or it could be the spawn of a previous universe. Even if there was

a time when the universe did not exist, there is still no need to postulate

a god, because there is nothing in Quantum mechanics which would prevent the

Big Bang to occur spontaneity without an efficient cause. The real answer

is probably still hidden, but we will learn more.

 

--Wax

[Guest duke]

On 12 Dec 2006 13:52:23 -0800, "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>duke wrote:

>> On 12 Dec 2006 13:17:27 -0800, "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>

>> >> Nothing created the universe?? Science says it's only 14.5 billion years old?

>> >> So where did the universe come from except from God, the Supreme Creator?

>> >Complex cause arg #99,999,543,123

>>

>> Well, if not the supreme creator, then matter and energy created themselves.

>

>Straw man.

 

You're stumped.

 

duke, American-American

 

"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."

Pope Paul VI

[Guest duke]

On 13 Dec 2006 13:37:56 +1300, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th

<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:

>> Well, if not the supreme creator, then matter and energy created

>> themselves.

>False dichotomy. Implied special pleading. Strawman. Three logical

>fallacies in one sentence. I'll be impressed if you can manage four.

 

You're stumped.

 

duke, American-American

 

"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."

Pope Paul VI

[Guest duke]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:17:28 -0800, scottrichter422@yahoo.com (Scott Richter)

wrote:

>duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:

>

>> >> Nothing created the universe?? Science says it's only 14.5 billion

>> >> years old? So where did the universe come from except from God, the

>> >> Supreme Creator?

>> >

>> >Complex cause arg #99,999,543,123

>>

>> Well, if not the supreme creator, then matter and energy created themselves.

>

>Idiot arg #486,233,229,504...

 

You're stumped.

 

duke, American-American

 

"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."

Pope Paul VI

[Guest duke]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:38:17 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:

>> So where did the universe come from except from God, the Supreme Creator?

>'God's' just as imaginary 'parent's', perhaps?

 

You're stumped.

 

duke, American-American

 

"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."

Pope Paul VI

[Guest duke]

On 12 Dec 2006 13:17:27 -0800, "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> So where did the universe come from except from God, the Supreme Creator?

>Complex cause arg #99,999,543,123

 

You're stumped.

 

duke, American-American

 

"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."

Pope Paul VI

[Guest duke]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:06:28 -0700, AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote:

>> So where did the universe come from except from God, the Supreme Creator?

>You are confusing existence with the universe. The universe

>came from the expansion called the big bang. The matter /

>energy has ALWAYS existed.

 

Where did the big bang come from? You're stumped.

 

duke, American-American

 

"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."

Pope Paul VI