What was God doing before he created the universe?

December 19, 2006

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:01:44 -0800, scottrichter422@yahoo.com (Scott Richter)

wrote:

>> for God is the Supreme Creator.

>Bzzzzzttt. Wrong answer...

Bzzzzzttt - you're stumped.

duke, American-American

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

Pope Paul VI

December 19, 2006

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 04:25:58 GMT, justme <somewhere@earth.int> wrote:

>You did not answer the first question. Repeating: if God created the

>universe then what (or who) created God?

Nobody can answer that one. I vote for the big bang as God's action to begin

the universe as we know it today.

duke, American-American

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

Pope Paul VI

December 19, 2006

Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

> 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?

Most believers I've talked to uses a version of that argument.

> 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.

This is what you said earlier in the thread:

"A postulate is a basic assumption that is accepted as true without

proof. "We live in a world created by God". That is an example of a

basic assumption that is accepted as true without proof. Now do you

understand why there is no point in your asking anyone to post the

objective verifiable evidence to support the simple claim that God

exists? Under the rules of logic, one is not allowed to question

whether a postulate is true because, by definition, a postulate is

accepted as true without proof."

"We live in a world created by God is an example of a basic assumption

accepted as true without proof" (to barely paraphrase) sounds a LOT

like "I postulate that God exists, therefore God exists" to me.

December 19, 2006

duke wrote:

> 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.

>

It came from the energy that exploded into the universe.

December 19, 2006

In article

<a%Lhh.524268$QZ1.378689@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,

"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:

> "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

I suspect Jim might have had in mind multiple interpretations of his

statement. But certainly your (Wax's) response is cogent. I do think we

need to be a little careful to take into account that different people

may intend different things at different times when they use the term

"universe". Sometimes we mean "observable physical universe" and

sometimes we mean "all that physically exists" (even beyond what we are

capable of observing) and sometimes we mean "all that exists". The

hypothesized big bang we typically talk about may have produced the

observable physical universe (all of physical reality we can observe).

But it is quite plausible within current understandings of physics to

hypothesize a universe quite a bit more "expansive" than what we can

observe with current technology. As Andrei Linde, professor of physics

at Stanford University, says on his university web page:

http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/

Inflationary Multiverse

Inflationary theory describes the very early stages of the evolution of
the Universe, and its structure at extremely large distances from us.
For many years, cosmologists believed that the Universe from the very
beginning looked like an expanding ball of fire. This explosive
beginning of the Universe was called the big bang. In the end of the
70's a different scenario of the evolution of the Universe was proposed.
According to this scenario, the early universe came through the stage of
inflation, exponentially rapid expansion in a kind of unstable
vacuum-like state (a state with large energy density, but without
elementary particles). Vacuum-like state in inflationary theory usually
is associated with a scalar field, which is often called ``the inflaton
field.'' The stage of inflation can be very short, but the universe
within this time becomes exponentially large. Initially, inflation was
considered as an intermediate stage of the evolution of the hot
universe, which was necessary to solve many cosmological problems. At
the end of inflation the scalar field decayed, the universe became hot,
and its subsequent evolution could be described by the standard big bang
theory. Thus, inflation was a part of the big bang theory. Gradually,
however, the big bang theory became a part of inflationary cosmology.
Recent versions of inflationary theory assert that instead of being a
single, expanding ball of fire described by the big bang theory, the
universe looks like a huge growing fractal. It consists of many
inflating balls that produce new balls, which in turn produce more new
balls, ad infinitum. Therefore the evolution of the universe has no end
and may have no beginning. [emphasis added by me] After inflation the
universe becomes divided into different exponentially large domains
inside which properties of elementary particles and even dimension of
space-time may be different. Thus the universe looks like a multiverse
consisting of many universes with different laws of low-energy physics
operating in each of them. Thus, the new cosmological theory leads to a
considerable modification of the standard point of view on the structure
and evolution of the universe and on our own place in the world. A
description of the new cosmological theory can be found, in particular,
in my article The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe published in
Scientific American, Vol. 271, No. 5, pages 48-55, November 1994. A nice
introduction to inflation was written by the journalist and science
writer John Gribbin Cosmology for Beginners . The new cosmological
paradigm may have non-trivial philosophical implications. In particular,
it provides a scientific justification of the cosmological anthropic
principle, and allows one to discuss a possibility to create the
universe in a laboratory.

[unquote]

It is a logical impossibility for even an omnipotent god to create
itself, so, of course, the physical universe could not create itself.
But that still leaves two logical possibilities with respect to the
physical universe - it either always has existed or it simply popped
into existence uncaused. Inflationary multiverse cosmology gives a
rational account of how it could be that the physical universe could
have always existed. " Alternately, the universe could have popped into
existence sans a creator god. There is nothing inherently
self-contradictory about the notion of something simply popping into
existence uncaused. The only way one could say that it is logically
impossible for something to simply pop into existence uncaused is to
posit a postulate that everything must have a cause. Of course, if
everything must have a cause, then the creator god of the physical
universe would also have to have had a cause, so such a postulate
doesn't help the theist.

One could object by saying that every individual physical thing we
observe is caused to exist - even if it exists by virtue of random
fluctuations in space-time, those fluctuations are the cause of its
existence - so the physical universe must also have the same quality of
having been caused to exist. But what applies to individual things
within space-time may not apply to space-time itself. Space-time itself
may have popped into existence uncaused. To say that the causal
relationship that applies to the things of space-time necessarily
applies to space-time itself is, I think, a fallacy of composition.

Theists too often try to make too much of the theory of the big bang as
the beginning of the whole of the physical universe. But modern physics
does not imply such a thing; e.g., multiverse cosmology certainly does
not imply that. And they too often try to make too much of the notion of
the logical impossibility of the physical universe causing itself to
exist - completely ignoring the logical possibility of the whole of the
physical universe (space-time) simply popping into existence uncaused.

Ted

December 19, 2006

On Tue, 19 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, 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?

>

> Most believers I've talked to uses a version of that argument.

Are you sure it was a version of that argument, or was it the one

that starts like this:

"If God exists, then I want to be on His good side and act

accordingly."

Search "Pascal's Wager" to read about how that one goes.

I have heard that argument from many believers who have

never heard of "Pascal's Wager". I have heard that one

even from small children who say that is their very own

idea and not just something they heard from their parents

or taught about at Sunday School.

>> 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.

>

> This is what you said earlier in the thread:

>

> "A postulate is a basic assumption that is accepted as true without

> proof. "We live in a world created by God". That is an example of a

> basic assumption that is accepted as true without proof. Now do you

> understand why there is no point in your asking anyone to post the

> objective verifiable evidence to support the simple claim that God

> exists? Under the rules of logic, one is not allowed to question

> whether a postulate is true because, by definition, a postulate is

> accepted as true without proof."

>

> "We live in a world created by God is an example of a basic assumption

> accepted as true without proof" (to barely paraphrase) sounds a LOT

> like "I postulate that God exists, therefore God exists" to me.

No, it is just the assertion of a postulate that is accepted as

true in some logical domains, and without requiring any proof.

It is not an argument for the existence of God. I never said

that it is an argument for the existence of God.

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

December 19, 2006

duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> 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.

You're absolutely right. I'm stumped why you would post the same

juvenile response a dozen times in one thread and think you are actually

making some sort of point.

I'm stumped why you crave attention so badly that you resort to this

tactic, knowing it will only provoke more well deserved ridicule (and

yes, I know, I'm feeding the troll.)

I'm stumped by the mental illness behind your action, which is clearly

the workings of someone with no grasp on reason or rational argument.

But of course, I'm NOT stumped that it came from you...

> duke, American-American Idiot-Idiot

>

> "The Ass is the most perfect form of Prayer."

> Pope Paul LXIX

>

December 19, 2006

Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

> On Tue, 19 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, 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?

> >

> > Most believers I've talked to uses a version of that argument.

>

> Are you sure it was a version of that argument, or was it the one

> that starts like this:

>

> "If God exists, then I want to be on His good side and act

> accordingly."

>

> Search "Pascal's Wager" to read about how that one goes.

> I have heard that argument from many believers who have

> never heard of "Pascal's Wager". I have heard that one

> even from small children who say that is their very own

> idea and not just something they heard from their parents

> or taught about at Sunday School.

I know what Pascal's Wager is. No, it's not that at all. A lot of the

time, in fact most of the time, what I get out of theists when I ask

them what they base their faith on, is that they really believe God

exists and that's all that matters to them.

> >> 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.

> >

> > This is what you said earlier in the thread:

> >

> > "A postulate is a basic assumption that is accepted as true without

> > proof. "We live in a world created by God". That is an example of a

> > basic assumption that is accepted as true without proof. Now do you

> > understand why there is no point in your asking anyone to post the

> > objective verifiable evidence to support the simple claim that God

> > exists? Under the rules of logic, one is not allowed to question

> > whether a postulate is true because, by definition, a postulate is

> > accepted as true without proof."

> >

> > "We live in a world created by God is an example of a basic assumption

> > accepted as true without proof" (to barely paraphrase) sounds a LOT

> > like "I postulate that God exists, therefore God exists" to me.

>

> No, it is just the assertion of a postulate that is accepted as

> true in some logical domains, and without requiring any proof.

> It is not an argument for the existence of God. I never said

> that it is an argument for the existence of God.

You don't seem clear on what an argument is. You don't have to

explicitly state you're making an argument in order to be having one.

Anytime you defend the position that "We live in a world created by

God," is a postulate, which is what you attempted to do, you're making

an argument.

December 19, 2006

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

>On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Jim07D6 wrote:

>

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

>>

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

<..>

>>> 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.

When you have a definition of "thing", we can talk about whether the

following are things:

God

Thor

you

trust

skateboarding

yellow

"War and Peace"

the universe

universals

objective events

subjective experiences

being

a magnetic field

Earth's gravity

rudeness

a rock

your idea of a rock

an unnamed character in a play

,,,and then we can talk about their "one mode of existence" if any.

-- Jim07D6

December 19, 2006

duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in

news:uojfo2p8tfsg7e04c5s9vhtrne9gn3coif@4ax.com:

> 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.

You're stooopid.

Klazmon.

>

> duke, American-American

>

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

> Pope Paul VI

>

December 19, 2006

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:33:08 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood"

<sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote:

>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:

>>>>> 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.

Watch closely.

>>> 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.)

If I can make the statement "An anomaly in space-time created the

universe", your claim of contradiction is a false dichotomy, whether

an anomaly in space-time created the universe of not.

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

No, I'm just demonstrating that your assertion is a false dichotomy.

>Did you get some verifiable information from somewhere about what happened before

>the Big Bang?

I need have no idea what happened in order to prove that it's not

contradictory to maintain that the universe did not create itself

while denying any belief in the existence of God. Any one of numerous

other things, none of which is your god, could have created it or

caused it to be created.

--

rukbat at optonline dot net

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want

you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our

goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by

God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want

pluralism."

-Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort

Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93

(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

December 19, 2006

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:10:36 -0800, Someone

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

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

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

>> 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.

Reality is sad to you? How sad for you, then, that you can't live in

the real world. Have you sought professional help to fix what's wrong

with you?

--

rukbat at optonline dot net

The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the

one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.

-- H. L. Mencken

(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

December 20, 2006

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

<snip>

>> No, it is just the assertion of a postulate that is accepted as

>> true in some logical domains, and without requiring any proof.

>> It is not an argument for the existence of God. I never said

>> that it is an argument for the existence of God.

>

> You don't seem clear on what an argument is. You don't have to

> explicitly state you're making an argument in order to be having one.

> Anytime you defend the position that "We live in a world created by

> God," is a postulate, which is what you attempted to do, you're making

> an argument.

The position needs no defense. It is a simple postulate, a basic

assumption accepted as true in some logical domains. A postulate

is not an argument.

An argument goes like this:

1. Major premise

2. Minor premise

3. Conclusion

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

December 20, 2006

On 12/18/06 8:09 PM, in article

JBJhh.523517$QZ1.109351@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "Weatherwax"

<Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:

>

> "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.)

>

Regarding communication between universes... that depends. There are

theories that suggest that some information of these parallel universes is

actually stored in the amplitude of the wave function in the quantum state

of any given particle. If I recall, Dr. Peter Wilson from the University of

Phoenix was using this hypothesis as a way to explain how life was possible

in the University considering the probability of life (10^-130 according to

Bernd-Olaf Kuppers and 10^-40000 according to Fred Hoyle) and the observed

size of the Universe containing only 10^20 planets; the likelihood of life

emerging is extremely unrealistic (e.g. At best, 10^-110). So the question

that is posed is: "is it a miracle or were the dices loaded?" Of course, I

sidestep that dilemma by assuming that the Universe is infinite and

therefore infers an infinite number of planets (I am not the only scientist

to make this presumption, although I am being more facetious with this

"proof"). So Wilson proposed that information passed between probabilities

via a particle's quantum state--and therefore increases the probability of,

say, a hydrogen atom becoming part of an enzyme rather than a nucleonic

cloud. I'll see if I can find the paper, if you're interested.

Oh, and if I recall, Wilson did say this hypothesis was testable... But for

some reason, I have this feeling I thought "hogwash" when I first read it.

> 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.

>

Remember my initial disclaimer... But, what -I- think is that it is unlikely

that the observable Universe is infinite. If it were, then my questions

would be "where is all the matter?" (hence the invention of "Dark Matter"

which makes up 70% of the Universe but which we cannot detect (after almost

4 years of trying!)).

>>>> 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.

Ah, but I am asking what the probability of my existence was BEFORE I

existed. If you take Kupper's number, it is on the order of 1:10^-130 ...

But some finite number (i.e. Not 1:a sideways 8). I argue that if that was

the probability of a random biological process creating me, then that

probability is about the same as having a duplicate of me.

This is a huge assumption... Not because of the "biological" part, but

because of the -me- part. We don't yet understand consciousness, and for

all I know a particular consciousness (i.e. -mine-) may be unique in the

Universe--THEN it would be like drawing a number from a barrow; each number

occurs once and only once. In this case, we can't have it both ways, either

life is a random event, or some intelligence or resource constrains it

(actually, Wilson came up with a happy medium: he builds "intelligence" into

the probability selection of a particle via its quantum state).

>

> 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.

>

I suppose its debatable, but it's not necessary to continue (although the

discussion was fascinating, eh?) You touched upon the essence of the

argument: when we start considering infinity, things start breaking

down--and frankly, the type of theories we're discussing probably won't have

some mechanism to test them within our lifetimes.

December 20, 2006

On 12/19/06 8:36 AM, in article

1166546180.765817.136310@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey"

<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>

>> Are you sure it was a version of that argument, or was it the one

>> that starts like this:

>>

>> "If God exists, then I want to be on His good side and act

>> accordingly."

>>

>> Search "Pascal's Wager" to read about how that one goes.

>> I have heard that argument from many believers who have

>> never heard of "Pascal's Wager". I have heard that one

>> even from small children who say that is their very own

>> idea and not just something they heard from their parents

>> or taught about at Sunday School.

>

> I know what Pascal's Wager is. No, it's not that at all. A lot of the

> time, in fact most of the time, what I get out of theists when I ask

> them what they base their faith on, is that they really believe God

> exists and that's all that matters to them.

>

Why deny it? I for one know what Pascal's Wager is and I'm all for it (does

anyone see a flaw in his logic?) Yeah, yeah, if there is a God and he comes

to me and says "Look, I know you were faking it" I'd say "yeah, but it was

up to you to provide better evidence in order to motivate me" (and I'll try

to say that without gnashing my teeth once).

Really, what harm does it cause to act "Christ-like?" I'm not saying

Christian-like... So you radical atheists out there, don't get into a tizzy.

December 20, 2006

On 12/19/06 3:06 PM, in article i1sgo2lfs0m112hn4h3bsrrjc4mcq91tlv@4ax.com,

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

> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:10:36 -0800, Someone

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

>

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

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

>

>>> 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.

>

> Reality is sad to you? How sad for you, then, that you can't live in

> the real world. Have you sought professional help to fix what's wrong

> with you?

Wow such a reaction to a smiley. Touched a nerve, did I? How long have you

been a misanthrope?

December 20, 2006

Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>

> <snip>

>

> >> No, it is just the assertion of a postulate that is accepted as

> >> true in some logical domains, and without requiring any proof.

> >> It is not an argument for the existence of God. I never said

> >> that it is an argument for the existence of God.

> >

> > You don't seem clear on what an argument is. You don't have to

> > explicitly state you're making an argument in order to be having one.

> > Anytime you defend the position that "We live in a world created by

> > God," is a postulate, which is what you attempted to do, you're making

> > an argument.

>

> The position needs no defense. It is a simple postulate, a basic

> assumption accepted as true in some logical domains. A postulate

> is not an argument.

>

> An argument goes like this:

>

> 1. Major premise

> 2. Minor premise

> 3. Conclusion

Your postulate was an argument.

1. Major premise: "god exists" is a postulate

2. Minor premise: you can't argue with postulates

3. Conclusion: you can't argue that god exists

December 20, 2006

Someone wrote:

> On 12/19/06 8:36 AM, in article

> 1166546180.765817.136310@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey"

> <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >>

> >> Are you sure it was a version of that argument, or was it the one

> >> that starts like this:

> >>

> >> "If God exists, then I want to be on His good side and act

> >> accordingly."

> >>

> >> Search "Pascal's Wager" to read about how that one goes.

> >> I have heard that argument from many believers who have

> >> never heard of "Pascal's Wager". I have heard that one

> >> even from small children who say that is their very own

> >> idea and not just something they heard from their parents

> >> or taught about at Sunday School.

> >

> > I know what Pascal's Wager is. No, it's not that at all. A lot of the

> > time, in fact most of the time, what I get out of theists when I ask

> > them what they base their faith on, is that they really believe God

> > exists and that's all that matters to them.

> >

>

> Why deny it?

In order to deny god exists it first has to be proven that god exists.

It's not a matter of denial until then.

> I for one know what Pascal's Wager is and I'm all for it (does

> anyone see a flaw in his logic?) Yeah, yeah, if there is a God and he comes

> to me and says "Look, I know you were faking it" I'd say "yeah, but it was

> up to you to provide better evidence in order to motivate me" (and I'll try

> to say that without gnashing my teeth once).

If I was that god I'd kick your ass for acting like a weasel. And you

forget, you might have more problems than that. What if you picked the

wrong god? Doesn't matter to me, you are so far from having evidence

for ANY god that you all look like Don Quixote attacking windmills to

me.

> Really, what harm does it cause to act "Christ-like?"

Christ was a charismatic schizophrenic at best, I think, and he is the

ultimate passive aggresive role model. I think he was a complete

lunatic, if he managed to exist. That's the harm I see in acting

"Christ-like."

>I'm not saying Christian-like... So you radical atheists out there, don't get into a tizzy.

December 20, 2006

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

> "Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:

>> "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 discernible")

>>>> 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.)

>>

>

> Regarding communication between universes... that depends. There are

> theories that suggest that some information of these parallel universes is

> actually stored in the amplitude of the wave function in the quantum state

> of any given particle. If I recall, Dr. Peter Wilson from the University

> of

> Phoenix was using this hypothesis as a way to explain how life was

> possible in the University considering the probability of life (10^-130

> according to Bernd-Olaf Kuppers and 10^-40000 according to Fred

> Hoyle) and the observed size of the Universe containing only 10^20

> planets; the likelihood of life emerging is extremely unrealistic (e.g. At

> best, 10^-110). So the question that is posed is: "is it a miracle or

> were the dices loaded?" Of course, I sidestep that dilemma by

> assuming that the Universe is infinite and therefore infers an infinite

> number of planets (I am not the only scientist to make this

> presumption, although I am being more facetious with this "proof").

> So Wilson proposed that information passed between probabilities

> via a particle's quantum state--and therefore increases the probability

> of, say, a hydrogen atom becoming part of an enzyme rather than a

> nucleonic cloud. I'll see if I can find the paper, if you're interested.

Whenever I hear this arguement, I am reminded of an example given to me by a

public speaking professor. He noted that some people have long legs, while

others have short legs. However the legs are always the exact height needed

to reach the ground. The probability of that happening by accident is too

great ignore.

The problem is that any estimate of probabilities depends on our knowledge

and understanding of the circumstances. For years Hoyle and others had

pointed out that the expansion of the universe had to be fine tuned for

galaxies to develop. This precision was too great to be left to chance.

But in 1981 Alan Guth overcame this problem with his theory of cosmic

inflation. This drastically reduced the fine tuning the universe needed at

its beginning. What's more, Cosmic Inflation his withstood the test of time

and experiment and is now accepted by nearly everybody in the field.

> Oh, and if I recall, Wilson did say this hypothesis was testable... But

> for

> some reason, I have this feeling I thought "hogwash" when I first read it.

Oddly enough, in the years since Guth came out with Inflation, physics has

hit a brick wall. Nobody has been able to come up with a quantum theory of

gravity. No one has come up with a testable theory for how the universe

started. Nobody has been able to shake science off its heels. Despite the

enormous effort put into String Theory, String Theory has produced nothing.

Only a few of the new theories are falsefiable, and they have all been

falsified.

For the time being, multi-universe theories should be placed back into the

realm which they came from: Science Fiction.

>> 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

>> ossibility

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

>> description of the universe.

>>

>

> Remember my initial disclaimer... But, what -I- think is that it is

> unlikely

> that the observable Universe is infinite. If it were, then my questions

> would be "where is all the matter?" (hence the invention of "Dark

> Matter" which makes up 70% of the Universe but which we cannot

> detect (after almost 4 years of trying!)).

Obviously the observable universe can't be infinite, light can only travel

so far in seventeen billion years. However, inflation suggestes that the

universe may have expanded beyond that, and the possibility of other big

bangs having occured beyond our limits of observation cannot be eleminated.

Whether the universe is positively curved or negatively curved is presently

unknown, although Inflation Theory suggests that it is flat.

>>>>> 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.

>

> Ah, but I am asking what the probability of my existence was

> BEFORE I existed. If you take Kupper's number, it is on the order

> of 1:10^-130 ... But some finite number (i.e. Not 1:a sideways 8).

> I argue that if that was the probability of a random biological process

> creating me, then that probability is about the same as having a

> duplicate of me.

The probability for you to exist would be no greater or less than the

probability for any other form of intelligent life. If you hadn't

happened, something else would have. But for you to happen twice would be

nearely impossible.

For example, assume that a store has two doors at its front. Two men enter

the building and choose which door to go through at random. The question

is: What is the probability that both men enter through the same door.

Most people would answer one in four. However, which door the first man

enters is irrelevant. The question is whether the second man will enter by

the same door. The odds of that is only one in two. In the same way, the

question is not the probability for you to happen, but the probability for

you to happen twice.

> This is a huge assumption... Not because of the "biological" part, but

> because of the -me- part. We don't yet understand consciousness,

>and for all I know a particular consciousness (i.e. -mine-) may be

> unique in the Universe--THEN it would be like drawing a number

> from a barrow; each number occurs once and only once. In this

> case, we can't have it both ways, either life is a random event, or

> some intelligence or resource constrains it (actually, Wilson came up

> with a happy medium: he builds "intelligence" into the probability

> selection of a particle via its quantum state).

Taking into consideration that we do not understand consciousness, and

understand little about quantum states, Wilson can come up with any theory

of consciousness he please. It won't really explain anything because we

have no way of testing it.

On the subject of consciousness and quantum states, I highly recommend the

book "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose. He also associates

consciousness with quantum states. He has a more recent book out called

"The Road to Reality", however, unless you are well grounded in

matthematics, stay away from it.

>> 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.

>>

>

> I suppose its debatable, but it's not necessary to continue (although the

> discussion was fascinating, eh?) You touched upon the essence of the

> argument: when we start considering infinity, things start breaking

> down--and frankly, the type of theories we're discussing probably

> won't have some mechanism to test them within our lifetimes.

On this, we are in agreement.

--Wax

December 20, 2006

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

This provides an interesting way of contemplating the postulate Jim

proposed:

http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-00/cover/

Barbour's central argument is that a mistaken belief in the reality of

time prevents physicists from achieving their ultimate goal: the

unification of the submicroscopic atomic world of quantum mechanics with

the vast cosmic one of general relativity. The problem arises because

each theory provides a radically different conception of time, and

physicists simply don't know how to reconcile the two views. Until they

do, they will never have one seamless theory of the universe comprising

the very smallest objects to the very largest. And certain

middling-sized objects-- human beings-- will never understand the true

nature of time and existence.

What makes the two versions of time so different? Time in the quantum

realm has no remarkable properties at all. In theories of quantum

mechanics, time is essentially taken for granted; it simply regularly

ticks away in the background, just as it does in our own lives. Like a

clock at a sporting event, it provides an invisible framework in which

events unfold. That's not the case in Einstein's general theory of

relativity.

To describe the universe on the largest scale, Einstein had to weave

time and space together into the very fabric of the universe. As a

result, in general relativity, there is no invisible framework, no clock

ticking outside the universe against which to measure events. How could

there be? Time and space joined together have weird consequences: Space

and time curve around stars and other massive bodies and make light bend

away from straight-line paths. Near black holes, time seems to slow down

or even come to a full stop.

Barbour is not alone in recognizing that the pictures of time in general

relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally incompatible.

Theoretical physicists around the world, spurred by Nobel dreams, sweat

over the problem. But Barbour has taken perhaps the most unorthodox

approach by proposing that the way to solve the conundrum is to leave

time out of the equations that describe the universe entirely. He has

been obsessed with this solution for more than 10 years, since he

learned of a vexing mathematical tour de force by a young American

physicist named Bryce DeWitt.

DeWitt, with the help of the eminent American physicist John Wheeler,

developed an equation in 1967 that apparently melded quantum mechanics

with general relativity. He did this by taking the principles from

quantum mechanics that describe the interactions of atoms and molecules

and applying them to the entire universe, a mind-bending feat not unlike

trying to make a jockey's suit fit Michael Jordan.

Specifically, DeWitt hijacked the Schrodinger equation, named for the

great Austrian physicist who created it. In its original form, the

equation reveals how the arrangement of electrons determines the

geometrical shapes of atoms and molecules. As modified by DeWitt, the

equation describes different possible shapes for the entire universe and

the position of everything in it. The key difference between

Schrodinger's quantum and DeWitt's cosmic version of the equation--

besides the scale of the things involved-- is that atoms, over time, can

interact with other atoms and change their energies. But the universe

has nothing to interact with except itself and has only a fixed total

energy. Because the energy of the universe doesn't change with time, the

easiest of the many ways to solve what has become known as the

Wheeler-DeWitt equation is to eliminate time.

Most physicists balk at that solution, believing it couldn't possibly

describe the real universe. But a number of respected theorists, Barbour

and Stephen Hawking among them, take DeWitt's work seriously. Barbour

sees it as the best path to a real theory of everything, even with its

staggering implication that we live in a universe without time, motion,

or change of any kind.

December 20, 2006

On 12/19/06 9:17 PM, in article

1166591859.574812.80720@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey"

<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> Someone wrote:

>> On 12/19/06 8:36 AM, in article

>> 1166546180.765817.136310@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey"

>> <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Are you sure it was a version of that argument, or was it the one

>>>> that starts like this:

>>>>

>>>> "If God exists, then I want to be on His good side and act

>>>> accordingly."

>>>>

>>>> Search "Pascal's Wager" to read about how that one goes.

>>>> I have heard that argument from many believers who have

>>>> never heard of "Pascal's Wager". I have heard that one

>>>> even from small children who say that is their very own

>>>> idea and not just something they heard from their parents

>>>> or taught about at Sunday School.

>>>

>>> I know what Pascal's Wager is. No, it's not that at all. A lot of the

>>> time, in fact most of the time, what I get out of theists when I ask

>>> them what they base their faith on, is that they really believe God

>>> exists and that's all that matters to them.

>>>

>>

>> Why deny it?

>

> In order to deny god exists it first has to be proven that god exists.

> It's not a matter of denial until then.

>

Ho ho! That's so funny. "I deny that God exists because he doesn't exist"

is somehow NOT denying God exists?

To give you credit, I think I understand where you're trying to come from...

But I still think it's illogical.

>> I for one know what Pascal's Wager is and I'm all for it (does

>> anyone see a flaw in his logic?) Yeah, yeah, if there is a God and he comes

>> to me and says "Look, I know you were faking it" I'd say "yeah, but it was

>> up to you to provide better evidence in order to motivate me" (and I'll try

>> to say that without gnashing my teeth once).

>

> If I was that god I'd kick your ass for acting like a weasel. And you

> forget, you might have more problems than that. What if you picked the

> wrong god? Doesn't matter to me, you are so far from having evidence

> for ANY god that you all look like Don Quixote attacking windmills to

> me.

>

Lucky for me then that you're not an all-powerful, all-knowing God .

Listen, I frankly don't care what you believe--this part of the argument is

in relation to "Pascal's Wager." What I'm pointing out is that Pascal had a

point... So let me use smaller words so that you can understand what it was

(and remove that "G" word that evidently burns your soul... Or whatever it

is you believe you have in there in place of one):

"We might be checked at the end of our lives, so we should be good" ...

See, I COULD use one syllable words, do you still have a hard time

understanding that?

My question was: "what harm?" And your answer was...

>> Really, what harm does it cause to act "Christ-like?"

>

> Christ was a charismatic schizophrenic at best, I think, and he is the

> ultimate passive aggresive role model. I think he was a complete

> lunatic, if he managed to exist. That's the harm I see in acting

> "Christ-like."

>

Sounds like you have a case of "penis envy." I guess I should've used a

phrase that didn't push your buttons: "Really, what harm does it cause to

act 'Gandhi-like?'"

People like you are disgusting (and I'm saying that from a completely

secular sense). It's as if you have such an animosity towards Jesus Christ

that you cannot even look at him from a historical, non-Religious

perspective (as I was) without blowing up. -I- was referring to Christ's

attitudes towards forgiveness, violence, love, brotherhood, etc. ...

So if Gandhi is more palatable to you, pretend I said him instead. But

really, you should have your phobias checked. If you were being serious

about how he was a "lunatic" I'll take my Bible from under the table leg and

blow the dust off it--and you can cite examples of how his attitude towards

life made him harmful.

And if you can't get over that mental block, then remove him from the

sentence altogether: what harm does it do if we live as if we'll be checked

at the end of our lives?

>> I'm not saying Christian-like... So you radical atheists out there, don't get

>> into a tizzy.

>

And I suppose you didn't understand that sentence either.

December 20, 2006

On 12/20/06 1:25 AM, in article

Mj7ih.532672$QZ1.156571@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "Weatherwax"

<Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:

>

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

..

.. <<SNIP>>

..

>>> 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.

>>

>> Ah, but I am asking what the probability of my existence was

>> BEFORE I existed. If you take Kupper's number, it is on the order

>> of 1:10^-130 ... But some finite number (i.e. Not 1:a sideways 8).

>> I argue that if that was the probability of a random biological process

>> creating me, then that probability is about the same as having a

>> duplicate of me.

>

> The probability for you to exist would be no greater or less than the

> probability for any other form of intelligent life. If you hadn't

> happened, something else would have. But for you to happen twice would be

> nearely impossible.

>

> For example, assume that a store has two doors at its front. Two men enter

> the building and choose which door to go through at random. The question

> is: What is the probability that both men enter through the same door.

>

> Most people would answer one in four. However, which door the first man

> enters is irrelevant. The question is whether the second man will enter by

> the same door. The odds of that is only one in two. In the same way, the

> question is not the probability for you to happen, but the probability for

> you to happen twice.

>

What is the probability of one man going through a particular door? 1:2.

What is the probability of the second man going through the same door? 1:2.

What is the probability of me being biologically created? 1:n (where n is

on the order of 1:10^130 [i noticed my typo previously]).

What is the probability of an identical me being biologically created? 1:n.

It's the same analogy. Hehe still just a mental exercise because I really

don't accept the estimates on the probability for life (I agree with you

that we simply don't know the dynamics of that process)--and there is a huge

difference between the published estimates of Kupper (10^-130) and Hoyle

(10^-40,000) that they may as well have been SWAGs.

December 20, 2006

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

>On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>

><snip>

>

>>> No, it is just the assertion of a postulate that is accepted as

>>> true in some logical domains, and without requiring any proof.

>>> It is not an argument for the existence of God. I never said

>>> that it is an argument for the existence of God.

>>

>> You don't seem clear on what an argument is. You don't have to

>> explicitly state you're making an argument in order to be having one.

>> Anytime you defend the position that "We live in a world created by

>> God," is a postulate, which is what you attempted to do, you're making

>> an argument.

>

>The position needs no defense. It is a simple postulate, a basic

>assumption accepted as true in some logical domains. A postulate

>is not an argument.

>

>An argument goes like this:

>

>1. Major premise

>2. Minor premise

>3. Conclusion

>

>Sam Heywood

>-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

"M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

A: It can be.

M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements

intended to establish a proposition.

A: No it isn't.

M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

A: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!

M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the

automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

(short pause)

A: No it isn't.

M: It is.

A: Not at all."

http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

-- Jim07D6

December 20, 2006

Someone wrote:

> On 12/19/06 9:17 PM, in article

> 1166591859.574812.80720@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey"

> <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> >

> > Someone wrote:

> >> On 12/19/06 8:36 AM, in article

> >> 1166546180.765817.136310@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey"

> >> <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>

> >>>> Are you sure it was a version of that argument, or was it the one

> >>>> that starts like this:

> >>>>

> >>>> "If God exists, then I want to be on His good side and act

> >>>> accordingly."

> >>>>

> >>>> Search "Pascal's Wager" to read about how that one goes.

> >>>> I have heard that argument from many believers who have

> >>>> never heard of "Pascal's Wager". I have heard that one

> >>>> even from small children who say that is their very own

> >>>> idea and not just something they heard from their parents

> >>>> or taught about at Sunday School.

> >>>

> >>> I know what Pascal's Wager is. No, it's not that at all. A lot of the

> >>> time, in fact most of the time, what I get out of theists when I ask

> >>> them what they base their faith on, is that they really believe God

> >>> exists and that's all that matters to them.

> >>>

> >>

> >> Why deny it?

> >

> > In order to deny god exists it first has to be proven that god exists.

> > It's not a matter of denial until then.

> >

>

> Ho ho! That's so funny. "I deny that God exists because he doesn't exist"

> is somehow NOT denying God exists?

>

> To give you credit, I think I understand where you're trying to come from...

> But I still think it's illogical.

I think you mean deny in the sense "to refuse to recognize or

acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate: to deny one's gods." From my

point of view, if I said I denied your god's existence then that would

implicitly mean I concede he exists. I don't. We're not there yet. You

have to convince me he exists before I get around to denying it. If I

do.

> >> I for one know what Pascal's Wager is and I'm all for it (does

> >> anyone see a flaw in his logic?) Yeah, yeah, if there is a God and he comes

> >> to me and says "Look, I know you were faking it" I'd say "yeah, but it was

> >> up to you to provide better evidence in order to motivate me" (and I'll try

> >> to say that without gnashing my teeth once).

> >

> > If I was that god I'd kick your ass for acting like a weasel. And you

> > forget, you might have more problems than that. What if you picked the

> > wrong god? Doesn't matter to me, you are so far from having evidence

> > for ANY god that you all look like Don Quixote attacking windmills to

> > me.

> >

>

> Lucky for me then that you're not an all-powerful, all-knowing God .

> Listen, I frankly don't care what you believe--this part of the argument is

> in relation to "Pascal's Wager." What I'm pointing out is that Pascal had a

> point... So let me use smaller words so that you can understand what it was

> (and remove that "G" word that evidently burns your soul... Or whatever it

> is you believe you have in there in place of one):

You seemed to have glossed over the part where I asked you what would

happen if you picked the wrong god. That's part of the wager, betting

that you have picked the right deity. And I think you're playing with

your eternal soul if you think you can act like an asshole in front of

the god while claiming to have been good.

> "We might be checked at the end of our lives, so we should be good" ...

> See, I COULD use one syllable words, do you still have a hard time

> understanding that?

You are apparently incapable of abstract thought, it's not my fault.

> My question was: "what harm?" And your answer was...

>

> >> Really, what harm does it cause to act "Christ-like?"

> >

> > Christ was a charismatic schizophrenic at best, I think, and he is the

> > ultimate passive aggresive role model. I think he was a complete

> > lunatic, if he managed to exist. That's the harm I see in acting

> > "Christ-like."

>

> Sounds like you have a case of "penis envy." I guess I should've used a

> phrase that didn't push your buttons: "Really, what harm does it cause to

> act 'Gandhi-like?'"

>

> People like you are disgusting (and I'm saying that from a completely

> secular sense). It's as if you have such an animosity towards Jesus Christ

> that you cannot even look at him from a historical, non-Religious

> perspective (as I was) without blowing up. -I- was referring to Christ's

> attitudes towards forgiveness, violence, love, brotherhood, etc. ...

Oh. And here I was thinking that you were talking about the whole

package. My bad for not reading your mind. I love being blamed when

someone else is unclear. By the way, I'm not convinced that Christ even

existed. I tend to think he did, but existant or not, I'm not impressed

by him. The fabled "love and forgiveness" turned out to be pretty

conditional, and the part about believing him or else god would be

unhappy was fairly coersive. Which I want no part of.

> So if Gandhi is more palatable to you, pretend I said him instead.

a. Gandhi made no claims of divinity.

b. Gandhi was real.

c. Gandhi was a politician.

How does anything I have to say about Gandhi relate to anything I have

to say about Christ?

> But really, you should have your phobias checked. If you were being serious

> about how he was a "lunatic" I'll take my Bible from under the table leg and

> blow the dust off it--and you can cite examples of how his attitude towards

> life made him harmful.

Rather than taking on me, take on Bertrand Russell on this subject. For

the record, I agree with the following excerpt from "Why I Am Not A

Christian."

The Character Of Christ

I now want to say a few words upon a topic which I often think is not

quite sufficiently dealt with by Rationalists, and that is the question

whether Christ was the best and the wisest of men. It is generally

taken for granted that we should all agree that that was so. I do not

myself. I think that there are a good many points upon which I agree

with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians do. I do

not know that I could go with Him all the way, but I could go with Him

much further than most professing Christians can. You will remember

that He said: "Resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy

right cheek, turn to him the other also." That is not a new precept or

a new principle. It was used by Lao-Tse and Buddha some 500 or 600

years before Christ, but it is not a principle which as a matter of

fact Christians accept. I have no doubt that the present Prime

Minister, for instance, is a most sincere Christian, but I should not

advise any of you to go and smite him on one cheek. I think you might

find that he thought this text was intended in a figurative sense.

Then there is another point which I consider excellent. You will

remember that Christ said, "Judge not lest ye be judged." That

principle I do not think you would find was popular in the law courts

of Christian countries. I have known in my time quite a number of

judges who were very earnest Christians, and they none of them felt

that they were acting contrary to Christian principles in what they

did. Then Christ says, "Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him

that would borrow of thee turn thou not away." This is a very good

principle. Your chairman has reminded you that we are not here to talk

politics, but I cannot help observing that the last general election

was fought on the question of how desirable it was to turn away from

him that would borrow of thee, so that one must assume that the

liberals and conservatives of this country are composed of people who

do not agree with the teaching of Christ, because they certainly did

very emphatically turn away on that occasion.

Then there is one other maxim of Christ which I think has a great deal

in it, but I do not find that it is very popular among some of our

Christian friends. He says, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that

which thou hast, and give to the poor." That is a very excellent maxim,

but, as I say, it is not much practiced. All these, I think, are good

maxims, although they are a little difficult to live up to. I do not

profess to live up to them myself; but then, after all, I am not by way

of doing so, and it is not quite the same thing as for a Christian.

Defects In Christ's Teaching

Having granted the excellence of these maxims, I come to certain points

in which I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative

wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the

Gospels; and here I may say that one is not concerned with the

historical question. Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ

ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him,

so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a

very difficult one. I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the

Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does

find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, he

certainly thought his second coming would occur in clouds of glory

before the death of all the people who were living at that time. There

are a great many texts that prove that. He says, for instance: "Ye

shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be

come." Then He says: "There are some standing here which shall not

taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom"; and there are

a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed His second

coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was

the belief of his earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good

deal of His moral teaching. When He said, "Take no thought for the

morrow," and things of that sort, it was very largely because He

thought the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all

ordinary mundane affairs did not count. I have, as a matter of fact,

known some Christians who did believe the second coming was imminent. I

knew a parson who frightened his congregation terribly by telling them

that the second coming was very imminent indeed, but they were much

consoled when they found that he was planting trees in his garden. The

early Christians really did believe it, and they did abstain from such

things as planting trees in their gardens, because they did accept from

Christ the belief that the second coming was imminent. In this respect

clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and he

certainly was not superlatively wise.

The Moral Problem

Then you come to moral questions. There is one very serious defect to

my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in

hell. I do not myself feel that any person that is really profoundly

humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as

depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one

does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would

not listen to His preaching -- an attitude which is not uncommon with

preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence.

You do not, for instance, find that attitude in Socrates. You find him

quite bland and urbane toward the people who would not listen to him;

and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than

to take the line of indignation. You probably all remember the sorts of

things that Socrates was saying when he was dying, and the sort of

things that he generally did say to people who did not agree with him.

You will find that in the Gospels Christ said: "Ye serpents, ye

generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell." That

was said to people who did not like His preaching. It is not really to

my mind quite the best tone, and there are a great many of these things

about hell. There is, of course, the familiar text about the sin

against the Holy Ghost: "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it

shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to

come." That text has caused an unspeakable amount of misery in the

world, for all sorts of people have imagined that they have committed

the sin against the Holy Ghost, and thought that it would not be

forgiven them either in this world or in the world to come. I really do

not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his

nature would have put fears and terrors of this sort into the world.

Then Christ says, "The Son of Man shall send forth His angels, and they

shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which

do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be

wailing and gnashing of teeth"; and He goes on about the wailing and

gnashing of teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite

manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in

contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur

so often. Then you all, of course, remember about the sheep and the

goats; how at the second coming He is going to divide the sheep from

the goats, and He is going to say to the goats: "Depart from me, ye

cursed, into everlasting fire." He continues: "And these shall go away

into everlasting fire." Then He says again, "If thy hand offend thee,

cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than

having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be

quenched, where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." He

repeats that again and again also. I must say that I think all this

doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of

cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world, and gave the

world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if

you could take Him as his chroniclers represent Him, would certainly

have to be considered partly responsible for that.

There are other things of less importance. There is the instance of the

Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put

the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You

must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils

simply go away; but He chose to send them into the pigs. Then there is

the curious story of the fig-tree, which always rather puzzled me. You

remember what happened about the fig-tree. "He was hungry; and seeing a

fig-tree afar off having leaves, He came if haply He might find

anything thereon; and when he came to it He found nothing but leaves,

for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it:

'No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever'.... and Peter.... saith

unto Him: 'Master, behold the fig-tree which thou cursedst is withered

away.'" This is a very curious story, because it was not the right time

of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree. I cannot

myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of

virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to

History. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those

respects.

Me again...I think Christ was a lunatic (my word) based on the above.

> And if you can't get over that mental block, then remove him from the

> sentence altogether: what harm does it do if we live as if we'll be checked

> at the end of our lives?

I see a difference between "we might be checked at the end of our

lives" and "as if we'll be checked at the end of our lives." Both of

which you're tossing out. "As if" implies that you're acting without

believing, which I can manage, "might" implies that you're acting on

belief, which I can't. Either way though, I think acting "good" because

you're scared a deity might be pissed off is delusional (until you

prove that a deity actually exists), and acting delusionally can be

harmful. Look at the number of theists, Christian theists included, who

thought they were acting "good" when in fact they were inflicting great

pain and causing tremendous social upheaval. The guys who flew the

planes into the World Trade Tower thought they were acting good.

I prefer that people base their social behaviour on the rational

concept that we're all better off if we're all supportive of each

other, and follow the secular laws of the land. Something like that. No

threat of god or religious delusions required, since I think any good

parts of the religious message just get twisted.

> >> I'm not saying Christian-like... So you radical atheists out there, don't get

> >> into a tizzy.

> >

>

> And I suppose you didn't understand that sentence either.

It didn't apply to me so I ignored it. I'm not a radical, and you have

a long ways to go for me to achieve "tizzy." Up to now I've thought you

were sort of funny.

December 20, 2006

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

>

> Why deny it? I for one know what Pascal's Wager is and I'm all for

> it (does anyone see a flaw in his logic?)

Philosophers have torn Pascal's Wager apart many years ago. There are

numerous flaws in it. The biggest of them is his assumption that there are

only two choices. There are really thousands of religions and religious

sects, and several times that many possible religions. The chance of

choosing the one TRUE RELIGION is against you. Chossing the wrong religion

could be interpreted as worse than joining no religion, therefore you may be

condemning youself to eternal punishment by choosing to follow a false God..

Another problem is that you are choosing God out of the hope of receiving a

reward, rather than the purer motive of choosing God because it is right.

It may be the nature of God to reject you on that point alone.

Finally, people may use that argument in confronting others, but I have

never heard of anybody giving that as the reason they became religious.

> Yeah, yeah, if there is a God and he comes to me and says "Look, I

> know you were faking it" I'd say "yeah, but it was up to you to

> provide better evidence in order to motivate me" (and I'll try

> to say that without gnashing my teeth once).

>

> Really, what harm does it cause to act "Christ-like?" I'm not saying

> Christian-like... So you radical atheists out there, don't get into a

> tizzy.

I follow the theory that Jesus was a political rebel. That is exactly what

the title "Messiah" means. According to the Old Testament, the messiah will

sit on the throne of David and restore the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

Jesus never sat on the throne of David, and he did not restore the kingdoms

of Israel and Judah. Therefore Jesus could not have been the messiah.

Christianity has made Jesus into a God. If you are a Christian, you may be

violating the 2nd Commandment by worshipping a false god, and will bring the

anger of Yahweh upon your children even unto the fourth generation (Exodus

20:5). You are gambling your children's souls. You and your children may

be better off not worshipping any God at all.

--Wax

Sign In

What was God doing before he created the universe?

Recommended Posts

Guest duke

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest duke

Guest Neil Kelsey

Guest AcesLucky

Guest Ted King

Guest Samuel W. Heywood

Guest Scott Richter

Guest Neil Kelsey

Guest Jim07D6

Guest Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th

Guest Al Klein

Guest Al Klein

Guest Samuel W. Heywood

Guest Someone

Guest Someone

Guest Someone

Guest Neil Kelsey

Guest Neil Kelsey

Guest Weatherwax

Guest Ted King

Guest Someone

Guest Someone

Guest Jim07D6

Guest Neil Kelsey

Guest Weatherwax

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity

Support