401. 2006 Charles Simonyi Lecture: 'Can the Internet Save The Enlightenment?'

Comment #90865 by steve99 on November 26, 2007 at 2:23 pm

CJ22: No need to ask. Just listen, and be very impressed by Krotos's voice, and the frightening things he says.

402. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90795 by steve99 on November 26, 2007 at 11:39 am

His language dishonours the merit of his ideas.

I have to agree. However, I am not even sure his ideas have that much merit.

There is only that much you can require the reader to decode from your writing.
Also generalizing this specific field to all of science is misleading.

I have to agree with this too. In fact, like a good scientist, I am starting to review my opinion based on increasing evidence....

403. That's not MY God or Religion you're criticising

Comment #90767 by steve99 on November 26, 2007 at 9:57 am

I think life is much more than definitions (and the God is involved in the life, not in the science or theory).

Over the centuries we have seen life defined ever more precisely by science and theory. Where is God in this?

404. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90731 by steve99 on November 26, 2007 at 8:18 am

So does this guy always calculate Pi when he works with it, or does he have faith that it didn't change?

That is NOT what he is talking about. He is discussing things like the dimensionality of space, the numbers and types of particles and so on.

405. That's not MY God or Religion you're criticising

Comment #90707 by steve99 on November 26, 2007 at 7:27 am

We dont know anything about what the God is

Then it is somewhat rash to even consider that a God exists.

406. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90673 by steve99 on November 26, 2007 at 5:23 am

It does not require faith to believe that the universe follows laws.

He is not saying that the universe does not follow laws. What he is arguing about is where those laws come from. He is attempting to point out that it is flawed to assume as given that those laws come from outside of the universe.

407. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90646 by steve99 on November 26, 2007 at 2:11 am

The idea that the constants represent "knobs" somewhere that can be "fine tuned" is completely backwards.

I guess this is a problem with word use, as you say. The use of the word 'constant' in physics is somewhat flexible, as in relatively recent talk about 'changes in the fine structure constant'.

However, many ideas about fundamental physics do indeed have constants that are like "knobs" that can be changed. One example of such an idea is string theory. The types of particles and the nature of the forces that act between them are determined by the properties of the Calabi-Yau spaces. Well, there are many, many different spaces, and each space represents, in some sense, a different position of the "knobs".

408. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90639 by steve99 on November 26, 2007 at 1:20 am

gr8hands:

(Not every scenario, or even most, came up with an overabundance of black holes, nor continuous spatial inflation.)

It obviously depends which constants you fiddle with. There is disagreement about which constants can change, but if you assume the cosmological constant can change, then it requires considerable fine tuning in order to produce a universe with complexity. There is also the issue of the initial entropy of the universe.

Of course, it may turn out that these are not the problems we think they are... but we are in no position to claim that yet.

If Davies has a problem with physicists saying "the laws just are", then he should equally have a problem with people who say "God created everything, but nobody created God, God always was." Thus far, he's not pointed out how that is illogical. Any guess why not?

He has pointed out precisely that. In fact, the whole point of what he is looking into is to avoid any "always was" assumptions. He finds the "laws just are and always were" just as unsatisfying as "God just is and always was". That was the theme of his recent book "The Goldilocks Engima", and his talk last year at "Beyond Belief".

409. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90592 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 5:19 pm

I love PZ's turn of phrase.

Perhaps, but I believe his understanding of the issues involved with possible changes in the laws of physics and the existence of life are mistaken. For even small changes in the laws, the universe is unlikely to have any stable physical structures, let alone anything like atoms which could exist.

When someone says that life would not exist if the laws of physics were just a bit different, they know this because detailed models of different cosmoses have been set up, and life (let alone atoms) is unlikely in to exist in situations such as within black holes or in areas of continuous spatial inflation.

Imagine a cosmic shower thermostat, where you have have to set the temperature control to within 1 part in 10 to the power 50 (to give a rough indication) in order to get something other than absolute zero and heart-of-atomic-explosion temperature, and you get the idea.

I agree that it is difficult to know what the anthropic principle actually means, but it is entirely reasonable to ask why a universe with what looks like (at this stage) extremely unlikely values of parameters exists.

410. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90576 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 3:39 pm

If the author has a reputation.

Wikipedia, Google, and in Davies' case even scanning the books in the science section of bookshops and libraries are helpful in settling such a question :)

411. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90562 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 2:21 pm

You may not have liked my "Davies must hate science " comment.

Oh dear. It seems I am going to have to apologise to someone else as well. I believe I misinterpreted what you were saying, as I agree with everything you say here.

I assumed you meant something along the lines of 'Davies really hates science in general' where as what I now believe you meant was that 'Davies must hate science because of the way he seems to be provoking attacks on science by the religious'...

412. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90556 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Yes. Please don't assume I'm being knee-jerk in my dismissiveness.

In that case, I apologise.

413. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90552 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 1:46 pm

How odd - I can't seem to read the comments here anymore! How very annoying! Other threads works ok - what gives?

Looks to me like a presentation bug on the site that kicks in when a page has got full.

414. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90544 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 1:27 pm

Diacanu: As I don't know the correct emoticon, you will just have to imagine a raised eyebrow, and a smirk, along with a feeling that I have been taking myself (and discussions) too seriously again..

415. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90535 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 12:45 pm

steve99, welcome to the Internet. =) You may be unsettled, but the last thing you should be is surprised.

Just thought I should point out, I have been using the internet for a very, very long time. Little surprises me. But this is different. I would have thought that supporters of someone as respected and decent as Richard Dawkins would at least have a bit more style and dignity in the way they insult people :)

416. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90528 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 12:28 pm

I actually spent this morning with my initial 'bloody idiot' comment in my head and felt quite foolish

You made an honest mistake, and changed your mind, and said so. That is a decent way to behave.

However, I am sort of mentally reeling from some of the posts here. Davies has been clumsy with words, and I personally think (for what it is worth), that some of his ideas are a bit weird, but he in no way deserves some of the attacks posted here. I mean honestly ... 'idiot'... 'dishonest SOB'? (just to pick from one post).

Attacking ideas is one thing (and it seems few have bothered to read Davies'/Wheeler's ideas in any detail before doing this), but such ad-hominems shame this site, in my opinion.

Having the last word in a debate is not a life and death issue.

That is not the issue. I don't care about people slagging me off... it is the knee-jerk and insulting responses to the article that I find rather disturbing.

Ah well.. enjoy the thread. I'll wait until something a little calmer appears..

417. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90514 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 11:57 am

- Our universe is a mathematical structure, there's no distinction between the "laws" of the universe and the universe itself, they are one and the same.

No, that is not what Tegmark's model is about at all. It is about removal of laws by claiming that all mathematical structures represent real universes.

I mean, c'mon. Perhaps mathematics allows for this kind of silly infinite regress, I don't know, as I said I won't even try to guess, but one thing is obvious: This hypothesis has no more explanatory power than, "It's turtles all the way down", or, "The laws of the universe just exist." It's not even a slight improvement.

You should research Davies' work further. It is precisely this kind of regress that he seeks to avoid.

Maybe that's what he believes, but it's not what he's saying in this particular article (or in many others I've read). Is it because he's an idiot, a bad writer, or a dishonest SOB? I think it's last possibility is the correct one, but hey, who knows?

I think I have finally had it with this site.

I mean, to be honest, what is the point? Rather than discussing ideas, threads seem increasingly to be filled with political ranting, religious trolls, and now (the last straw for me), a series of frankly outrageous attacks on a scientist who has world-wide respect, and that (I would hope) will shock many who read this site.

418. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90507 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 11:28 am

Argh, not Davies again. I don't need to read more than the title to know what this piece will say.

I find this a rather disturbing attitude on what is supposed to be a site of rationality and clear thinking.

Do you know any detail of Davies' thoughts and how they fit with the mutable law ideas of John Wheeler?

I have to say that some of what has been posted in this thread has really unsettled me. This is not supposed to be what science is about... knee-jerk reactions and ad-hominem attacks.

419. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90506 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 11:23 am

This is an interesting idea. But if such "negotiation" happens, would it also be governed by some "meta" law? How can we understand this negotiation process without some assumption that it can be understood?

I honestly don't know.

If it turns out that laws really don't exist after certain point we can move on to look at other problems

That really isn't what he is saying, as I understand it. It is that most scientists seem to assume certain laws are absolute and objective in a platonic sense.

but to my mind he is definitely guilty of poor use of words.

Oh I certainly agree with that!

steve99 keeps saying people here are misrepresenting Paul Davies, but I think he is actually the one doing the mispresentation:

I really don't think I am, and as others have claimed, I am not reading too much into the article. The article is just one short summary of ideas that he and others have been putting forward for years.

I am not his greatest fan by any means, but I am astonished by the knee-jerk reactions I have read here.

So how could "Science" as an institution become "some scientists"?

Well, he is saying that the existence of universal law is an assumption of most scientists. And science as an institution, rather than as a principle, consists of what most scientists believe and what they do.

420. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90491 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 10:17 am

The author is conflating the use of the word 'faith' in it's religious sense with 'faith', in the scientific sense, or in the sense that I have 'faith' that the Sun will rise in the morning.

No, I don't believe that is what he is doing. He is saying that some scientists have an unquestioning belief in certain principles that they haven't even considered challenging.

421. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90480 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 9:18 am

I would just like someone's opinion because I feel I am somewhat unschooled in the matter.

What Davies is talking about is the the assumption that there are fixed laws of physics that exist outside the universe. For example, string theorists would probably claim that string theory is a fundamental law, and which universes exist are determined by it. Davies worries that such claims are too inflexible. Instead we need to consider the possibility that laws of physics and universes could evolve together, perhaps through some sort of 'negotiation' through time. This is not outrageous... the implications of some interpretations of Quantum Mechanics allow for such negotiations. Where Davies' ideas get a little fuzzy (as even he will probably admit) is the role of observers (conscious or otherwise) in that process. The basic idea is that there aren't really any fixed laws external to universes. Universes start with flexibility and end up with laws that allow observers. The system is self-determining, and there is no need to explain fine tuning or underlying physical laws.

422. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90462 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 8:17 am

A scientist could be agnostic about whether the universe is "rational", or even believe that it's irrational, and he would still be able to find the wonderful order that scientists have found thus far in our universe.

Yes, but his claim is that most scientists aren't agnostic about this. They take the rationality of the universe as a given. I think it is a fair claim.

Criticizing the multiverse hypothesis for shifting up the problem of why there are laws one level is silly, because the multiverse was never meant to solve that problem. The only question that the multiverse is meant to answer is (2), not (1).

Depends entirely which multiverse model you choose. Some are certainly attempting to solve problem (1), like that of Tegmark.

You just can't keep yourself from putting religion and science on an equal footing, can you Davies?

He isn't.

Doctor Davies' pet theory is that physical laws exist because they were shaped by the intelligent beings who live in the universe that these laws govern. The intelligent beings can exist in this universe because the laws are _just right_ to permit their existence, while the laws exist because the intelligent beings have modified them to make them _just right_.

No wonder he didn't mention his theory in this article. If he had, he'd be perceived as a crackpot by everyone who reads it.

Actually no. Some modern thinking about physics IS this weird. This is not crackpot thinking at all. It is part of the thinking of John Wheeler, mentor of Feynman, Kip Thorn, and Everett; one of the most significant physicists of the last century.

I am a little concerned about some of the responses to what Davies has written. We complain justifiably when critics respond to what they think Dawkins writes (as in TGD), and not what he actually writes. We should be careful about falling into that trap. I agree that Davies does not help in this matter, as he is not (in my view) so skilled a writer as Dawkins, but even so...

423. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90453 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 7:23 am

i dont really understand the authors point. accepting a framework of physical laws even if as yet their reason is unknown isnt faith, the laws are apparently there. To suggest this is somehow equivalent to faith in a universal ceator which may or not be there seems quite different even if this notion of god is way different from one that doesnt like people to work on sundays.

True, but what Davies is saying is that some scientists are kind of assuming 'there are laws' in an axiomatic and unquestioning way, and this can in some senses be like the unquestioning way people assume God as axiomatic.

steve, yes i blundered, i thought the snippet was the entire piece!! then i read the whole lot and hey presto the authors meanings become realised.

It was a very clumsily pitched snippet....

424. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90452 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 7:20 am

Not that I've any desire to hunt myself but the ban crippled livelihoods and besides foxes are still being killed. Farmers would love foxes to go extinct. The Countryside Alliance on the other hand did at least some work to preserve fox habitats. In order that those foxes could be hunted. People who think that is ridiculous have far too cosy a view of the world IMO

Well, I am afraid I just don't take what the Countryside Alliance says very seriously. There has been little evidence I have seen of crippled livelihoods and mass slaughter of hounds that was implied would be the result of the ban.

There have always been perfectly acceptable alternatives to fox hunting that can keep the riding and use of hounds going, such as drag hunting.

Elimination of pests is one thing. Dressing it up as a sport and taking pleasure in it is, in my view, attempting to dignify sadism.

425. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90446 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 7:15 am

Paul Davies must hate science. He's saying that one (and only) assumption that science takes for granted.

What a pathetic piece. But what does one expect from a scientist who has chosen to commit intellectual suicide because he can't throw of his childhood brainwashing.

its hard to know if this is a piss take or not.

the author is another bloody idiot

Whoah! Hold on there people. It does no good to over-react and misinterpret someone who is a very respected scientist; certainly not an idiot or science hater.

Paul Davis is NOT saying that faith is good, or that science is just like religion. In fact, he is very pro-science. What he is saying is we have to question even more than we are doing now - we have to be even more skeptical.

He is saying that many scientists assume some definite laws of nature that are external to the universe. His view (which is shared by some of the great minds of physics, such as John Wheeler) is that even the supposed 'laws of physics' may be mutable, especially when the universe was much, much younger and smaller. He is suggesting we need to be more flexibile in our thinking of what 'laws' of physics are.

So can I politely suggest a little more moderation and thought before posting? This sort of over-reaction does the site no favours.

426. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90426 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 5:30 am

Whilst I don't doubt he is fervently religious, his 10 years as PM were all about stage-managed smoke and mirrors.

And scottish and welsh independence (sorry - devolution). And major new rights for mothers and new fathers. And banning hunting. And the incorporation of human rights into UK law. And maintaining low unemployment. And equality of age of consent for homosexuals. And civil partnerships.

Blair was far from perfect, but to claim he was nothing but a spinner is to ignore major achievements of the past 10 years.

427. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90346 by steve99 on November 24, 2007 at 12:16 pm

It seems to me very relevant.

The Church rejected Gallileo's ideas. Whether or not he was a believer is irrelevant. They actively worked to supress scientific ideas. They still do. So putting up some kind of vague 'people are nice because it is nice to be nice' statement from Pope John Paul II and claiming it shows how cosy faith and science can be just won't work.

428. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90339 by steve99 on November 24, 2007 at 11:07 am

Steve et al, I think you're wasting your time on this guy. A serious case of rowing with several oars out of the water. I'd rather see the Wee Flea than Ruth; at least there was some evidence of a cerebral cortex there.
Steve

You are right. Waste of time.

429. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90336 by steve99 on November 24, 2007 at 10:52 am

That's interesting, seeing how Christ mentioned the scriptures, as did those he preached to; as recorded in the New Testament.

Please try that one again.

No, you don't get it. Someone wrote that Christ mentioned the scriptures, a long time after his death. That is not the same now, is it?

430. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90335 by steve99 on November 24, 2007 at 10:51 am

Bunk.

Please tell me what will happen to a piece of iron that is left outside uncovered. Will it evolve into a mighty battleship, or will it rust away (devolve) into dust.

Likewise, tell me what will happen to a piece of food left outside. Will it evolve into a grocery store, or will it devolve into 'nothing.'

Look mate, you can't just make things up. Self-organisation is real. Much of the complexity inside your cells is from self-assembly of molecules. Spontaneous formation of order is used in industry. It is not an just an idea.

You're not observing 'evolution' when you see an infant grow from an embryo, you're simply seeing growth that began from two larger, intelligent beings that came together and created an infant.

No-one is claiming that this IS evolution. It is called development.

Likewise it's the same basic thing with all other cells you observe.

No, it isn't. Put some bugs in a laboratory, and expose them to pesticides at a low dose, and over many, many generations, they will evolve resistance. No Hand of God involved.

If you believe in abiogenesis, then prove it.

No, sorry, doesn't work like that. I don't claim to know how abiogenesis happened. We have some good ideas about how it might have happened. But you claim you do - God. You are the one claiming knowledge. Prove it.

431. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90331 by steve99 on November 24, 2007 at 10:34 am

Perhaps you can tell me the odds of Christ knowing the prophecy contained within that thread, and myself knowing it as well, or perhaps you can just tell me how it is all just a meaningless, insignificant 'coincidence.'

I assume you realise that the bible was written long after Christ's death. It is very easy to claim someone knew a prophecy when you are able to write the story afterwards.

You know what would really be great? A prophecy in the bible that actually meant something, and was not vague waffle.

As one of your other fellow darwinists stated, "GIGO."

Do you actually have any clue what you are trying to say here? How is making a scientific prediction and having that prediction confirmed "garbage"?

I have to say that, to put things moderately, I don't detect good reasoning skills here.....

432. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90327 by steve99 on November 24, 2007 at 10:30 am

Evolutionists believe that all large, complex, intelligent matter came forth from small, less complex and less intelligent matter.

Creationists believe that small, less-complex, less intelligent matter came forth from the greatest, most complex and intelligent matter there is - God.

You believe in evolution; we believe in devolution. Yours has the highest odds against it; ours has the lesser.

Yet you claim to be the 'logical' ones.

More of that "clear thinking?"

You are missing something. We know that more complex things can arise from less complex things (to put it simply) because we see it all the time in the physical world. In order to understand what is going on, you would need some knowledge of non-linear thermodynamics. What happens is that order spontaneously (without God doing anything) arises when there are systems far from equilibrium. I suggest you look up the term 'self-organisation'.

So, you, see, what we claim is not 'against the odds' - we see it all the time. We see no evidence of any creator, and no need for one.

You aren't doing very well here in putting your case. You claim that order and complexity can't arise without a creator, when we see it every day in the physical world. You claim we need faith to accept evolution, when we also see that around us all the time. You must be walking around in some kind of deluded daze. Just open your eyes, and get an education. You will find the world is, in reality, quite unlike your impression of it.

433. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90326 by steve99 on November 24, 2007 at 10:22 am

Which is nothing but a hopeful theory on your part, seeing how you haven't even been able to develop even a part of an eye in any lab through 'evolution.'

Eh? Evolution of something like the eye is gradual. It takes millions of years.

Why on Earth should we expect to be able to develop a biological eye 'in the lab'?

Your statement is nothing but theoretical hogwash and you know it.

No, it is good science. We were able to predict how the eye must have evolved, and we have seen those predictions in Nature.

434. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90319 by steve99 on November 24, 2007 at 9:50 am

Galileo, as a Catholic, was a member of the Church (a term you seem to have a partial understanding of). You might also find this article written in the conservative Catholic publication, The Catholic Encyclopedia, in 1909, if not interesting then maybe informative.

His membership of the Church is irrelevant. If you study the history if his ideas it will show that your cosy image of the Catholic Church walking hand-in-hand with science is somewhat naive.

If you persist I shall simply have to mention Giordano Bruno; appropriately, as it is 400 years since the Catholic Church burned him for his ideas.

435. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90313 by steve99 on November 24, 2007 at 8:48 am

Another example of science and religion, faith and reason, walking hand-in-hand on the journey of truth.

If it were anyone else, I would assume this was ironic. This is the same Catholic Church that rejected the works of Galileo until 1992.

436. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90310 by steve99 on November 24, 2007 at 8:17 am

A fascinating piece of research echoing The Holy Father's teaching in 'Veritas Splendor' when he pointed out that, 'In the depths of his conscience man detects a law which he does not impose on himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil.'

Interesting. I would be curious to read The Holy Father's teachings about great apes, which also show moral behaviour. I am sure his expertise in primate behavour matches his undoubted deep understanding of child development.

437. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90305 by steve99 on November 24, 2007 at 7:08 am

this is useful

It is.... what a good article.

438. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90302 by steve99 on November 24, 2007 at 6:38 am

steve 99. in the course of any conversation on evo i always ensure i use the word 'accept' over believe , believe has become one of those words oft overused these days, i blame oprah, same with joy, love(unconditional), praise.

I was trying to use the term 'believe' in the sense of 'have faith in', but I accept what you are saying.

439. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90299 by steve99 on November 24, 2007 at 6:17 am

why is not something as complex as a DNA chain or an eye or a brain, etc., not intelligently made in your eyes?

Because we know how complex things like that can form without a creator. Let's take the case of the eye. We have figured out all the stages by which a slightly sensitive patch of cells can evolve to a complex and powerful eye, with each step along the way being purely due to natural selection. That alone should be enough to convince anyone rational that no designer was needed. However, Nature has been generous - we can actually see almost all of those stages of development in living animals... I mean, honestly, what more evidence can anyone need?

With odds like that, why is it that you nevertheless believe in evolution, seeing how the chances for all of the life on this planet being made by an intelligent being are far better?

I have no idea what you mean by "odds like that", but we believe in evolution as against life being made by an intelligent being not just because evolution is far simpler, but because we have actually seen evolution happen. Lots of it. And not just with bugs, but with large organisms. We have seen new species form. We have seen animals adapt to changing environment. We don't really 'believe' in evolution any more than we 'believe' that the Earth is round - it is silly to talk about possible 'belief' in evolution when it happens all around us.

440. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90288 by steve99 on November 24, 2007 at 2:29 am

Faith in Christ is hardly dangerous...

Tell that to the people who have been oppressed and persecuted in the name of Christianity over the centures.

The Bible says that in the last days there will come a falling away, meaning a world that was formally largely Christian will begin to diminish from such.

"Formally largely Christian"? When was that then?

And we're seeing it today, and your theory is just another part of what was prophesied 2000 years ago about these last days.

Wow! The theory of evolution by natural selection was prophesied?

Your answer to that of course, is "There is no God, no Christ, no eternal life, no hell, no soul. We are a lucky, random chance evolution, with no purpose, no destiny, no afterlife, nothing. Survival of the fittest, to hell with love and caring about anyone else, there's no such thing as morals or virtue or sin or righteousness, nothing. We're just nothing but matter."

You are a sad individual if you think that is how atheists feel. We don't need to make things up to love, to care, to have morals, virtue, purpose and a sense of destiny.

I have a far stronger sense of destiny than you. You talk about "end days". I see the possibility that humanity is at the very beginning of its existence in the cosmos. I look ahead to colonies on the other planets, of travel between the stars. I find your view of the world sad and claustrophobic.

The theory of evolution is nothing more than one more invention of a rebellious people who refuse to come to God.

It is the foundation of our current understanding of life. It is majestic - working over periods a million times longer than that suggested by the bible.

Nuclear terrorism is a serious potential threat.

Particularly combined with fundamentalist faith.

Your ilk is nothing but puffed up, narcissistic, very foolish scoffers

You have been the one coming here, claiming to know more about the nature of life and reality than some of our greatest scientists. That sounds puffed up and 'scoffing' to me. You claim that you will be saved by God. That sounds narcissistic.

I feel sorry for you, as you are missing so much. The world is a far more interesting and wonderful place than in your view. There is so much you could discover.

441. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90275 by steve99 on November 23, 2007 at 10:51 pm

If you're so sure of your theory, why then would you have to purposely "attack" anyone?

Because the combination of ignorance and faith you demonstrate is dangerous.

442. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90242 by steve99 on November 23, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Creation is change. Creating something out of nothing is change.

Indeed. This raises an interesting theological question.

After an eternity of waiting, of hanging around, doing the Times crossword, God suddenly decides ...
"this afternoon, at 2:30, just after a good lunch at the Pub, I'll make a Universe"

why then....

443. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90227 by steve99 on November 23, 2007 at 3:22 pm

No, no, he would have written "aaaaaarrrgghh!".
;)

I was going to condemn you for your wicked, immoral atheist ways, but this made me laugh too much.

444. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90226 by steve99 on November 23, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Will you deny infinity because you can't explain it?

There have been an awful lot of explanations of infinity. We need so many explanations as there are so many infinities. I suspect that few theologians who discuss infinity realise this. They need to study the works of Cantor and Hilbert.

I suspect that theologians are using terms like infinity to say that 'God is just, like, so much bigger than anything!'

Since you can't explain infinity either, then you have no real knowledge to not be presumptuous about it.

Well, indeed. Which does raise the question about why you feel you can comment.

All we can see of it is its 'shadow.' It is therefore invisible to us, but we can still 'see' it nevertheless, because we know that it is there.

This is something that really irritates me. Theists thinking they can just play about with words.

If you are going to use words like 'infinite', I suggest you get educated about what it means. May I suggest 'A Brief History of Infinity' by Brian clegg. An excellent book (the section on Gabriel's trumpet at the end is awesome).

445. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90215 by steve99 on November 23, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Howcome on the front page, I keep seeing posts by Zsuzsa, but when I click his/her name, there's no posts?

Being software engineer who occasionally dabbles in website development, I have an idea. These may be blank posts, with no content. Perhaps someone has forgotten to 'cut and paste' from a text editor into the 'Post a comment' box?

446. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90198 by steve99 on November 23, 2007 at 12:42 pm

For doing good. Because he is the Ultimate Goodness Mater, and good is something that ought to be done.

And it ought to be done because it is good. And good is good. Because it is good.

But how do you know what is good?

Well, I don't know anything about what you call God.

How do you know anything about what you call God?

You mean, why do I associate the Ultimate Goodness Mater with goodness?

That is called 'begging the question' :)

Well, I wonder whether we are members of the same species. For me, conscience doesn't work in the way you indicate it does.

I would suggest it does. The fact that you are searching for guidance about what is good shows you are a moral person, no matter what you think about yourself. You are trying to externalise your conscience into a God of goodness.

It can point out what whould be the good decision (of course only if you accept that there is such a thing), but I do a lot of little bad things every day without much suffering from guilty conscience and it seems to me that the others around me do the same.

Well there you go... "little" bad things. What stops you doing worse? Conscience and consequences.

Maybe your conscience is much more powerful than mine, I don't know. Anyhow just look at how much bad things people have done in the past.

Sure, but in general people nurture each other, are generous, look after their children and parents...

Do you really think that conscience works?

I certainly do, along with people being nasty to you if you go too far.

Why doesn't it work or all the bad people?

Because not everyone is the same.

447. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90195 by steve99 on November 23, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Well, even if you don't accept that goodness means that the thing is something ought to be done, there is the idea of afterlife.

That doesn't help in the least. Unless you can point at the definitive scale of goodness, and unless you can know where along that line God wants us to be, you can't use the bribe of an afterlife. It is claiming there is a reward for doing... who knows?

Well, my experience is that in most cases it's not so hard to prevail over that conscience.

Only to a degree, unless you are a psycopath.

Ok, but which are the other properties of God?

Assuming he exists, I don't know... do you?

In my opinion, the main property of God is to be the Ultimade Goodness Mater / the impersonator of goodness (the two things are closely connected).
If you use the word 'God' for the creator of the Universe than you're right that we don't know whether He (if exists) is good or bad. But if you use it as me (and as Aquinas) than the question is meaningless.

It certainly isn't. I am just so curious as to why you associate goodness with God. I mean, it would be nice to have a supernatural hero who followed our idea of niceness, but what justification do you have?

The other problem I have with this viewpoint is: so what if God IS the instantiator of goodness? Unless we have some indicator of what goodness is, then this is irrelevant. One person's goodness is another person's taboo-breaking obscenity.

To reiterate my analogy, imagine two people in a car. Let's call them Hope and Faith. They are lost.

Hope: "where are you going?"
Faith: "I don't know, but I feel it is the right direction"
Hope: "How does that help?"
Faith: "Because there is a true map of these roads somewhere"
Hope: "Sorry... I don't understand"
Faith: "The map instantiates the right direction. Therefore there is a true way"
Hope: "But you don't have the map here"
Faith: "Doesn't matter. The fact that there IS a map, and it is the essence of true navigation, means there is a correct route"
Hope: "So?"
Faith: "Well, the fact that there is objectively a right direction means that if I use my inner sense of directionality, we should be alright"
Hope: "Please stop the car, I think I would be safer walking"

Do you see what I am getting at? Unless you have a direct and unambiguous indication of the nature of God (and we certainly don't), it matters not one whit if God is the embodiment of perfect goodness.

We don't all agree on which things are good but we all use goodness as a quality. If it isn't a quality than what?

What we feel about something.

I agree that what you said is clear. The problem that while it is clear it is also false. :) There are bad things we can do without any punishment. We, in fact, do them regularly. If there is no absolute morality, than there is no reason not to do them except that you'll suffer from guilty conscience

Precisely - that is what I have been saying all along.

but in most cases, this doesn't counterbalance the benefits of being bad.

It clearly does, as we have survived as a species. That is what conscience is for. Conscience works. (Combined with other members of the species growling at you or bashing you over the head with a rock if you upset them).

We see other species, presumably without religion, acting morally. So any idea that we need some idea of a transcendant standard to do good is clearly mistaken.

448. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90192 by steve99 on November 23, 2007 at 11:26 am

If you say that there is a moral standard than you have to face the problem and try to find out which of the two decisions is the good one.

Why? Just because there is a standard, does not mean we have to consider it.

This is the problem with your point of view, you see. Simply claiming there is absolute morality does not help, unless you can say why it matters.

If you say that there is no moral standard than you can go and have a drink. It doesn't matter, really.

Why doesn't it matter?

I don't really understand. Where does it come from and what's the connection between the things I've said?

Conscience is an inner nagging voice that can make us feel bad. It is a motivation to do certain things even if those things don't directly lead to happiness or pleasure.

Show me that circularity is a quantity of things! Or it isn't? Good and bad are words. We use tham as quantities. What else could they be?

Opinions; Feelings.

There is a definition of circularity that we all agree on, unlike 'goodness'.

What I call God is good. If there is something that exist and has all the properties of God except goodness than there is no God.

And what I call God is green. If there is something that exists and has all the properties of God except greeness, then there is no God.

This is wordplay, nothing more.

God is brought into things because some people consider there a need to be a creator. You can't just slap the label 'good' on Him unless you have evidence. And you have as much evidence for that as I have that God is green.

This is still false. As I've said, there are good acts that benefits you. And there are otherts that not. And you're right, there are bad acts that in the end, don't benefit you, but there are other bad acts that do.

What on earth has that got to do with transcendance? What I have said is clear. Being "good" results in a less problematic life. So it is worth doing, just so we don't end up miserable.

I can't understand this. Do you say that I'm not perfect? Of course I'm not, but bevause I believe in that standard I make an effort to get as close to perfection as possible.

Why? For all you know, 62.3% "perfection" should be the ideal.

449. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90186 by steve99 on November 23, 2007 at 10:21 am

And we're all perfect, we never hate and we're never selfish and so on. If this would be true than there would be no problem. But it isn't. Yes, someteimes helping out other gives us pleasure but many other times it doesn't.

That is where conscience comes in.

Ok, bit it's still not the same as love, hate and so on. In fact it is still much closer to qualities of things. Of yourse if I say that something is circular than it is a matter of how I judge it. But my judge doesn't make it circular or not circular.

Yes, but you are simply declaring 'good' and 'bad' as qualities of things. That does not make them so unless you can show it. We all know what circles are.

Anyhow: blue is an impression, but it is caused by existing physical items, and if I suddenly go blind it won't change.

So you need to show that goodness is equally real.

First, this postulates that the others you ask do exist. On the other hand, it is true that you feel matter. But you feel it just as well when you're dreaming. The question is whether it does really exists independently of you.

But this works against your argument. If you are trying to claim we can't be certain that matter exists, how can you be certain that morality exists?

What you don't seem to understand is that in my opinion being the Ultimate Goodness Meter is part of God's definition. You can't say that God exists but he is bad because than it is not God what exists but something else. It's like this:
- There is a book in my desk
- Ok, it's there but it's not a book!

But you have no evidence that God is good. It makes no more sense than to claim that a book is good. You don't get to label God 'good', when others label him otherwise. You might just as well label God 'green' ... "I DEFINE God as green. If he is not green, he is not God!"

I have to repeat myself. Yes, we do, because that gives meaning to what we feel good. If there is no transcendence baggage than what se feel good is in fact not good so we don't have any reason to do it.

No we don't. Being good is a pragmatic way to get along with the least trouble in life, and requires no God or Trancendance at all. It is a good way to feel comfortable and have friends and lovers.

Well every on of us does things that object the Golden Rule almost every day and we get away with it easily.

Well hold on a minute. What is the point of there being all these supposed God-given standards if you are just going to ignore them?

This is my point - you are just doing stuff anyway. You aren't sure if there is objective morality, so you just do your best.

450. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90181 by steve99 on November 23, 2007 at 9:13 am

Tell me: why in the nine hells should I follow my conscience or the Golden Rule if there is no objective good and bad? If there is no good and bad than I will ignore these and do what is best for me.

But, you see, following the Golden Rule IS what is best for you! For just about everyone, being reasonably nice to others is a good way to live a happier life.

Of course, but it is still based on the idea that we should live with each other as best as we can. But why? Why shouldn't we live the best as we can and ignore everyone else as far as they can't hurt us in exchange?

Because you are going to end up living a pretty miserable life like that.