NationStates Jolt Archive

You said that all the differnet possible outcomes have the same probability. Like when you roll a die, the chances of one face coming up is as likely as any other face. So, the likelihood of you rolling 14,000,000 sixes in a row is the same as rolling 14,000,000 threes in a row, or getting some other outcome.

But let's say the casino gives you a billion dollars if you roll 14,000,000 sixes in a row. What are the chances of you walking home with that cash?

The ACP simply claims that when the universe rolled its dice, it had to do so 14,000,000 times, and it went away with a billion dollars cash in its pocket (in the form of intelligent life).

The analogy fails because casino games draw from discrete possibilities, not continuous possibilities. You will never pull a 1.5 of hearts, a pi of spades, or the square root of 2 of a die. Again, a discrete outcome drawn from a continuum of possibilities approaches zero likelihood.



Did I claim it was a proof of god? Are you sure?

I said you presented in the context of a proof of God. You asked another poster whether it was. If you're admitting its not, I agree with you.


I don't think that ACP is solely or inherently philosophical. Barrow and Tipler seem to see it as many atheists do: a rule of reasoning that suggests that we can do away with a designer god.

I don't think it accomplishes that either (and frankly, I don't think Barrow and Tipler are using the ACP to do away with a designer God), but even if that's how they intended, it also fails at that.


Some, not me, seem to think that it indicates the existence of a designer deity.

If you don't think it does that, then I agree with you.


To me, it seems like an observation based on mathematical analyses of current scientific knowledge. Is that inherently philosophical?

Yes, because its Cosmological. Honestly, in the taxonomy of fields, that's a subset of metaphysics, a kind of philosophy. So, yes, its inherently philosophical, and when somebody replied regarding probabilities of potential alternatives, you said it was "at best philosophical", as if a cosmological argument isn't.

May we agree that the ACP then does not provide meaningful evidence for a "designer god"? If that is your position, I agree with it.

No.

It's exactly 100% of ALL the data that we have any reason to believe exists.

That's pretty conclusive.

It's rather like you and I flipping coins, and I call 'heads' AFTER the coin has landed, and you ask me whether or not that's 'unlikely', given the fifty-fifty 'probability'.

Since we are discussing radically different universes, I will suggest that it is impossible to deduce that life will evolve in all these universes simply because it did in this one.

It does...

No. Some theists attribute a cause to it. That's different.

And, here's why - the mechanism is set in place at the point at which the first 'effect' is set in place. The second 'effect' is assured by that 'cause'.

I don't think the second effect is assured by anything. It seems like the ACP is more of an observation that at the moment of the universe immanentising, it already was calibrated for the possibility of allowing life to evolve.

You're proposing ID, just without the name-tags.

I am? Perhaps you should go back and find the bit where I state that the ACP is a proof for god.

It describes the probabilities in reality, though.

Flipping a coin 100 times, Occam says it will be either 'head' or 'tails' pretty much every time, and roughly divided between the two. Reality reflects that, by almost never allowing the coin to land perfectly on edge, and even more rarely, to turn into a wombat, mid-flight.

No, Occam's razor doesn't work that way. Statistics and probability inform us as to how the coin will land, not Occam's razor.

Quite a popular one, though - since dominant religions pretty much agree on the existence of some kind of non-material excarnation.

So, if religions do it, you should do it too?

According the Christian myth, God created the world 6,000 years ago, flooded all of it 4,000 years ago, etc. Why do we not find evidence of this?

Some Christians make that claim. But not all. Anglicans and Catholics are two groups that would disagree with the 6,000 years estimate.

You have to be more careful about grouping all Christians together. There are significant differences between, for example, Catholics and Baptists, or between Baptists and Mormons, or Mormons and Congregationalists.

the problem is though, isn't that sort of circular? We haven't seen any other kind, so we can't say what's possible, except for what we already know.

I hope we don't arrive at a time when the only things seen as possible are the things we already know.

The very premise of "likelihoods" and "probabilities" includes the premise that there were possible outcomes that we haven't and potentially won't experience.

What about the Anthropic Cosmological Principle (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm)?

The Anthropic Principle was first suggested in a 1973 paper, by the astrophysicist and cosmologist Brandon Carter from Cambridge University, at a conference held in Poland to celebrate the 500th birthday of the father of modern astronomy, Nicolaus Copernicus. The Anthropic Principle is an attempt to explain the observed fact that the fundamental constants of physics and chemistry are just right or fine-tuned to allow the universe and life at we know it to exist... The Anthropic Principle says that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common--these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life. The universe gives the appearance that it was designed to support life on earth, ...

Would this be considered evidence for a god that wishes to have intelligent life in the Universe?

Is your answer to your own question no?

The way you presented it indicated discussion on whether it is evidence for God.

As to the distinction between proof and evidence, all the reasons that make the ACP a poor proof also make it weak evidence.

I don't think the second effect is assured by anything. It seems like the ACP is more of an observation that at the moment of the universe immanentising, it already was calibrated for the possibility of allowing life to evolve.

Calibrated by what or who?

This clearly is a special claim regarding this outcome, despite previous assertion that the ACP made no special claims about this outcome.

EDIT: Also, you might check Barrow and Tipler more closely. They do claim in their FAP that the second effect (life) is assured.

I don't think the second effect is assured by anything. It seems like the ACP is more of an observation that at the moment of the universe immanentising, it already was calibrated for the possibility of allowing life to evolve.

Well, if there's any being within the universe able to observe that, it's guaranteed. The fact that the odds are (10^(10^100))! to 1 against this particular calibration happening doesn't matter, because the very fact that we are able to observe it means that this calibration was inevitable. The infinities of possible universes where life couldn't evolve will never come into it, because no life can ever evolve there.

Being amazed by the Anthropic Principle always strikes me as similar to being amazed by the fact that we live on Earth, where the atmosphere and environment is broadly suited to us. If it wasn't, we couldn't have ever appeared on Earth, so the question would be a moot point.

Basically, the fact that the values of the constants is just right is not astonishing at all - if they were not right, we would be unable to comment on it. The evidence is inevitably weighted in favour of universes where life could come into existence.

(This has probably been already said, but I can't be bothered to read back that much)

It's in the Bible. Jesus says in Matthew 10:29-30...

"Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them falls to the ground without your Father's knowledge. Even all the hairs of your head are counted."

That one was for omniscience. As for omnipotence, check out Genesis 17:1, Jeremiah 32:27, and Revelation 19:6 for starters.

Also, nothing beats reading the Good Book cover to cover to get a hold of the major themes. I highly recommend it. 10-20 pages and day and you're done in a few months.

Here's (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/cando.html) a list of Biblical contradictions considering god's 'omnipotence'. Since it is obvious that one could choose to interpret the Bible either way ( as god being omnipotent or not), we should ask ourselves why so many people currently believe that omnipotent crap. The answer, I believe is Plato.

Unfortunately, while an impressively huge number - it's somewhere between wishful thinking, pointless noodling, and just plain bullshit.

The only permutation we have access to, resulted in 1 out of every 1 universe having atoms.

Riiiiiiiight. The ACP is just some made up numbers. Okay.

Its also interesting to note that Barrow and Tipler's calculations on life in our galaxy was based on the specific case of Homo Sapiens. It largely discounts other possible concepts of life.

But even if we assume that carbon based life is not the only way, we still are looking at some pretty long odds.

the problem is though, isn't that sort of circular? We haven't seen any other kind, so we can't say what's possible, except for what we already know.


The analogy fails because casino games draw from discrete possibilities, not continuous possibilities. You will never pull a 1.5 of hearts, a pi of spades, or the square root of 2 of a die. Again, a discrete outcome drawn from a continuum of possibilities approaches zero likelihood.

Only if the number of possible universes is infinite instead of discrete. Do we know?

I said you presented in the context of a proof of God. You asked another poster whether it was. If you're admitting its not, I agree with you.

I was just asking as a way of introducing it into debate. It's an interesting idea, and I thought if I brought it up, it would get attacked, which would let me understand it a little better.

I don't think it accomplishes that either (and frankly, I don't think Barrow and Tipler are using the ACP to do away with a designer God), but even if that's how they intended, it also fails at that.

If you don't think it does that, then I agree with you.


Yes, because its Cosmological. Honestly, in the taxonomy of fields, that's a subset of metaphysics, a kind of philosophy. So, yes, its inherently philosophical, and when somebody replied regarding probabilities of potential alternatives, you said it was "at best philosophical", as if a cosmological argument isn't.

But different disciplines borrow from one another. Economics is a behavioural science, but economists sometimes do studies that are quite abit more rigourous that behavioural sciences usually do, resulting in work that would be considered economics if one were being taxonomically pure but not if we were being somewhat less purist about it. All that to say that I don't hink taxonomy is the be all and end all of deciding what is classified as inherently philosophical.

May we agree that the ACP then does not provide meaningful evidence for a "designer god"? If that is your position, I agree with it.


But disagreeing is more fun.

Basically, the fact that the values of the constants is just right is not astonishing at all - if they were not right, we would be unable to comment on it. The evidence is inevitably weighted in favour of universes where life could come into existence.

Its only "Just Right" if you assume there is something special or "right" about our kind of life in our location and these conditions. Otherwise, it "just is" because there was nothing to stop it from being the outcome as opposed to any of the other.

Even if life of any other kind is extremely unlikely, so is every other specific outcome.

If lightning happens to knock over the fourth tree from the left instead of the other millions of trees or no tree at all, and so a particular kind of insect colony that needs fallen trees develops there, it doesn't mean that the initial unlikelihood indicates that the weather was "calibrated" for the purposes of these bugs.

Since we are discussing radically different universes, I will suggest that it is impossible to deduce that life will evolve in all these universes simply because it did in this one.


'All these universes' are a pure fabrication, at this point. In 100% of all universes for which we have any evidence, any reason to 'believe', life did evolve.


No. Some theists attribute a cause to it. That's different.


No, theists use this kind of 'argument' to excuse their assertions. That's different.


I don't think the second effect is assured by anything. It seems like the ACP is more of an observation that at the moment of the universe immanentising, it already was calibrated for the possibility of allowing life to evolve.


Which says that the 'second effect' is the logical conclusion, not of the 'first effect' but of the alleged common cause.


I am? Perhaps you should go back and find the bit where I state that the ACP is a proof for god.


You didn't 'state' it. Hence the 'except the name-tags' bit.

You said: "the whole premise is that in the moment of the creation of the universe, an incedibly unlikely string of mathematical rules came about that just happened to result, billions of years later, in intelligent life".

It's that 'incredibly unlikely string' and that 'just happened' that make it look like an ID argument. If you're saying it's too unlikely to have just happened, you are basically invoking an intelligent designer.

(Although, how you equated 'intelligent designer' to 'god'... interesting, and possibly telling).


No, Occam's razor doesn't work that way. Statistics and probability inform us as to how the coin will land, not Occam's razor.


No, Occam does work like that. I say I flipped the coin, and it rotated through space, eventually landing one side up or the other. It could have turned into a mongoose, and back into a coin, very quickly - so quickly you never noticed... but, it probably didn't. That's what Occam tells us. It is as it appears to be. The mechanism is always the same - and that's what's important.


So, if religions do it, you should do it too?

Not just 'no', but also 'huh'?

You invoked infinite different universes as evidence of a principle you want to claim - and then decided that (to fit your parameters) parallel forms of life would either have to by physical, or fit into what you "define... as a philosophical belief".

I then point out that those very beliefs already exist, within THIS universe, with THIS form of life already 'selected' by your ACP... and you find that a flaw in MY argument?

Riiiiiiiight. The ACP is just some made up numbers. Okay.


It is.

It creates a series of assumptions that it doesn't, and can never, verify. It then posits a selection model as a requirement for those assumptions, which it cannot verify is necessary. It then makes assumptions about what the nature of those divergent assumptions would 'look like', based on no empirical data.

It then claims to use this set of assumptions, suggested selection model, and aesthetic compund assumptions - to create a 'mathematical 'probability' of an event that has already happened.

It is bad science - if I'm being generous.

Here's (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/cando.html) a list of Biblical contradictions considering god's 'omnipotence'. Since it is obvious that one could choose to interpret the Bible either way ( as god being omnipotent or not), we should ask ourselves why so many people currently believe that omnipotent crap. The answer, I believe is Plato.

I have to go with you on this one. I think if God is as described in that scripture, he's either not omnipotent or he just likes dicking around.


But even if we assume that carbon based life is not the only way, we still are looking at some pretty long odds.

"Already addressed" as you like to say. Every outcome has long odds, especially if it happens to be complex. Yet complexity by its nature allows for so many permutations, assigning one as special (while simultaneously claiming no special claim) is arbitrary.


Only if the number of possible universes is infinite instead of discrete. Do we know?

Then pick some finite number X and claim it is the maximum number of possible universes. Then conceive a universe that is the sum of those universes. Then a universe that is that merged universe with a cosmological constant allowing it to be doubled in some characteristic. Then doubled again.

Or imagine a universe whose geometry results in a pie whose 3rd digit is one higher. Than another universe where its 4th digit is one higher. Then on and on and on.


I was just asking as a way of introducing it into debate. It's an interesting idea, and I thought if I brought it up, it would get attacked, which would let me understand it a little better.

But as I claimed, you did bring it up to be discussed in the context of a proof of God. Now you admit it doesn't provide that. If you already knew it doesn't provide it, at most you now better understand why it doesn't.


But different disciplines borrow from one another. Economics is a behavioural science, but economists sometimes do studies that are quite abit more rigourous that behavioural sciences usually do, resulting in work that would be considered economics if one were being taxonomically pure but not if we were being somewhat less purist about it. All that to say that I don't hink taxonomy is the be all and end all of deciding what is classified as inherently philosophical.

Taxonomy is the word that means "deciding what is classified". That's just what the word means.

You describe other points as being "at best philosophical", okay, but the issue you raised was cosmological, metaphysical, and employs axioms, methods, and conclusions that are philosophical.

Your economics analogy applies just as well to the point about probability that you called "at best philosophical", yet you had no problem doing it yourself.


But disagreeing is more fun.

Disagreeing for fun is what leads to double standards like the one above. I'm going to head out, but I'll check the thread back later. Take care guys.

Its only "Just Right" if you assume there is something special or "right" about our kind of life in our location and these conditions. Otherwise, it "just is" because there was nothing to stop it from being the outcome as opposed to any of the other.

Even if life of any other kind is extremely unlikely, so is every other specific outcome.

If lightning happens to knock over the fourth tree from the left instead of the other millions of trees or no tree at all, and so a particular kind of insect colony that needs fallen trees develops there, it doesn't mean that the initial unlikelihood indicates that the weather was "calibrated" for the purposes of these bugs.

If you're an insect philosopher in this colony, and you're of a sufficiently enquiring mind, you might realise that it was incredibly unlikely that lightning struck this particular tree at this particular time. You might then point to this as evidence for the existence of some sort of insect deity, who benevolently gave you this tree to live in.

However, if you are of even more enquiring mind, you could then realise that if lightning hadn't done that, your colony couldn't exist, so you couldn't have asked such a question. It is not surprising at all - if things hadn't started in the right way, the question could never be asked.

I don't actually have the faintest idea of whether we're disagreeing here - I think we're in agreement. I was borrowing phrases such as "calibrated" and "just right" from the sort of thing I normally see associated with the Anthropic principle.

It is a bit funny that NSG, self-proclaimed cradle of atheism, is concerned with wether God, any god, is not beyond human comprehension.

It is a bit funny that NSG, self-proclaimed cradle of atheism, is concerned with wether God, any god, is not beyond human comprehension.

If god is beyond human comprehension, the only logical resort is agnosticism, and - in absence of evidence - skepticism. Atheism is actually a logical conclusion of the ineffability of god.:)

If god is beyond human comprehension, the only logical resort is agnosticism, and - in absence of evidence - skepticism. Atheism is actually a logical conclusion of the ineffability of god.:)

How so?

How so?

If god is ineffable, how do you comprehend him/her/it/them?

Only through their actions? Which means that comprehension of such an entity or entities can only be judged on the evidence, or lack of it.

So - in the absence of clear and present evidence - you're left with faith. An ineffable god is ultimately believed, or not believed, on the basis of faith.

God beyond comprehension + non-interventionist + faith = theist.

God beyond comprehension + non-interventionist + lack of faith = atheist.


I realise this part, while interesting to me, is something of a divergence from the strict question you asked. In retrospect, then, since it's optional - I've hidden it. The post functions just as well (maybe better) without it.


Indeed, you could take that equation one stage further, because you could argue that 'non-intervention' only applies in the case of a lack of faith, because those who HAVE faith may view 'intervention' in less empirical terms.

You could also argue that 'beyond comprehension' becomes similarly irrelevant in the face of faith. Those who have faith will believe in a god (or gods) whether or not they can 'comprehend' it (or them)

So: God + faith = theist

Similarly, the nature of God would lead to certain results in the absence of faith. A god that is not beyond comprehension, but is still not seen as interventionist, can be 'judged', and can be argued to 'fail' as god.

A god that is not beyond comprehension, and IS seen to be interventionist, will be 'believed in', although the nature of that god may be open to debate.

The 'ideal' god must be beyond comprehension (so as to be beyond reproach), not seen to be empirically interventionist (so as to be beyond accounting) and remote. Unfortunately - those are the 'ideal' characteristics of a god that will be survivable as theology... but also the ideal characteristics of a fictional entity functioning as theology.


Not to say that atheism is the ONLY logical conclusion of ineffability, but it is, absolutely, ONE logical conclusion. :)

If god is ineffable, how do you comprehend him/her/it/them?

Only through their actions? Which means that comprehension of such an entity or entities can only be judged on the evidence, or lack of it.

So - in the absence of clear and present evidence - you're left with faith. An ineffable god is ultimately believed, or not believed, on the basis of faith.

God beyond comprehension + non-interventionist + faith = theist.

God beyond comprehension + non-interventionist + lack of faith = atheist.


I realise this part, while interesting to me, is something of a divergence from the strict question you asked. In retrospect, then, since it's optional - I've hidden it. The post functions just as well (maybe better) without it.


Indeed, you could take that equation one stage further, because you could argue that 'non-intervention' only applies in the case of a lack of faith, because those who HAVE faith may view 'intervention' in less empirical terms.

You could also argue that 'beyond comprehension' becomes similarly irrelevant in the face of faith. Those who have faith will believe in a god (or gods) whether or not they can 'comprehend' it (or them)

So: God + faith = theist

Similarly, the nature of God would lead to certain results in the absence of faith. A god that is not beyond comprehension, but is still not seen as interventionist, can be 'judged', and can be argued to 'fail' as god.

A god that is not beyond comprehension, and IS seen to be interventionist, will be 'believed in', although the nature of that god may be open to debate.

The 'ideal' god must be beyond comprehension (so as to be beyond reproach), not seen to be empirically interventionist (so as to be beyond accounting) and remote. Unfortunately - those are the 'ideal' characteristics of a god that will be survivable as theology... but also the ideal characteristics of a fictional entity functioning as theology.


Not to say that atheism is the ONLY logical conclusion of ineffability, but it is, absolutely, ONE logical conclusion. :)

Gotcha. :)

Gotcha. :)

'Lecture mode' over. Sorry about that. :)

'Lecture mode' over. Sorry about that. :)

No problem, I read that slowly, not too analytically, but it helped in a way soothe my mood. I just don't think of God usually.

No problem, I read that slowly, not too analytically, but it helped in a way soothe my mood. I just don't think of God usually.

I think that's actually how that particular medicine is supposed to be taken.

If you have faith, you can feel it under and around all your other thoughts and actions, like spiritual lubricant, and thus don't have to focus on the ease with which the mechanisms work.

If you don't have faith - you probably think about the grease more often than those with faith do, because you don't have that comfort of no longer needing to find truth.

Maybe. :)


And, in my defence, at least I didn't bring flipcharts.

I've never understood

There. That's where your post should have stopped.

Evolution and the Big Bang answer the "why" so much more thoroughly than any God or gods, it's just that people don't seem to LIKE the answer for whatever reason.

There is no inherent answer to "why"- not in the the theory of evolution or the Big Bang. The only "why" included in them is: they happened.
Certainly, the way in which these events occured can be documented scientifically. But there is no reason behind them.

People want to hear that they, personally, were specifically chosen to exist by a conscious, thinking, feeling entity. But...that doesn't answer "why" either. At some point they always throw up their hands and just admit that "it's all part of God's plan" and that's why.

If I had known you had all religious people so pegged, I never would've posted here ;)
And I don't believe that I, personally, was specifically chosen. I believe the entire human race was chosen.
While a quick glance at a pop psychology handbook could lead one to cleverly deduce that faithful people believe what they believe simply because it helps them sleep at night, I can say with relative certainty that my belief in God has nothing to do with fueling my ego.
My ego is big enough without God.
I don't believe in God because it makes me feel important. In fact, it only makes me feel smaller, and I think many religious people would share that sentiment.
I've thought about this carefully, for many years. I didn't have a sudden "born again" moment that whisked me from Atheism back to faith. I came back to Christianity gradually after thinking the matter through over a long period of time. I don't have blind faith, and I don't follow "like a child." As you so eloquently put:

Fuck that noise.


Evolutionary biology tells me precisely why I exist: because my form of life is the most effective biological solution for the niche in which it evolved. Because the traits I possess have been shaped by millions of years of natural forces, which can be explored in great detail. Because of the environmental, energetic, and mechanical pressures that act on us. Because of the physical laws governing our universe. On and on and on. Evolutionary biology can tell me why I have precise the shape that I have, and it's not some vague "made in god's image" crap...it's actual functional information. It is information that helps me understand how AND WHY my body works the way it does, and how to fix my body if something goes wrong, and why some things are more likely to go wrong than others, and why some things are fixable and others aren't, and on and on and on.

This is very well put.
I know I won't change your mind. But I'm bored. So. Consider: if an intelligent entity existed, had a general goal for mankind but not necessarily a set destiny, how best would such a goal be reached?
If you believe in free will (as I do), then you subscribe to the notion that the future is not set in stone. While there may be a plan, this does not mean the path is linear and already known.
I believe, and I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this, that God created the universe with certain boundaries, certain rules, and a general goal. The universe was kick-started, grew and evolved the way the rules dictated, within the boundaries that were set, and is continuing to develop towards the goal.
God's interference since has been minimal. I don't need Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, or parting the Red Sea. Those are stories.

Despite being well-written, nothing in your post explains why mankind is possessed of such unusual intellect. Evolution does not account for human intelligence. There is no natural situation that our ancestors encountered as hunter-gatherers that required them to develop enough intelligence to create atom bombs, build skyscrapers, invent microprocessors, etc.
Sure, monkeys have sticks on which to catch ants. But they don't have Buicks.

I've never encountered a single religion that answered even 1/1000th of the "why" questions that biology answers. And yes, I've looked.

I'd like to hear some of these "why" questions and the answers biology provides for them.
So far, you have still not answered why, only how.

I'd say God is beyond human concern.

Perhaps you should not have assumed that your anecdotal evidence was meaningful enough to make a categorical statement-- a categorical statement that, when you think about it, doesn't make sense, because it essentially claims that there exist no rational, open-minded people in the world. I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh in my reaction, but really, I hear the line "Nobody will ever change their mind about issue X" that it starts to get old.

Eh, no worries, I realize the flaws in my generalization as I'm sure you realize the irony in me being flamed for saying that religious debate threads always end in people flaming one another.

And anyway, everyone has to make a stupid f1rst p0st some time.

God was created by man, ergo, man comprehends god.
which man? on which world? does it come in kit form? and can i assemble it with superglue?

what people PRETEND to know ABOUT it was created by human priesthoods for various vested objectives quite probably, but how does this relate to the unknown, among which almost certainly things greater then ourselves can VERY reasonably be expected to exist?

why must the assumption be then made, that nothing big, friendly, invisible, and close enough for government work, could possibly exist?

I don't think anyone is doubting that a god Could exist, just that it does.
Until people started dicking around with things like reasoning and hypothesis, God was seen as something that had to exist because the universe did.
Now there is an alternate choice, those who Wanted an alternate choice will flock to and defend it.
Even those who don't understand what it is they're going on about, and are thus only picking the no-god option because of something a man in a big coat with a ton of followers and a bookful of evidence tells them. Yes, I just compared the blind following of science by idiots to the blind following of religion by idiots. Sue me.

Which is just one of the many reasons why atheism, be it explicit or implicit, should be restricted to intelligent folk.

Anyways, as for the actual question of the thread... Ignoring for a moment that it appears to be an opinion poll, not a quiz, and therefore wrong answers can only exist if you can find proof or sufficient evidence that people do not have a right to their own way of thinking...

The whole thing could be over with quicker if we followed a simple set of instructions.

My suggestions, which are not necessarily the best but certainly the most obvious, are the following:

A: Decide what a God is or must be. Either by unanimous agreement or majority vote.

B: Decide what the comprehension ability of the most intelligent human being is. Possibly by asking, or just voting.

C: Subtract "God" from "Human comprehension" of the maximum found level. If the answer is negative, then God as a concept is too big for our puny human minds to handle.

The beauty of this is that it doesn't require a God to be existent or nonexistent, and doesn't seek proof either way, but still allows for debate. Kinda like asking who would win in a fight between Goku and Wolverine.

nothing has to exist.
nothing is prevented from existing by its not having to.

(well obviously if a; nothing has to exist, is true,
then c; nothing can exist at all, would be
if b; nothing can exist without having to, were true also,

therefor,

if a; nothing has to exist, is true,
then
since d; some things, including ourselves apparently do exist,
then
b; nothing can exist without having to,
HAS to be false.)

Despite being well-written, nothing in your post explains why mankind is possessed of such unusual intellect. Evolution does not account for human intelligence.


Sure it does.


There is no natural situation that our ancestors encountered as hunter-gatherers that required them to develop enough intelligence to create atom bombs, build skyscrapers, invent microprocessors, etc.


And, as I'm sure you're aware, if you actually take the time to review what we know of human history, the hunter-gatherer stage probably didn't create atom bombs or skyscrapers.

They did develop tools, though - and then they used those tools on their environment and each other - creating a new evolutionary niche, you could call it the birth of the arms race.


Sure, monkeys have sticks on which to catch ants. But they don't have Buicks.


They do have tools, though.

Until people started dicking around with things like reasoning and hypothesis, God was seen as something that had to exist because the universe did.


Or... not? Since not all cultures have arrived at the conclusion of 'god'.


Now there is an alternate choice, those who Wanted an alternate choice will flock to and defend it.


There have always been alternative choices.

Sure it does.

The rest of this sentence, in which you explained why it does, must have gotten lost.

And, as I'm sure you're aware, if you actually take the time to review what we know of human history, the hunter-gatherer stage probably didn't create atom bombs or skyscrapers.

I'll have to look into that :p
The point I'm trying to make is that hunting and gathering is all that's required of our species to continue. The ability to build skyscrapers, manipulate genes, or initiate fusion are not essential to our survival. Yet our intellect reached that point.
I just don't think evolution can account for that.

EDIT: Although, to be clear, I certainly think evolution is fact.

They do have tools, though.

"Basketball and baseball are the same sport!"
"Really?"
"No. But each one does involve a ball."

Actually... this comparison is a bit more rational than yours.

The rest of this sentence, in which you explained why it does, must have gotten lost.


You said 'evolution does not account for human intelligence'. It does. Intelliegence is a characteristic, it can be argued as being related to the 'niche' in which we are historically struggling to survive. I don't see how it doesn't follow that evolution would be a valid explanation.

My answer is at least as good as yours - better, because it doesn't make assumtions of special exception.


I'll have to look into that :p
The point I'm trying to make is that hunting and gathering is all that's required of our species to continue. The ability to build skyscrapers, manipulate genes, or initiate fusion are not essential to our survival. Yet our intellect reached that point.
I just don't think evolution can account for that.

EDIT: Although, to be clear, I certainly think evolution is fact.


Hunting and gathering is all well and good except that we are our own predator. Our 'evolution' is driven by our own evolution in an unusually violent spiral.

Hence the 'arms race' reference.


"Basketball and baseball are the same sport!"
"Really?"
"No. But each one does involve a ball."

Actually... this comparison is a bit more rational than yours.

Not really. Monkeys don't need Buicks. Neither would very primitive man-cultures. You could argue we don't need Buicks now, and that this whole 'automobile science' arc is going to end up relegated to the great cosmic junkpile as one more wrong turn.

Any benevolent God who allows such terrible things to happen is beyond my comprehension. I could slightly understand Iago's version of God from Verdi's Othello.

My answer is at least as good as yours - better, because it doesn't make assumtions of special exception.

It does call for such an exception- that a species, rather than evolving natural weapons (claws, teeth, spines, etc) becomes smart enough to invent its own. That instead of gills and fins, we were given the intelligence to build boats.
According to your answer, evolution made a very special exception for us, by giving us the intelligence to build our own tools rather than gradually adapting us to having them naturally.

Hunting and gathering is all well and good except that we are our own predator. Our 'evolution' is driven by our own evolution in an unusually violent spiral.

Almost all animals kill each other.
Try again.


Not really. Monkeys don't need Buicks. Neither would very primitive man-cultures. You could argue we don't need Buicks now, and that this whole 'automobile science' arc is going to end up relegated to the great cosmic junkpile as one more wrong turn.

Exactly. We don't need them. And evolution, a force driven purely by necessity (the fuel that makes natural selection go), has provided us with the ability to make them anyway.
What natural circumstance forced us to evolve the intelligence to design and build automobiles, or any of the complex appliances in our houses?
Did concepts like engineering and architecture dawn on our ancestors sometime during a mammoth hunt?
Doubtful.
There is no reason for us to be as smart as we are. Not by accident.

It does call for such an exception- that a species, rather than evolving natural weapons


We have natural weapons.


...(claws, teeth, spines, etc) becomes smart enough to invent its own.


Lots of species utilise tools in place of 'natural' abilities' they lack.


That instead of gills and fins, we were given the intelligence to build boats.


Instead of evolving phenomenally powerful beaks, some birds have the intelligence to drop their shelled food onto rocks.


According to your answer, evolution made a very special exception for us, by giving us the intelligence to build our own tools rather than gradually adapting us to having them naturally.


Nope - that's not what I said, not RELATED to what I said, and is also not related to reality.

Otters are physically adapted to live in water, yet they use tools. They've had it both ways.


Almost all animals kill each other.
Try again.


Read it again. Unusually violent. Ants might war over territory, but we have a history of killing the soldiers, the breeding mates, the offspring, the herds, and destroying the property. Most other animals take a less genocidal approach to conflict.


Exactly. We don't need them. And evolution, a force driven purely by necessity


Beginning to understand the problem. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.


...(the fuel that makes natural selection go), has provided us with the ability to make them anyway.


Actually, it hasn't. Buicks are an accident.

We have the ability to build tools. Some are more complex than others. Some are weapons, some are houses... and some are Buicks.


What natural circumstance forced us to evolve the intelligence to design and build automobiles, or any of the complex appliances in our houses?


The fact that we, among all animals, are so damn squishy, and yet, so damn good at wiping ourselves out.


Did concepts like engineering and architecture dawn on our ancestors sometime during a mammoth hunt?


Yes.


Doubtful.
There is no reason for us to be as smart as we are. Not by accident.

There is no 'reason' for us to have eyes, either. Or legs. Or arms. Lots of things slither, swim, and slug away without various bits and bobs we have.

The problem is, you appear to see that 'no reason' and assume 'god did it!'. You start with your premise, and fit the facts to it.

In short, you are a very poor scientist.

Or... not? Since not all cultures have arrived at the conclusion of 'god'.

There have always been alternative choices.

Okay, let me clarify, I was specifically talking about the west and the christian/catholic God and general... er... religionality. Since what we appear to be talking about is an individual entity, that is the most obvious choice.

They always add the V.:(

An Omnipotent God, which is presumably what we're trying to disprove here, could avoid any form of detection, should someone develop a means to 'detect' a God, so to speak, and they would know if it worked unless they detected a God of some sort.

Haha, that makes me imagine God on some railing, with the "Mission Impossible" theme playing, wearing a Nixon mask, throwing a smoke bomb, shooting a grappling hook and soaring away from a dinner party of rich atheistic investigators into the anonymity of night.

If there is a "god", I would say it's more of a Spinozan pantheistic force of balance, impersonal and perhaps not even sentient, than some supernatural chessmaster subject to fits of jealousy and rage in the Old Testament, and deliberate screwing of humanity through original sin in the New Testament god who suspiciously mirrors early false rumors of Mithra, Horus, and hosts of other remarkably christ-like figures famous in Hellenistic times and before in creating Christ and the mythology surrounding him. At some point, literalist Christianity and some Pacific Island tribe worshipping the Volcano God become indistinguishable in their logic and reliance on faith.

I would put more stock in the thinking of Diogenes of Sinope, Laozi, and Zhuangzi than unconfirmed secondary sources writing about Jesus who never met him, never met anyone who knew him, generations after he purportedly existed. It's worth reading the works of a man like St. Thomas Aquinas if only to divine the truth out of what he says despite his generally incorrect assertions which the monolith of Christianity built into his thinking. It's wrong to reject everything any religion has to say even if its ultimate assertions are unlikely.

Bahaullah was not supernatural, but Baha'i is still pretty cool. Everything should just be taken with a grain of salt.

And yes, atheism is foolish. 99.9% Skepticism is more rational than 100% belief in an unprovable negative. Even Richard Dawkins makes this distinction.

I would also reccommend not following Diogenes's advice about living exactly like a dog and, for example, defecating in the street when the urge strikes you.

And yes, atheism is foolish. 99.9% Skepticism is more rational than 100% belief in an unprovable negative. Even Richard Dawkins makes this distinction.


I am an Atheist. I am entirely skeptical. There's nothing foolish about it.

Amusingly - skepticism is the ONLY option your particular brand of logic allows, since belief in an unprovable negative, and belief in an unprovable 'positive' are equal - and thus, by your reckoning, equally foolish.

'All these universes' are a pure fabrication, at this point. In 100% of all universes for which we have any evidence, any reason to 'believe', life did evolve.

You're right. All these universes are pure fabrication. Which makes one wonder how you can claim that life will evolve in them with such authority.

No, theists use this kind of 'argument' to excuse their assertions. That's different.

Which says that the 'second effect' is the logical conclusion, not of the 'first effect' but of the alleged common cause.

You didn't 'state' it. Hence the 'except the name-tags' bit.

You said: "the whole premise is that in the moment of the creation of the universe, an incedibly unlikely string of mathematical rules came about that just happened to result, billions of years later, in intelligent life".

It's that 'incredibly unlikely string' and that 'just happened' that make it look like an ID argument. If you're saying it's too unlikely to have just happened, you are basically invoking an intelligent designer.

(Although, how you equated 'intelligent designer' to 'god'... interesting, and possibly telling).

I think one of the things that has caused this confusion is the fact that the phrase 'Anthropic Cosmlogical Principle' can mean different things. You seem to see it as an argument for an intelligent designer or god. Or that I see it that way. Whatever. When I thought that we might be meaning too different things, I looked at wiki to refresh myself. Just so I can be clear on what it meant.

Now, as far as I can tell, it is often used three ways:

1. To describe the apparent fine tuning of the universe. This is the way I originally meant it. More as a description of a fact than as an argument for a cause. I asked what people here thought of it as an...

2. Example of evidence of god. Which is what you're arguing against here. Thank you. If you were to treat the fine tuning of the universe as evidence of god, you would have to assume that something must have caused the universe to have those criteria.

3. As a secular explanation for the apparent fine tuning of the universe. I think this is what Barrow and Tipler were getting at, that it seems this way because we evolved in it.

No, Occam does work like that. I say I flipped the coin, and it rotated through space, eventually landing one side up or the other. It could have turned into a mongoose, and back into a coin, very quickly - so quickly you never noticed... but, it probably didn't. That's what Occam tells us. It is as it appears to be. The mechanism is always the same - and that's what's important.

Occam's razor does not describe reality. Sorry. It's a way of choosing between different solutions, and it is not even always correct. The thing that keeps the coin from turning into a wombat is the unprovable axiom that natural laws do not change. Now, Occam's razor supports this axiom, but it does not prove it. That's as close as you get to tying Occam's Razor into this.

Not just 'no', but also 'huh'?

You invoked infinite different universes as evidence of a principle you want to claim - and then decided that (to fit your parameters) parallel forms of life would either have to by physical, or fit into what you "define... as a philosophical belief".

I then point out that those very beliefs already exist, within THIS universe, with THIS form of life already 'selected' by your ACP... and you find that a flaw in MY argument?

Ugh. I hate this part of the debate, where it gets down to who said what exactly and what this replies to and what it's supposed to mean. I don't feel like rereading our whole dialogue then attempting to reconcile what I just read with what you just wrote here.

As far as I can tell, the point is this: the universe is apparently fine-tuned for the evolution of intelligent life. Thereis, as far as I understand, no scientific explanation for this, though there are philosophical ones. It also goes without saying that there is no scientific evidence for using god as an explanation for this apparent fine tuning.

...

Then pick some finite number X and claim it is the maximum number of possible universes. Then conceive a universe that is the sum of those universes. Then a universe that is that merged universe with a cosmological constant allowing it to be doubled in some characteristic. Then doubled again.

But you can't have a universe that is the sum of radically different universes, You would have several values for all the variables. It would logically contradict itself.

Or imagine a universe whose geometry results in a pie whose 3rd digit is one higher. Than another universe where its 4th digit is one higher. Then on and on and on.

If that is possible. I'm not really sure. The question of whether or not there are an infinite number of universes is impossible to verify. One problem I have with the infinite universe hypothesis (theory? what's the right word) is that it really violates Occam's razor in a big way. At least, according to some people.

But as I claimed, you did bring it up to be discussed in the context of a proof of God. Now you admit it doesn't provide that. If you already knew it doesn't provide it, at most you now better understand why it doesn't.

Yes. I learnt something by using the intellects of NSG to attack it. Do you feel used?

I have my own problems with using ACP as evidecne for god. It's just a god of the gaps idea that will probably die as soon as we figure out why those cosmological variables happen to be that way. I don't think evidence should rely on the hope that science won't figure it out. That's slightly dumber than relying on the hope that science will figure it out.

Taxonomy is the word that means "deciding what is classified". That's just what the word means.

You describe other points as being "at best philosophical", okay, but the issue you raised was cosmological, metaphysical, and employs axioms, methods, and conclusions that are philosophical.

Your economics analogy applies just as well to the point about probability that you called "at best philosophical", yet you had no problem doing it yourself.

The economics analogy is about how something softer than the physical sciences can be as rigourous as the physical sciences. I don't see how speculating on the likelihood of nonatomic life evolving in different dimensions can be construed as 'can be as rigourous as the physical sciences'.

If god is beyond human comprehension, the only logical resort is agnosticism, and - in absence of evidence - skepticism. Atheism is actually a logical conclusion of the ineffability of god.:)

I think that agnosticism is also a belief about god that is defined partly by faith. For example, if we assuem that the agnostics are right, then people who have mystical or numinous experiences (i.e. direct revelations) aren't really having a direct experience of god.

I wonder if it's possible to have a faith-free position on god?

You're right. All these universes are pure fabrication. Which makes one wonder how you can claim that life will evolve in them with such authority.


Statistics.

Of all the real evidence, there is only one manifestation, and it is 100% reconcilable with what I said.

Anything else is PURE speculation, there's no evidence that we should even consider other universes, much less - that they exist.


As far as I can tell, the point is this: the universe is apparently fine-tuned for the evolution of intelligent life.


If that's the point, there IS no point. It's circular - life exists in this situation, therefore this situation exists so that life exists.

Not only is it circular, it fails at the first hurdle, by failing to differentiate between causation and correlation.


I think that agnosticism is also a belief about god that is defined partly by faith. For example, if we assuem that the agnostics are right, then people who have mystical or numinous experiences (i.e. direct revelations) aren't really having a direct experience of god.


That's not a logical conclusion.

A logical conclusion, based on what agnosticism is, might be that "people who have mystical or numinous experiences" MIGHT be having a direct experience of god, or they might not... and 'we can never really know".


I wonder if it's possible to have a faith-free position on god?

Mine is 'faith-free'. Indeed, it could be best described in almost exactly those terms - what I have, is a lack of beliefs.

...
That's not a logical conclusion.

A logical conclusion, based on what agnosticism is, might be that "people who have mystical or numinous experiences" MIGHT be having a direct experience of god, or they might not... and 'we can never really know".



Mine is 'faith-free'. Indeed, it could be best described in almost exactly those terms - what I have, is a lack of beliefs.

Does the agnostic also believe that the person who had the experience can't really know?

Does the agnostic also believe that the person who had the experience can't really know?

Awkwardness created by wording, but I think the answer to what you're aiming at would be 'yes'.

The argument would be, you can believe you've seen 'god', but you could never KNOW, for sure.

Awkwardness created by wording, but I think the answer to what you're aiming at would be 'yes'.

The argument would be, you can believe you've seen 'god', but you could never KNOW, for sure.

Depending on how you define knowing and believing.

Do you know that you're not dreaming right now, or do you believe it?

Depending on how you define knowing and believing.

Do you know that you're not dreaming right now, or do you believe it?

I don't know it. If I examine it, I can't even claim to believe it. I'm willing to accept it as a working premise, though.

Although, I've done that before, and been stung. There should be a law that says if you've already dreamed getting up, showered, dressed, and got to work, etc... in SUCH vividness that you were entirely 'fooled'... you shouldn't have to go into work that day.

I don't know it. If I examine it, I can't even claim to believe it. I'm willing to accept it as a working premise, though.

Although, I've done that before, and been stung. There should be a law that says if you've already dreamed getting up, showered, dressed, and got to work, etc... in SUCH vividness that you were entirely 'fooled'... you shouldn't have to go into work that day.

Do you think you're dreaming right now?

Depending on how you define knowing and believing.

Do you know that you're not dreaming right now, or do you believe it?

I ask this question myself all too often when I post on NSG.
Or sleep. I'm not sure.

Do you think you're dreaming right now?

I don't think so, because it would mean I'd dreamed about 10 hours of stuff, and my usul vivid dreams are not anything like as long.

Still, if I suddenly hear my alarmclock beeping, I'll be a little surprised, but not reeling around with my grasp on reality shaken.

EDIT: Unless the 'whole thing' is a dream, of course... in which case ALL of my frame of reference only exists within the confines of that scenario.

I don't think so, because it would mean I'd dreamed about 10 hours of stuff, and my usul vivid dreams are not anything like as long.

Still, if I suddenly hear my alarmclock beeping, I'll be a little surprised, but not reeling around with my grasp on reality shaken.

EDIT: Unless the 'whole thing' is a dream, of course... in which case ALL of my frame of reference only exists within the confines of that scenario.

So, you have rational methods of differentiating between a dream state and the normal waking state and you can use them effectively enough to actually live your life.

Does that count as knowing the difference?

So, you have rational methods of differentiating between a dream state and the normal waking state and you can use them effectively enough to actually live your life.

Does that count as knowing the difference?

I have practical experience which lets me interpret data, and, yes, it allows me to function. But then - I'm working on a fairly pragmatic assumption... even if I think I'm dreaming a vivid dream, I assume I'm not... until I wake up.

Of course, if my lucid dream starts getting weird, I probably veer towards the 'okay, not real' concept earlier than otherwise.

But then - as I said, I'm also aware that everything I know could be a dream. For me, watching "The Matrix" was being told what I already know - that, for all I know - none of this is 'real'.

So... do I ever really KNOW I'm awake? No. I just take the evidence and run with it, and assume that I am, until something new comes along to tell me otherwise. Like my aunt Margaret turning into an Alsatian... or suddenly waking up to my alarm clock.

I have practical experience which lets me interpret data, and, yes, it allows me to function. But then - I'm working on a fairly pragmatic assumption... even if I think I'm dreaming a vivid dream, I assume I'm not... until I wake up.

Of course, if my lucid dream starts getting weird, I probably veer towards the 'okay, not real' concept earlier than otherwise.

But then - as I said, I'm also aware that everything I know could be a dream. For me, watching "The Matrix" was being told what I already know - that, for all I know - none of this is 'real'.

So... do I ever really KNOW I'm awake? No. I just take the evidence and run with it, and assume that I am, until something new comes along to tell me otherwise. Like my aunt Margaret turning into an Alsatian... or suddenly waking up to my alarm clock.

So, can you say that you know anything at all?

So, can you say that you know anything at all?

You can say it. :)

Youn can say "this book is green" with more assurance than you can say "it's going to rain". You might even be right in both cases, but you can obtain 'better' evidence for the first, than the second... well, at least until the rain arrives.

(Although, of course, it IS going to rain... sooner or later... somewhere. Digression).

But once you start heading into murkier waters... the nature of reality versus imagination? The ultimate nature of 'God'? The evidence gets more and more questionable, and eventually, ANY kind of definitive statement becomes tempered by our capacity to engage without verification.

Hmm... look at this... most people are intelligent.
There is more scientific proof of bigfoot then there is of God. He doesn't have to exist.
God gives us the faith to keep going, and is someone to talk to when you would rather not speak to anyone else.
Although priests aren't really to be trusted... ever play the game of 'telephone' as a child?
Heaven gives us something to look forward to when we die... because really, it's better to die happy. Your afterlife will turn out much, much better.
I stopped believing in God when I realized I won't spend one day of my life totally healthy. But he doesn't have to exist. He's just a imaginary friend that we all can talk to.
That's my opinion on God.

God does exist, but we can't comprehend everything about Him or about what He does. All just frailties of the human state...

a true god requires no physical form; and while there may be many things greater then ourselves that do, gods they are not.

i do feel inclined there is something that doesn't have to be omni-anything, just happens to be closer to it than any other thing, and that, whatever it is, appears, by the fact that it hasn't destroyed us, to intend us no particular harm.

if anything, my own experience is that it gives great hugs, but as for everyday interventions in the kind of world our own ways of living in it make for ourselves, it does not appear to be in the habit of doing so.

God does exist, but we can't comprehend everything about Him or about what He does. All just frailties of the human state...

The argument COULD be made that the concept of an entity that can't be comprehended, and whose actions are beyond understanding... IS a frailty of the human state.

No?

I don't believe there is a 'god'. There isn't any proof he exists. Humans have only been conscious of the world around them for a short period of time, relative to the Earth's existence, and also the universe's. With only a short time knowing (some of) what's going on, I believe that 'god' is the answer for questions we have yet to find the answers for.

I don't believe there is a 'god'.
You may not believe in God, but remember: God believes in you.;)

You may not believe in God, but remember: God believes in you.;)

Satan compells you to say things like that.

Satan compells you to say things like that.

:fluffle:

Satan compells you to say things like that.

You got it wrong, Satan is a lazy ass. He doesn't care about making people confused.
If your bad, he gets your soul.
If your good, he doesn't, and thats what, 1 out of 100?

You may not believe in God, but remember: God believes in you.;)

Dead things don't believe in anything.

Instead of evolving phenomenally powerful beaks, some birds have the intelligence to drop their shelled food onto rocks.

And this is even remotely worthy of comparison to what I said because... why?
We have robots harvesting our crops.
But.. some animals are smart enough to drop their food on rocks!
Excuse me while I have a coronary.

Nope - that's not what I said,

Actually, it is.

not RELATED to what I said,

Only if by "related" you mean that it expressed the exact same ideas and communicated the same message.

and is also not related to reality.

Ah, now I see why you've been contradicting me. You haven't been reading my posts.
You've been too busy being hilariously clever ;)

Otters are physically adapted to live in water, yet they use tools. They've had it both ways.

So... my premise this entire time is that there is a god because humans don't live in water?
What. The hell. Are you talking about.

Read it again. Unusually violent. Ants might war over territory, but we have a history of killing the soldiers, the breeding mates, the offspring, the herds, and destroying the property. Most other animals take a less genocidal approach to conflict.

So you're using the very differences (superior rationality, the ability to manufacture complex tools such as weapons, etc) that I believe make us too unique to be accidents... to prove that we are, in fact, accidents?
Are you sure you know what side of this issue you're on?

Beginning to understand the problem. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Well with such a well-reasoned argument, who am I to contradict you?

Actually, it hasn't. Buicks are an accident.

We have the ability to build tools. Some are more complex than others. Some are weapons, some are houses... and some are Buicks.

... your statements are becoming less and less coherent.
What exactly does this have to do with anything?

The fact that we, among all animals, are so damn squishy, and yet, so damn good at wiping ourselves out.

Why haven't other, equally squishy animals, evolved along the same lines?
Your reasoning is circular.
We are good at wiping ourselves out because we are intelligent.
We are intelligent because we are good at wiping ourselves out.
We are intelligent because we are intelligent.
Make. A. Fucking. Point.
Please?

Yes.

An equally well-thought-out, logical response: No.
Have fun arguing with that ;)

There is no 'reason' for us to have eyes, either. Or legs. Or arms. Lots of things slither, swim, and slug away without various bits and bobs we have.

Cats, dogs, elephants, rhinos, gorillas, bears, crocodiles, cattle, etc. seem to get on just fine with legs and eyes.
And how many other species get on just fine with our intelligence? None.
We are the only exception to that rule.
We have warm blood, too, but I don't think that we are chosen by God because of that fact.
I give you enough credit to recognize that I'm looking at the most unique feature of our species, not our legs or our eyes or our arms. I wouldn't cite any of those as proof that we are unique because, obviously, numerous other animals have them.
But only we are smart enough to do the things we've done.

The problem is, you appear to see that 'no reason' and assume 'god did it!'. You start with your premise, and fit the facts to it.

Untrue. I was an atheist for a few years and gradually came back over to the side of the issue that I found most rational.
We agree that the universe spontaneously emerged from a point smaller than the head of a pin in an event called the Big Bang.
We agree (I assume) that numerous chemicals combined in a primordial sea to spontaneously pull themselves into living organisms.
We agree that humans are vastly more intelligent than any other species.
The difference is that your explanation is: "It just happened."
And mine is: "It happened by design."
Show me why your explanation is any more reasonable than mine.

In short, you are a very poor scientist.

I could just as easily tell you what your motives are. I could just as easily tell you your beliefs.
The conclusions I've drawn from observing the world contradict yours, and this leads you to believe I'm using poor methods of reasoning. Rather than actually argue, you conclude that I am a poor scientist, have no clue what I'm talking about, and fit facts to my own vision of the world.
In short, you are a very poor debater.

I'm sick and tired of being told that I believe in God because it helps me sleep at night. Or it makes me feel special.
Spare me the drug-store psychology.
More than half the atheists I know aren't atheists because they're rational thinkers. They're not intellectuals. They're not even all that smart. But they know an interesting trend when they see one. And to renounce faith and scoff at churchgoers is a way for them to pretend that they're above the status quo, that they're in on some secret knowledge, that their opinion is actually worth a shit.
However, I know that some atheists arrived at their beliefs (or lack of beliefs) through reasoning and pondering, and I respect their right to hold an opinion.
I would never be so pretentious as to say that all atheists fall into the aforementioned category of pseudo-intellectual twats. I know plenty of smart atheists, and I know that they've puzzled over the same questions I have, just come up with a different result. As long as they don't insult me for my beliefs, I don't insult them for theirs.
You, however, think it's fair to brand all Christians as people who want only to feel "special." Certainly, some people are Christians for that reason, just as some people are atheists because it makes them feel special.
You think it's fair to say that their ideas are fallacious because they contradict your ideas.
You are in no place to say that the conclusions you've drawn are any better than mine, as you have no more proof to back up your stance than I have.

Haha, that makes me imagine God on some railing, with the "Mission Impossible" theme playing, wearing a Nixon mask, throwing a smoke bomb, shooting a grappling hook and soaring away from a dinner party of rich atheistic investigators into the anonymity of night.

If there is a "god", I would say it's more of a Spinozan pantheistic force of balance, impersonal and perhaps not even sentient, than some supernatural chessmaster subject to fits of jealousy and rage in the Old Testament, and deliberate screwing of humanity through original sin in the New Testament god who suspiciously mirrors early false rumors of Mithra, Horus, and hosts of other remarkably christ-like figures famous in Hellenistic times and before in creating Christ and the mythology surrounding him. At some point, literalist Christianity and some Pacific Island tribe worshipping the Volcano God become indistinguishable in their logic and reliance on faith.

I would put more stock in the thinking of Diogenes of Sinope, Laozi, and Zhuangzi than unconfirmed secondary sources writing about Jesus who never met him, never met anyone who knew him, generations after he purportedly existed. It's worth reading the works of a man like St. Thomas Aquinas if only to divine the truth out of what he says despite his generally incorrect assertions which the monolith of Christianity built into his thinking. It's wrong to reject everything any religion has to say even if its ultimate assertions are unlikely.

Bahaullah was not supernatural, but Baha'i is still pretty cool. Everything should just be taken with a grain of salt.

And yes, atheism is foolish. 99.9% Skepticism is more rational than 100% belief in an unprovable negative. Even Richard Dawkins makes this distinction.

I would also reccommend not following Diogenes's advice about living exactly like a dog and, for example, defecating in the street when the urge strikes you.

Nothing to add, really, other than that I like your ideas, and you express them very well.

We agree that the universe spontaneously emerged from a point smaller than the head of a pin in an event called the Big Bang.
We agree (I assume) that numerous chemicals combined in a primordial sea to spontaneously pull themselves into living organisms.
We agree that humans are vastly more intelligent than any other species.
The difference is that your explanation is: "It just happened."
And mine is: "It happened by design."
Show me why your explanation is any more reasonable than mine.


Your position is unreasonable because instead of looking at a situation where rational, scientific knowledge is incomplete (what, if anything, caused the Big Bang, or human sentience) and making the reasonable conclusion that you don't know, you say, "I know the truth! It's a Design! There's a Designer!"

And of course your explanation for the Designer - ? Oh, He/She/It conveniently don't need one, or He/She/It was always there, or "just happened."

Believe if you want, but your belief is not all that reasonable and certainly not more reasonable than simply pointing out that something happened and we don't know why.



Spare me the drug-store psychology.
More than half the atheists I know aren't atheists because they're rational thinkers. They're not intellectuals. They're not even all that smart. But they know an interesting trend when they see one. And to renounce faith and scoff at churchgoers is a way for them to pretend that they're above the status quo, that they're in on some secret knowledge, that their opinion is actually worth a shit.

No no, spare me the drug-store psychology. If "more than half" (do you have an exact percentage?) of the atheists you know are irrational idiots, your anecdote says more about your ability to familiarize yourself with irrational idiots than anything else.

Ah... do I do it? Do I enter into it, knowing it will be a titanic task, and take me half an hour, or do I just cut the bits I don't care that much about, and post a five minute response?

On this occassion, I think you've made an obvious enough effort, to make it worth responding to the whole thing.

If I clip text, then, it's not to avoid dealing with a point - but to reduce what I can already see is going to be a fairly large post.

With your indulgence, I shall begin:

And this is even remotely worthy of comparison to what I said because... why?
We have robots harvesting our crops.
But.. some animals are smart enough to drop their food on rocks!


It is 'worthy of comparison' because you asserted that we had 'gifts' of our intellect because we didn't have physical gifts. Your exact wording: "That instead of gills and fins, we were given the intelligence to build boats", for example.

The problem with that assertion is that there's nothing special about using tools to fill holes in your anatomical design parameters - as evidenced by the birds dropping shells, or apes with sticks.


Actually, it is.


No, it isn't. And this one is easy to resolve - simple find me where you think I said it, and post it in a quote bubble, and we can discuss that.


So... my premise this entire time is that there is a god because humans don't live in water?


No. You're pursuing something of a strawman, there. My comment was still pointing to (at that point) the current topic of 'special exception'. You invoked special exception to explain our use of tools because of lack of adaptation, and I showed that otters are an example of use of tools AND adaptation.


So you're using the very differences (superior rationality,


There is nothing 'super' about rationality.


...the ability to manufacture complex tools such as weapons, etc)


Lots of animals use tools.


Why haven't other, equally squishy animals, evolved along the same lines?


There's some evidence that other hominds did, and we either assimilated them, or bashed their brains in.


Your reasoning is circular.
We are good at wiping ourselves out because we are intelligent.
We are intelligent because we are good at wiping ourselves out.
We are intelligent because we are intelligent.
Make. A. Fucking. Point.
Please?


Actually - that's not circular, and it IS the point.

Evolution 'responds' to threats. The natural mutations and adaptations that are constantly occuring, become 'evolutionary' traits when they are selected for (or against, I guess) by the environment - but the environment ISN'T just what the ground looks like, how much rain you get, and whether there are flowers.

Part of our 'evolutionary environment' has been a class of deceptively good (and persistent) predators, that has winnowed out our weaknesses, minimised our abberrant data, and ensured a super-fertile and super-focused breeding environment.

That class of predators - is us. We are both the predator AND the prey, in this evolutionary equilibrium.


Cats, dogs, elephants, rhinos, gorillas, bears, crocodiles, cattle, etc. seem to get on just fine with legs and eyes.


Cats, with their sharp teeth and claws... dogs with their pack hunting, and huge teeth... rhinos with their armoured skin and their horns... gorillas with their prodigious strength ration and gregarious pack formations... bears with their sharp teeth and claws... crocodiles with their sharp teeth and armoured skin... cattle with their herd structures and their horns...


And how many other species get on just fine with our intelligence? None.
We are the only exception to that rule.


So you say. Where is your evidence?


But only we are smart enough to do the things we've done.


Maybe. Or maybe not. What is 'smartness' and what makes you so sure only we have it? Octopi recognise and can process complex puzzles. Apes and dolphins can learn speech that allows them to interact with humans. SOme birds actually can talk to humans, with quite extensive vocabularies that they can apply rationally. Elephants can create art.

Your entire argument boils down, in the end, to the complexity of our tools... and the fact that you don't know how 'smart' any other animal is.


We agree that the universe spontaneously emerged from a point smaller than the head of a pin in an event called the Big Bang.


I don't agree with that.


We agree (I assume) that numerous chemicals combined in a primordial sea to spontaneously pull themselves into living organisms.


I don't agree with that, either.


We agree that humans are vastly more intelligent than any other species.


I don't agree with that, either - and I think it's a ridiculous claim.


The difference is that your explanation is: "It just happened."
And mine is: "It happened by design."
Show me why your explanation is any more reasonable than mine.


My explanation is more reasonable than yours because I'm saying "I don't know", and you're claiming knowledge you don't actually have.


I could just as easily tell you what your motives are. I could just as easily tell you your beliefs.


Apparently, you can't - because you've just listed off a whole load of things you and I 'agree on', which I don't agree with.


The conclusions I've drawn from observing the world contradict yours, and this leads you to believe I'm using poor methods of reasoning.


No - the fact that your 'conclusions' are made independent of the observation, is what leads me to conclude your reasoning is poor.


Rather than actually argue, you conclude that I am a poor scientist,


No - the fact that you fail to apply the Scientific Method, makes me conclude you are a poor scientist.


In short, you are a very poor debater.


You are welcome to think that. On the other hand, I'm not the one handing out logical fallacies like they were candy.


I'm sick and tired of being told that I believe in God because it helps me sleep at night. Or it makes me feel special.


I don't think I said that. But even if I had, you being 'sick and tired' of it is sad for you, but irrelevent. If it's true, it's true - regardless of how that makes you feel.


More than half the atheists I know aren't atheists because they're rational thinkers. They're not intellectuals. They're not even all that smart. But they know an interesting trend when they see one. And to renounce faith and scoff at churchgoers is a way for them to pretend that they're above the status quo, that they're in on some secret knowledge, that their opinion is actually worth a shit.


Is this supposed to relate to me, in any way, or are you just hating on atheists?


You, however, think it's fair to brand all Christians as people who want only to feel "special."


I think that, do I?

Certainly, some people are Christians for that reason, just as some people are atheists because it makes them feel special.


I'm not sure that sounds reasonable - why would someone choose to embrace something that makes them an effective outcast, could cost them a job (for example), and might have got them imprisoned or made a victim of violence in the very recent past?


You are in no place to say that the conclusions you've drawn are any better than mine, as you have no more proof to back up your stance than I have.

This is debatable. My stance is that I lack belief because there is no empirical evidence. Your stance is that you HAVE belief DESPITE no empirical evidence. Which of those positions is 'better' would seem to be a matter or perception.

:fluffle:

Well... what was I gonna do?

:fluffle:

You got it wrong, Satan is a lazy ass. He doesn't care about making people confused.
If your bad, he gets your soul.
If your good, he doesn't, and thats what, 1 out of 100?

In the context of the post I was responding to, I was actually making a secondary point far more subtle than the fairly obvious primary point.

Please hesitate, while I elucidate:

1) The primary, and more obvious point - is that: if someone makes a ridiculously insupportable claim, it's REALLY easy to respond with an equally insupportable claim.

2) The secondary, and far more subtle point is that - in order to actually pursue the line of reasoning deeper, you have to debate the 'merits' of these two figures, and the problem with that is - if there IS a 'devil' (or 'satan', or whatever) HE could have made all the arguments, written all the holy books, etc that could be used for the argument. After all - HE is reknowned for being the liar and the cheat, yes?


And that's the problem - if the internal logic is true, then the 'satan' figure is the nefarious bastard who would probably fake up all the evidence that the internal logic is based on, in order to make people make the wrong choices because they THINK they're doing good.

...some supernatural chessmaster subject to fits of jealousy and rage in the Old Testament...
Have you actually gone through the trouble of reading the OT? Because for years I thought just like you, and then I went and took the time to actually read the big book (every last word of it), and I realized that scripture portrays God in a much different light than people who just talk about scripture would have you believe.

In the end, what shines through is not jealousy, or wrath, but mercy...That is, when you don't rip a verse out of its proper context. You wouldn't do that with Hemingway, so why do it with the Bible?


...unconfirmed secondary sources writing about Jesus who never met him, never met anyone who knew him, generations after he purportedly existed.

That's not exactly true, what you're implying.. Plenty of scholars date the Gospel of Mark, for instance, as being written about AD 70, which would put it almost within one generation of the death of Christ.

Also, there are Church Fathers, like Polycarp and Clement of Rome, who had links to the original apostolic community. Clement was ordained by Peter, so the tradition he passed on came directly from an apostle.

Sigh, religious debates.
Neither side is ever going to convince the other using their current tactics, and neither side is ever going to change tactics, so all of them inevitably end up as two parties arguing for no reason but to try and make the other look stupid or narrow minded.

No matter how many times you do it, spraying metaphorical oil on a figurative grease fire is never to put it out. Theoretically.

I couldn't agree with you more.

You have to wonder why there's a new thread like this every other day. My own theory is that the people who start these know that the thread will will eventually balloon to 300, 400, 500 posts, and they get some sort of kick out of knowing they launched it.

I couldn't agree with you more.

You have to wonder why there's a new thread like this every other day. My own theory is that the people who start these know that the thread will will eventually balloon to 300, 400, 500 posts, and they get some sort of kick out of knowing they launched it.

True this.

Getting lots of responses to one of your NSG threads means you have a huge penis. Unless you're a girl. Then it means you have a tiny one.

Your position is unreasonable because instead of looking at a situation where rational, scientific knowledge is incomplete (what, if anything, caused the Big Bang, or human sentience) and making the reasonable conclusion that you don't know, you say, "I know the truth! It's a Design! There's a Designer!"

I'm not claiming to know the truth- I just believe this is it.
I don't have 100% faith in God, and I question my faith every day.
Your prejudice is showing.
Your preconceptions show less about your understanding of religion and more about your ability to familiarize yourself with blindly-believing idiots ;)

And of course your explanation for the Designer - ? Oh, He/She/It conveniently don't need one, or He/She/It was always there, or "just happened."

Let's take this step by step.
There are many mysteries in the universe. Some people explain them one way, others explain them another.
The explanation here under discussion is: The things in our universe did not just spring into existence, they were created.
Inherent in the explanation is that the Creator was not created, or else you would need an infinite succession of creators.
Yes, the idea is that some uncreated sentience made the universe and mankind.
If God was created, we would worship that Creator.

Believe if you want, but your belief is not all that reasonable and certainly not more reasonable than simply pointing out that something happened and we don't know why.

If you don't know why, how can you say it's unreasonable?
Besides, you're not just saying that you don't know why something happened, you're saying you know that it didn't happen as the result of design, which is more knowledge than I'm claiming to have.
Where, exactly, are you getting all this secret information?

If "more than half" (do you have an exact percentage?)

Is that a serious question? Are you kidding?

your anecdote says more about your ability to familiarize yourself with irrational idiots than anything else.

Implying something about my own intelligence, obviously.
Therefore, every time you hear from a stupid person, it is not because they're stupid, it's because you're stupid enough to be around them. I see.
And, to clarify (again), I don't hate atheists.
I hate ignorant people.
The door swings both ways. I have just as much contempt for Christians who are intolerant of atheists and who are overwhelmingly certain of things they have no proof of.

Let's take this step by step.
There are many mysteries in the universe. Some people explain them one way, others explain them another.


And some say 'I don't know'. And some say 'well, the observable facts suggest...'


The explanation here under discussion is: The things in our universe did not just spring into existence, they were created.


Which is illogical, because it assumes a condition that we have to assume before the observation.


Inherent in the explanation is that the Creator was not created,


No, it isn't - not at all. Inherent in your BELIEF, maybe. But the 'creator' of the universe, if there was one, doesn't HAVE TO be 'uncreated'.


... or else you would need an infinite succession of creators.


Not necessarily - the act of creation could be a repeating cycle. The 'creator' you talk about could have been created as a mysterious artifact of the conclusion of the previous cycle.


Yes, the idea is that some uncreated sentience made the universe and mankind.


And again, those two ideas don't necessarily follow. Even if an unknown creator DID make the universe, we could just be a disease on the surface of one of 'his' creations, and he's going to fuck us up with galactic-strength lysol, as soon as he notices us.


If God was created, we would worship that Creator.


Your god WAS created. Do you worship his creator?


If you don't know why, how can you say it's unreasonable?
Besides, you're not just saying that you don't know why something happened, you're saying you know that it didn't happen as the result of design, which is more knowledge than I'm claiming to have.


No, he's saying he doesn't know. And - in absence of knowledge, ADDING a mystical explanation IS unreasonable.


Is that a serious question? Are you kidding?


Well, if you know 10 atheists, and 6 of them are idiots...


Implying something about my own intelligence, obviously.


No, it would be implying you associate with a lot of idiots - you wouldn't have to BE one.


And, to clarify (again), I don't hate atheists.
I hate ignorant people.


Which means you DO hate most atheists. Apparently.

It is 'worthy of comparison' because you asserted that we had 'gifts' of our intellect because we didn't have physical gifts. Your exact wording: "That instead of gills and fins, we were given the intelligence to build boats", for example.

The problem with that assertion is that there's nothing special about using tools to fill holes in your anatomical design parameters - as evidenced by the birds dropping shells, or apes with sticks.

And it's unworthy of comparison because none of these feats match the enormity of our accomplishments.

No. You're pursuing something of a strawman, there. My comment was still pointing to (at that point) the current topic of 'special exception'. You invoked special exception to explain our use of tools because of lack of adaptation, and I showed that otters are an example of use of tools AND adaptation.

Not deliberately pursuing a straw man, just confused at what your point was.
Thanks for the clarification.

There is nothing 'super' about rationality.

I'm confused by this statement. Could you please elaborate?

Lots of animals use tools.

Yes, and I don't think it's really a fair comparison. As you know, the principle of my argument is the complexity of these tools.
It is rather obtuse to make the above-quoted statement, considering that you already knew that complexity was the justification for my claims, as evidenced when you said:

Your entire argument boils down, in the end, to the complexity of our tools...

Actually - that's not circular, and it IS the point.

Evolution 'responds' to threats. The natural mutations and adaptations that are constantly occuring, become 'evolutionary' traits when they are selected for (or against, I guess) by the environment - but the environment ISN'T just what the ground looks like, how much rain you get, and whether there are flowers.

Part of our 'evolutionary environment' has been a class of deceptively good (and persistent) predators, that has winnowed out our weaknesses, minimised our abberrant data, and ensured a super-fertile and super-focused breeding environment.

That class of predators - is us. We are both the predator AND the prey, in this evolutionary equilibrium.

Yes, but there had to be a beginning. That's where all these questions come from. Why were we so smart to begin with?
Once again, you are asserting that we are intelligent because we are intelligent.
This is circular, and this debate is beginning to seem like it has no point.

Cats, with their sharp teeth and claws... dogs with their pack hunting, and huge teeth... rhinos with their armoured skin and their horns... gorillas with their prodigious strength ration and gregarious pack formations... bears with their sharp teeth and claws... crocodiles with their sharp teeth and armoured skin... cattle with their herd structures and their horns...

I think you missed my point completely on that one.
You implied that asserting our intellect as making us unique was somehow comparable to asserting that legs and eyes made us unique.
I was demonstrating that many animals have legs and eyes, but only we have brains capable of the complicated things we've done.

Maybe. Or maybe not. What is 'smartness' and what makes you so sure only we have it? Octopi recognise and can process complex puzzles. Apes and dolphins can learn speech that allows them to interact with humans. SOme birds actually can talk to humans, with quite extensive vocabularies that they can apply rationally. Elephants can create art.

Where's their science? Architecture? Philosophy? MATH, most especially?


I don't agree with that.

You don't believe in the Big Bang?

I don't agree with that, either.

How then, did life come about?

I don't agree with that, either - and I think it's a ridiculous claim.

I obviously owe you an apology for assuming that you believed in the Big Bang, the commonly accepted theory of life's origins, and that humans were smarter than other animals.
I would like to know how the universe did come about, how life did form, and which animals are smarter than humans.

My explanation is more reasonable than yours because I'm saying "I don't know", and you're claiming knowledge you don't actually have.

I never claimed knowledge, only belief.
I'd appreciate it if you didn't lie.

Apparently, you can't - because you've just listed off a whole load of things you and I 'agree on', which I don't agree with.

You clearly have knowledge that I don't. Again, I eagerly await your opinions on how the universe, life, and human intellect formed, seeing as your opinions seem to differ from those of the general scientific community.

No - the fact that your 'conclusions' are made independent of the observation, is what leads me to conclude your reasoning is poor.

More circular reasoning.
I'd appreciate it if you just admitted what is abundantly clear: my conclusions are wrong because they are different from yours.

No - the fact that you fail to apply the Scientific Method, makes me conclude you are a poor scientist.

And you, apparently, are the best scientist ever to live, because you, apparently, have some kind of evidence that disproves the Big Bang and all the currently-held ideas on Abiogenesis.

You are welcome to think that. On the other hand, I'm not the one handing out logical fallacies like they were candy.

No, but you are throwing around words like "fallacy" as if you know what they mean.

Is this supposed to relate to me, in any way, or are you just hating on atheists?

I think I made it pretty clear that it's ignorance, not atheism, that I hate.
I anticipated accusations of bigotry (hey, mudslinging easier than logical debate, right?), which is why I made sure to mention my respect for atheists who have thought their beliefs through and are willing to tolerate the existence of faithful people around them.
Another thing I'd like to clarify: I believe you have thought your beliefs through, and aren't merely claiming to be an atheist to be "edgy."

I'm not sure that sounds reasonable - why would someone choose to embrace something that makes them an effective outcast, could cost them a job (for example), and might have got them imprisoned or made a victim of violence in the very recent past?

The very recent past is irrelevant. This is the present.
If you want to talk about the past, look no further than the systematic murder of religious figures in Stalin's Russia and during Mao's Cultural Revolution.
Face it, any belief (or lack of belief) can get you in deep shit. Don't hide behind that one.
And atheism doesn't seem to make you an outcast on this forum. Nor does it make you an outcast... anywhere I've been, actually, excluding (obviously) church. My school, my workplace... nope, I think whenever these issues come up, the opinions are split pretty evenly.

This is debatable. My stance is that I lack belief because there is no empirical evidence. Your stance is that you HAVE belief DESPITE no empirical evidence. Which of those positions is 'better' would seem to be a matter or perception.

It's one thing to lack belief in God, quite another to rule out the possibility of God entirely.
I accept the possibility, and believe that God could exist while still questioning that stance.
I would call a truce on this one if you were willing to question your own lack of belief. And not just question it now, but continue questioning it, as good people of faith question their own beliefs.
If you think you have great physical strength but never test it, how do you know you have any at all? If you think you're very fast but never enter a race, how do you know you're fast?
If you never question your beliefs, how firmly do you really believe in them?

Which is illogical, because it assumes a condition that we have to assume before the observation.

No... again... you look at the world, you ask yourself how it got here.
Is it just here?
Or was it created?
The answer comes after the question.

No, it isn't - not at all. Inherent in your BELIEF, maybe. But the 'creator' of the universe, if there was one, doesn't HAVE TO be 'uncreated'.

Inherent in my explanation.
And, since it is my explanation, you can't tell me what is and is not inherent in it.

Your god WAS created. Do you worship his creator?

Do you know my god?

No, he's saying he doesn't know. And - in absence of knowledge, ADDING a mystical explanation IS unreasonable.

He seems to be quite certain that there isn't a god. In the absence of knowledge, completely excluding a possible explanation is unreasonable.

Well, if you know 10 atheists, and 6 of them are idiots...

Okay... I'll go out and take a survey.

No, it would be implying you associate with a lot of idiots - you wouldn't have to BE one.

Kind of the point I was trying to make.
I picked up on an implied insult. If Trotsia wasn't trying to be snide, I guess I made a mistake and should apologize.

Which means you DO hate most atheists. Apparently.

So... they are mostly stupid? Is that what you're saying?
Look, this is ridiculous.
I don't hate atheists for being atheists or Christians for being Christians or Hindus for being Hindus.
I have very little respect, however, for people who wholeheartedly commit themselves to any belief without thinking it through. Especially if they get in long fights over it.
I really can't make myself any clearer.

I appreciate that I am answering the last two posts out of order. This isn't for the sheer trippyness of it - it's because this one is shorter, so I'm answering it first. Normal service will be resumed, after. :)

No... again... you look at the world, you ask yourself how it got here.
Is it just here?
Or was it created?
The answer comes after the question.


No, because, if you didn't already have a creator in mind, you wouldn't be finding justification for a creator in what you are seeing.

Thus - the conclusion predates the observation.


Inherent in my explanation.
And, since it is my explanation, you can't tell me what is and is not inherent in it.


No - here's what you said: "The explanation here under discussion is: The things in our universe did not just spring into existence, they were created... Inherent in the explanation is that the Creator was not created"

But the 'uncreated-ness' of the creator isn't inherent in that explanation - it's something you're adding to it.


Do you know my god?


Yes.

But even if I didn't - just because you don't know your god had a creator, or just because you don't believe it - doesn't make it so.

For the sake of argument, let's assume I'm right - your god DOES have a creator. Do you worship her?


In the absence of knowledge, completely excluding a possible explanation is unreasonable.


No - if it requires acquiring extra resources, it's unreasonable.

So - me saying "I don't know where humans came from" is reasonable.

But - adding in an extra qualifier (in this case, that there is a creator god) is un-reasonable.

And it's unworthy of comparison because none of these feats match the enormity of our accomplishments.


The 'size' isn't important. The fact that there ARE parallels, is sufficient.

Horses have bigger penises than humans. Does that mean there is something special about horse-kind, because of their obvious favour in the horse-god's eyes? The fact that humans also have penises is irrelevent, because their penises are nothing, compared to the immenseness of the great penis-god's gift to the chosen ones.

No?


I'm confused by this statement. Could you please elaborate?


Rationlity is a check-list. It's binary. You either follow the route 'yes, yes, yes... okay' or you don't. We have no reason to assume that all other animals are irrational - and we aren't any 'more rational' than just... regular rationality.

There is no 'super-rationality'.


Yes, and I don't think it's really a fair comparison. As you know, the principle of my argument is the complexity of these tools.


But complexity is a red herring, because it's just scale. The question is whether or not other creatures can exist that use tools AT ALL, because, if they can - they COULD use more complex ones... and maybe have, do, or will.


Yes, but there had to be a beginning. That's where all these questions come from. Why were we so smart to begin with?


We weren't. We were maybe a tiny bit smarter than our dominant predator.


Once again, you are asserting that we are intelligent because we are intelligent.


Which isn't as circular as you seem to believe. If I chase you, and you don't want to get caught - you'll run away. And the faster I follow, the faster you'll run. If we start from a standing start, and I creep towards you - you have a tiny advantage over me when you start edging away (the distance between us). And yet - we'll both be getting faster, artificially - both the 'predator' and the 'prey'.

And, even if I was only edging towards you in the first place, because of a spreading fire, that initial catalyst is long rendered irrelevant - the main drive of our 'evolution' is US.


This is circular,


It's not circular - we just occupy both sides of the evolution equation for a large part of our evolutionary history.


I think you missed my point completely on that one.
You implied that asserting our intellect as making us unique was somehow comparable to asserting that legs and eyes made us unique.
I was demonstrating that many animals have legs and eyes,


You originally said "There is no reason for us to be as smart as we are. Not by accident."

To which I said "There is no 'reason' for us to have eyes, either. Or legs."

And you came up with "Cats, dogs, elephants, rhinos, gorillas, bears, crocodiles, cattle"... a whole host of creatures that have other defence mechanisms... claws, teeth, horns, pack-behaviour, etc.

We DON'T have claws, teeth, horns... maybe a form of pack behaviour... our main defence mechanism is located IN our heads.

So - it's not 'by accident', and there IS 'a reason for us to be smart' - it's a defence mechanism that we have evolved, because we're poorly equipped in other ways.


...but only we have brains capable of the complicated things we've done.


An assumption you can't even begin to prove.


Where's their science? Architecture? Philosophy? MATH, most especially?


Where's your ability to breath underwater, or clean your balls with your tongue?


You don't believe in the Big Bang?


No. I don't believe in it. I don't agree with what you said.


How then, did life come about?


I don't know.


I would like to know how the universe did come about, how life did form, and which animals are smarter than humans.


I would like to know those things, too. Especially the last one.


Again, I eagerly await your opinions on how the universe, life, and human intellect formed, seeing as your opinions seem to differ from those of the general scientific community.


I have never been one to feel compelled to folow the majority. I believe that conforming just because a lot of people say something, is a logical fallacy.


More circular reasoning.
I'd appreciate it if you just admitted what is abundantly clear: my conclusions are wrong because they are different from yours.


You start with the assumption of a god, and when you observe something you can't explain, you attribute it to that god.

Being 'different from mine' is irrelevant. I question your conclusions because I think your methodology is corrupt.


And you, apparently, are the best scientist ever to live,


I am a scientist. I've not claimed to be the best.


...because you, apparently, have some kind of evidence that disproves the Big Bang and all the currently-held ideas on Abiogenesis.


This, I'm afraid, is another strawman.


No, but you are throwing around words like "fallacy" as if you know what they mean.


I do.


The very recent past is irrelevant. This is the present.
If you want to talk about the past, look no further than the systematic murder of religious figures in Stalin's Russia and during Mao's Cultural Revolution.
Face it, any belief (or lack of belief) can get you in deep shit. Don't hide behind that one.


You have to invoke Russia or China - but I'm talking about the country where I am now. I'm talking about the US (and the UK) where atheism has been a crime until pretty recently.


And atheism doesn't seem to make you an outcast on this forum. Nor does it make you an outcast... anywhere I've been, actually, excluding (obviously) church. My school, my workplace...


Actually, where I live, being 'outed' as an atheist could cost you your job.


It's one thing to lack belief in God, quite another to rule out the possibility of God entirely.


I agree.


I would call a truce on this one if you were willing to question your own lack of belief. And not just question it now, but continue questioning it, as good people of faith question their own beliefs.

If you never question your beliefs, how firmly do you really believe in them?

I'm assuming we haven't crossed swords before, so you don't really know me. You've apparently made a whole heap of assumptions about the kind of atheist I am.

Do I question my beliefs? No - I have no beliefs.

Do I question my LACK of beliefs? Oh yes, all the time.

Am I still looking for truth? Sure I am, in all kinds of places.

The 'size' isn't important. The fact that there ARE parallels, is sufficient.

Horses have bigger penises than humans. Does that mean there is something special about horse-kind, because of their obvious favour in the horse-god's eyes? The fact that humans also have penises is irrelevent, because their penises are nothing, compared to the immenseness of the great penis-god's gift to the chosen ones.

No?

No.
You can't ignore scale. All animals have some rudimentary intelligence. I didn't say we were unique because we use tools, I made a point of saying that we are capable of creating tools that are vastly more complex than the tools of other animals, that we have a level of intelligence that is not necessary for our survival as a species.

Rationlity is a check-list. It's binary. You either follow the route 'yes, yes, yes... okay' or you don't. We have no reason to assume that all other animals are irrational - and we aren't any 'more rational' than just... regular rationality.

Rephrased: our superior ability to reason.

But complexity is a red herring, because it's just scale.

And as I just pointed out, scale is an all-important factor.

The question is whether or not other creatures can exist that use tools AT ALL, because, if they can - they COULD use more complex ones... and maybe have, do, or will.

Yeah, maybe they're splicing genes while we aren't looking.
And I'm sure they could be taught to use more complex tools, but I've yet to see any of them teach themselves... which is what we did... somehow.

We weren't. We were maybe a tiny bit smarter than our dominant predator.

An assumption you can't even begin to prove.

You originally said "There is no reason for us to be as smart as we are. Not by accident."

To which I said "There is no 'reason' for us to have eyes, either. Or legs."

And you came up with "Cats, dogs, elephants, rhinos, gorillas, bears, crocodiles, cattle"... a whole host of creatures that have other defence mechanisms... claws, teeth, horns, pack-behaviour, etc.

Defense mechanisms were not the issue.
It seemed to me that you were saying our intelligence does not make us any more unique than our eyes or legs.
I apparently mistook your meaning.
Apologies.

We DON'T have claws, teeth, horns...

WTF? Since when?

our main defence mechanism is located IN our heads.

Exactly. Nature sure came up with an unconventional solution to a common problem, huh?
Usually a species will evolve the claws, teeth, horns, etc. that you mentioned earlier.
But instead of those things, nature gave us brains to develop... A-bombs. Which, according to you, has something to do with hunting mammoths, if I remember correctly...

So - it's not 'by accident', and there IS 'a reason for us to be smart' - it's a defence mechanism that we have evolved, because we're poorly equipped in other ways.

And why did evolution equip us differently from every other species?
Are you seriously still not seeing my side of this, or are you purposefully ignoring it?

An assumption you can't even begin to prove.

Prove? Perhaps not. But evidence certainly exists.
Granted, the evidence is quite flimsy, only about as substantial as... all of human civilization.

Where's your ability to breath underwater, or clean your balls with your tongue?

I'm sorry, what exactly does this have to do with intelligence?

No. I don't believe in it. I don't agree with what you said.

Despite the overwhelming evidence?
Do you have some other theory? (And I ask this without sarcasm... I'm genuinely curious and interested, so please share. I'm aware of other theories, but I'd like to hear yours.)

I don't know.
I would like to know those things, too. Especially the last one.

Fair enough.

I have never been one to feel compelled to folow the majority. I believe that conforming just because a lot of people say something, is a logical fallacy.

It's not because the majority believes it that I believe it... it's because there's quite a bit of evidence backing it up.
My opinion is influenced by facts.

You start with the assumption of a god,

Again, false. For the umpteenth time... false. Is there any way for your argument to work without assuming that I began with God in mind?

and when you observe something you can't explain, you attribute it to that god.

When I observe something I can't explain, I sometimes do attribute it to God, yes. I'm not one of those "everything is a sign" types, but I do think that the most reasonable explanation for the mysteries in the universe is a creator.
Certainly, ignorance has bred similar opinions... it used to be, the only way to explain hurricanes was that God was angry. Now we know better.
New evidence may come to light one day, and my beliefs may very well turn out to be incorrect.
But that hasn't happened yet.

I am a scientist. I've not claimed to be the best.

I was being both hyperbolic and sarcastic, as I'm sure you're aware.
I said "you must be the best scientist" because you seem to know something that the rest of the scientific community doesn't.

This, I'm afraid, is another strawman.

You continue to use this word. I don't believe you know what it means.

I do.

Oh, well, since you put it that way... I stand corrected.

You have to invoke Russia or China

And you have to invoke the past.
So... bugger off.

- but I'm talking about the country where I am now. I'm talking about the US (and the UK) where atheism has been a crime until pretty recently.

I am aware of no legislation in the United States illegalizing atheism.
It sounds unconstitutional.
If this claim turned out to be true, I would be deeply disturbed. Could you provide some evidence, please?

Actually, where I live, being 'outed' as an atheist could cost you your job.

Wow. That's quite scary, actually. Where do you live?

I agree.

:O Really?
... shall we spoon?

I'm assuming we haven't crossed swords before, so you don't really know me. You've apparently made a whole heap of assumptions about the kind of atheist I am.

Such as?

I have no beliefs.

Interesting. All the people I've met before who made this claim were just potheads who said they were nihilists one minute, but then invoked concepts like justice and integrity to their advantage later.
You, however, seem smart enough to actually know what it means to say: "I have no beliefs."
And I use the term "pothead" without derision. In the interests of being fair.

Do I question my LACK of beliefs? Oh yes, all the time.

That's very refreshing.
Sorry for having doubted you.

Am I still looking for truth? Sure I am, in all kinds of places.

Ever tried peyote?
... never mind...

I believe there are aspects and teachings of God humans can grasp...

However, there are others that are truly beyond our comprehension, and I do not understand them.

I'm Catholic anyway, so I believe in God and still :hail: him, but I don't pretend as if I am God and have knowledge of all that exists.

I've cut some bits, because it's getting ridiculously unwieldy, and not every point needs attention.

If you think I trimmed something that needs a response, pop a reminder in your reply, and I'll try to track it and fix it.


All animals have some rudimentary intelligence.


Yes, they do. And some more than others.


I didn't say we were unique because we use tools, I made a point of saying that we are capable of creating tools that are vastly more complex than the tools of other animals,


But we don't know that - and, again, I don't think that 'order or magnitude' answer applies. Tools is tools.


Yeah, maybe they're splicing genes while we aren't looking.
And I'm sure they could be taught to use more complex tools, but I've yet to see any of them teach themselves... which is what we did... somehow.


Actually - 'we' didn't.

Strip us of language, and the ability to demonstrate tool-use to one another, and see what tool use our NEXT generation retains.


Defense mechanisms were not the issue.


They were - they were the issue I was talking about. I was saying our intelligence is a defence mechanism, which is why it nwould be 'evolved for', which is why it's no big mystery.


WTF? Since when?


You think you could bring down prey with your claws or teeth? (or horn???)

Would you want to fight off a predator? No - we have vestigial defences, at best.


Exactly. Nature sure came up with an unconventional solution to a common problem, huh?


Not really - dolphins adapted the same way, as did octopi, apes.

Apparently.


Which, according to you, has something to do with hunting mammoths, if I remember correctly...


That was engineering. Ballistics is integral in most forms of hunting. Trapping definitely requires engineering.


Despite the overwhelming evidence?
Do you have some other theory? (And I ask this without sarcasm... I'm genuinely curious and interested, so please share. I'm aware of other theories, but I'd like to hear yours.)


Evidence suggests common origins of all matter. Maybe. That doesn't mean a bang, big or otherwise. It certainly doesn't mean everything spawning from nothing.

A cyclical universe that contracts and explodes outwards would look the same, and would have a bang. A universe that 'leaked' into existence from some other-where would look the same, without the bang.


Is there any way for your argument to work without assuming that I began with God in mind?


Well, maybe - I'd like to but... you then say things like:


When I observe something I can't explain, I sometimes do attribute it to God,


...see?


So... bugger off.


Kudos. :)


Wow. That's quite scary, actually. Where do you live?


The arsehole of the US. The place you'd stick the hose if America needed an enema. (Georgia).


:O Really?
... shall we spoon?


Buy me dinner.

:)


You, however, seem smart enough to actually know what it means to say: "I have no beliefs."


Why, thank you.


Ever tried peyote?
... never mind...

No - I've tried to keep my consciousness unbroken (for various reasons), which makes me pretty straight-edge.

I'm not claiming to know the truth- I just believe this is it.

Well, specifically you claimed your position of faith was every bit as reasonable as not-believing. That's a bit more than simply stating that you believe in God.

I don't have 100% faith in God, and I question my faith every day.
Your prejudice is showing.
Your preconceptions show less about your understanding of religion and more about your ability to familiarize yourself with blindly-believing idiots ;)


What preconceptions? What prejudice?


There are many mysteries in the universe. Some people explain them one way, others explain them another.

Not really. I don't have an explanation for the beginnings of life, the universe and everything.

The explanation here under discussion is: The things in our universe did not just spring into existence, they were created.
Inherent in the explanation is that the Creator was not created, or else you would need an infinite succession of creators.

So - the things in our universe did not just spring into existence, except God.

So, everything has a beginning and cause... except God.

Awfully convenient that box you've wrapped up is.

Why wouldn't there be an infinite succession of creators? Because the idea of a single God is more appealing. So you throw your reasoning out the window to make it 'reasonable.'

Yes, the idea is that some uncreated sentience made the universe and mankind.
If God was created, we would worship that Creator.

But since you don't know, you might be worshiping the wrong Creator.

More likely, you're worshiping a fiction.

If you don't know why, how can you say it's unreasonable?

It's the same way that if I cannot find my underwear, the belief that underwear gnomes have stolen it is unreasonable.

Besides, you're not just saying that you don't know why something happened, you're saying you know that it didn't happen as the result of design, which is more knowledge than I'm claiming to have.
Where, exactly, are you getting all this secret information?

Where did I say these things exactly?

...your preconceptions are showing!

Implying something about my own intelligence, obviously.

There are plenty of intelligent people who surround themselves with less-intelligent people.

Therefore, every time you hear from a stupid person, it is not because they're stupid, it's because you're stupid enough to be around them. I see.

Erroneous premises lead to erroneous conclusions.

And, to clarify (again), I don't hate atheists.
I hate ignorant people.

You don't hate atheists? But you like to go on rants about how most of the ones you know are idiots, have such and such psychological issues, have such and such wants and desires and thoughts. Sorry, but your negative stereotyping seems to contradict your first statement.

The door swings both ways. I have just as much contempt for Christians who are intolerant of atheists and who are overwhelmingly certain of things they have no proof of.

Certain of things like this, perhaps?

More than half the atheists I know aren't atheists because they're rational thinkers. They're not intellectuals. They're not even all that smart. But they know an interesting trend when they see one. And to renounce faith and scoff at churchgoers is a way for them to pretend that they're above the status quo, that they're in on some secret knowledge, that their opinion is actually worth a shit.

Now how could you possibly know such about the inner thoughts and feelings of more than half the atheists you know?

Are you a telepath? Their psychiatrist? And why is they all think and feel the exact same way? Mighty convenient of them, isn't it?

(Your last line clearly implies that you think their opinion is NOT "worth a shit," which is where the hatred you have for atheists shows, BTW.)

Well, specifically you claimed your position of faith was every bit as reasonable as not-believing. That's a bit more than simply stating that you believe in God.

Why is that?

What preconceptions? What prejudice?

You've told me my opinion, you've told me why I believe what I believe, and the reasons you gave (aside from being wrong) were quite condescending.

Not really. I don't have an explanation for the beginnings of life, the universe and everything.

Forgive me if I ever again categorize vast groups of people without creating a category especially for you.
Of course, there are plenty of people who don't have explanations.
But my statement was still true. Don't argue on points that don't need to be argued.
That said, nice Douglas Adams reference.

So - the things in our universe did not just spring into existence, except God.

So, everything has a beginning and cause... except God.

Awfully convenient that box you've wrapped up is.

Not really... the premise depends on God having no beginning. If God has been created, what created God?
The only acceptable premise I've ever heard is that God sent himself back in time, thus literally creating himself. Terminator-style.
This, while interesting, leads to a long and unnecessary discussion.

Why wouldn't there be an infinite succession of creators? Because the idea of a single God is more appealing. So you throw your reasoning out the window to make it 'reasonable.'

Oh, dear :O
If I had known beforehand that you had me so fucking pegged I would never have started this debate!
Sarcasm aside, all your attempts to tell me about my thought process only demonstrate that you believe all people of faith think the same.
On top of that, the last sentence is false... not to mention completely ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason why I would have to throw my reasoning out the window for God to be uncreated. The whole premise is: A being that has always been there.
Others may believe different, and that's their choice.

More likely, you're worshiping a fiction.

Is it "more likely" because it sounds so damn edgy?

It's the same way that if I cannot find my underwear, the belief that underwear gnomes have stolen it is unreasonable.

Actually, it's nothing like that at all, and I doubt that if I spent all day on it, I could address all the things that are wrong with that ridiculously stupid statement. I give even you enough credit to know that the comparison you just made is completely and totally off-base, and that it may be the dumbest thing anyone has said in this entire thread.

Where did I say these things exactly?

...your preconceptions are showing!

At first glance, this seems to be a clever reversal of my own argument for use against me.
Then I realize that you have, in fact, been making statements throughout this thread that demonstrate your certainty in the absence of a creator.
Please. For the sake of the intelligent people here. Do not try to be clever. Do not try to be witty. Don't even try to debate.
Because you suck at it.


Erroneous premises lead to erroneous conclusions.

The premise, if you remember, was yours to begin with. And the conclusion, if you remember, was meant to be ironic ;)

You don't hate atheists? But you like to go on rants about how most of the ones you know are idiots, have such and such psychological issues, have such and such wants and desires and thoughts. Sorry, but your negative stereotyping seems to contradict your first statement.

The point I was making was that it's as unfair to lump all Christians into the category of blindly-believing children who also believe in Santa Claus, tooth fairies, and... underpants gnomes. Certainly, there are shallow Christians, just as there are shallow atheists.
My negative stereotyping was used solely to illustrate the negative stereotyping against faithful people in this thread.
Expecting a number of poor debaters to point their fingers and scream: "TEACHER! TEACHER! HE'S A BIGOT!" (easier than actually arguing, isn't it?), I clarified my intentions immediately after making these statements.
Something I have been clarifying again and again and again.
If you were Grave_n_Idle, I would now say something like: "I think you're smart enough to get that." But honestly, I don't think you are.
So I'll probably have to continue explaining this until the thread ends.


Certain of things like this, perhaps?

Certain of things like what? Your ignorance?
Dead certain.
Certain of the universe's origins?
No. Not in the least.

Now how could you possibly know such about the inner thoughts and feelings of more than half the atheists you know?

How could you know my inner thoughts? Why, in this very post, you've made numerous assumptions about what I think and feel!
That said... I've asked. Many actually admit that they are atheists simply to be different.
Others, when plied with questions, admit that they really don't know what their beliefs are, and haven't done a whole lot of thinking, they've just heard from other atheists and it seems reasonable enough. It's swiftly mentioned that they don't want to "follow the herd" or some-such BS.

(Your last line clearly implies that you think their opinion is NOT "worth a shit," which is where the hatred you have for atheists shows, BTW.)

The opinions of idiots are generally not worth a shit.
The opinions of intelligent people I will gladly consider.
Some intelligent people are atheists. Some are Christians. Some belong to other denominations.
I have met at least one intelligent atheist in this thread, and at least one atheist who thinks that mudslinging and shouting: "Look! Look! He's a bigot!" is the same as debate.
Frankly, I suspect you of being a high school sophomore, and I am beginning to think that it may be best just to disregard any further posts from you, because they're overwhelmingly childish, prejudiced, and poorly reasoned.

But we don't know that - and, again, I don't think that 'order or magnitude' answer applies. Tools is tools.

And that, right there, is as far as we are gonna get.

Actually - 'we' didn't.

Strip us of language, and the ability to demonstrate tool-use to one another, and see what tool use our NEXT generation retains.

I actually think we could do reasonably well.
Plus, look how long dinosaurs walked the earth. Hundreds of millions of years.
Where are their skyscrapers?
Shit, where are their huts?

They were - they were the issue I was talking about. I was saying our intelligence is a defence mechanism, which is why it nwould be 'evolved for', which is why it's no big mystery.

I think we were talking about different things.

You think you could bring down prey with your claws or teeth? (or horn???)

Would you want to fight off a predator? No - we have vestigial defences, at best.

I was actually being sarcastic.
No, we don't have fangs or claws or horns. I wouldn't want to face off against a lion with my "claws."

Evidence suggests common origins of all matter. Maybe. That doesn't mean a bang, big or otherwise. It certainly doesn't mean everything spawning from nothing.

A cyclical universe that contracts and explodes outwards would look the same, and would have a bang. A universe that 'leaked' into existence from some other-where would look the same, without the bang.

This is very interesting. I'll have to look into it.

Well, maybe - I'd like to but... you then say things like:

How does that prove I started with God?
I see the mysteries and I consider numerous possibilities. As I've said before, my answer came after the question.
I believe that belief in a creator is a reasonable belief.


The arsehole of the US. The place you'd stick the hose if America needed an enema. (Georgia).

My condolences.
I'm from Nebraska, originally :p

Buy me dinner.

:)

Why, thank you.

You're welcome.
And what is typical Georgian cuisine? (Unless you'd rather something that isn't typical Georgian cuisine, which is understandable... I, for one, would prefer my dish be served without corn...)

No - I've tried to keep my consciousness unbroken (for various reasons), which makes me pretty straight-edge.

I haven't tried it either, despite my sincerest efforts.
Hm. Keep your consciousness unbroken. Never heard it that way before.

I actually think we could do reasonably well.
Plus, look how long dinosaurs walked the earth. Hundreds of millions of years.
Where are their skyscrapers?
Shit, where are their huts?


I think you're attacking that from a different place than I was intending - I'm not saying we'd die out immediately (although, in such circumstances, I don't think the next generation would survive with anything like the success of this one).

No - what I'm saying is - as individual tool innovators, we're fairly weak. It's only as a collective we're strong, and then only because of the way we share information.

If everyone on this planet that was older than... say, 6 months old... suddenly died, evaporated, was abducted, whatever - and the world was left with 100 million human babies, and some kind of protection machine to make sure they at least survived to adulthood... those babies wouldn't have language in a way we'd recognise it, wouldn't have tools above a purely rudimentary fashion, if at all, and would have no science, no math, little or no philosophy.

You want to know what our world would look like in the situation I am talking about? Google 'feral children' - and imagine that everyone left on earth was an 18 year old 'feral' child.

That's my point - we're NOT good tool innovators, or that smart, or that logical - EXCEPT through the various methods we use to retain and communicate what we've learned BEYOND our own experience.

How does that prove I started with God?
I see the mysteries and I consider numerous possibilities. As I've said before, my answer came after the question.
I believe that belief in a creator is a reasonable belief.


The fact that you look at the possibilities and even have 'metaphysical mystery machine' as one of the options, is where it's falling down. If you really MUST appeal to a god of gaps, it really SHOULD be the absolute LAST resort.


You're welcome.
And what is typical Georgian cuisine? (Unless you'd rather something that isn't typical Georgian cuisine, which is understandable... I, for one, would prefer my dish be served without corn...)


Ugh. Traditional Georgia cuisine holds no appeal for me. Biscuits and gravy? Grits? Ugh.


I haven't tried it either, despite my sincerest efforts.
Hm. Keep your consciousness unbroken. Never heard it that way before.

In my case, it's quite appropriate. I was (clinically) OCD as a child/youth, and my perspective on it is that my consciousness was broken. I have pretty good 'control' of my brain now, and it's pretty much repaired, as much as is useful and realistic. So - to be honest, when I've been offerred various drugs in the past, promises like 'you'll never see the world the same again' or 'it opens up a whole new world of consciousness'... are pretty horrifying to me.