On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:53:37 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>
>Sure, it started 14 billion years ago, but that's 14 billion of *our* years. 
>Time slows in a high gravity field, and squishing an entire universe into 
>one dot is definitely going to give you a high gravity field, so maybe the 
>first 10^-43 seconds of the universe lasted forever.

Congratulations, you've solved the mystery of the sudden inflation.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:56:02 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>
>I think the watchmaker argument and the clockmaker argument are different.
>
>Watchmaker: Something complex like a watch must be designed, so God exists 
>to design it.
>
>Clockmaker: God started the universe, wound it up like a clock, and now it 
>just ticks along with no further need for attention from the clockmaker.
>
>As I understand it...

Right! fair enough. I've only read about that in fiction. I thought that Jim had
made a simple mistake.

Makes It even more unworthy of worship.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11 Jul 2009 12:01:07 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>
>Well, assuming it were true, I would agree that worship would be 
>inappropriate, but marvel/honour of someone who created something that 
>complex?  

Marvel, yes.

>Some people honour those who create things that demonstrate a 
>high degree of knowledge or experience, so why not?

I suppose it depends on the meaning of honour. You can honour elders for their
age and wisdom which is a good thing, mostly but I would not honour someone like
Hussein or Hitler if they had reached an old age. Except maybe out of fear. ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> My point was that to break up a prisoner's dilemma situation, 

Or, to clarify with an example:

Cheating:  I get $100, costing you $200.
Government: I fine you more than $100 for cheating, so it isn't worth it.
Religion: I reward you with more than $100 for not cheating, so it isn't 
worth it.

The idea comes from my attempts to write a constitution for my own little 
island empire based on sound reasoning and logic. :-)


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:53:37 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 
>> Sure, it started 14 billion years ago, but that's 14 billion of *our* years. 
>> Time slows in a high gravity field, and squishing an entire universe into 
>> one dot is definitely going to give you a high gravity field, so maybe the 
>> first 10^-43 seconds of the universe lasted forever.
> 
> Congratulations, you've solved the mystery of the sudden inflation.

Actually, I suspect I have it backwards, tho. Time goes slower inside the 
monoblock for observers outside the monoblock. I'm not sure it goes the 
other way around, tho. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:38:23 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:53:37 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> 
>>> Sure, it started 14 billion years ago, but that's 14 billion of *our* years. 
>>> Time slows in a high gravity field, and squishing an entire universe into 
>>> one dot is definitely going to give you a high gravity field, so maybe the 
>>> first 10^-43 seconds of the universe lasted forever.
>> 
>> Congratulations, you've solved the mystery of the sudden inflation.
>
>Actually, I suspect I have it backwards, tho. Time goes slower inside the 
>monoblock for observers outside the monoblock. I'm not sure it goes the 
>other way around, tho. :-)

While we are inside the universe now what would the situation be if we were here
then? I hope that is not as stupid as it sounds talking about viewing the
universe from outside but I cannot visualise it any other way. Actually I know
that it is nonsense but… 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:37:23 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Darren New wrote:
>> My point was that to break up a prisoner's dilemma situation, 
>
>Or, to clarify with an example:
>
>Cheating:  I get $100, costing you $200.
>Government: I fine you more than $100 for cheating, so it isn't worth it.
>Religion: I reward you with more than $100 for not cheating, so it isn't 
>worth it.
>
>The idea comes from my attempts to write a constitution for my own little 
>island empire based on sound reasoning and logic. :-)

You forgot, "or you will BURN IN HELL!"  :-)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> You forgot, "or you will BURN IN HELL!"  :-)

Yes, but I think that came later. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:52:29 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> You forgot, "or you will BURN IN HELL!"  :-)
>
>Yes, but I think that came later. :-)

Yes, you SINNER, it will come later! :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:53:37 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> God created x, y, and z.
> 
> Um, OK.  I think an awful lot of religious nuts think God is actively
> intervening, tho.

Oh, yes, I would agree with this....

> I had another thought, tho...   People say "the universe was created,
> and thus needs a creator."  But what makes people think the universe
> hasn't been around forever?

Personally, I think it's because some people can't wrap their minds 
around that - so rather than try to (or accept that they can't), they 
created/believe in a "mythology" as a way of explaining the inexplicable.

> Sure, it started 14 billion years ago, but that's 14 billion of *our*
> years. Time slows in a high gravity field, and squishing an entire
> universe into one dot is definitely going to give you a high gravity
> field, so maybe the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe lasted forever.

That makes sense to me....but at the same time, I can also see the point 
of view that says "God created the heaven and the Earth in 6 days" - if a 
day isn't a solar Earth day but measured on a larger timescale.  I don't 
personally think the universe was "created", but I can see that as a 
possible reading of Genesis.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:13:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>Some people honour those who create things that demonstrate a high
>>degree of knowledge or experience, so why not?
> 
> I suppose it depends on the meaning of honour. You can honour elders for
> their age and wisdom which is a good thing, mostly 

True....

> but I would not
> honour someone like Hussein or Hitler if they had reached an old age.
> Except maybe out of fear. ;)

Agreed. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:50:49 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:11:02 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> In the best of worlds, both government and religion are in the same
>>> business.
>> 
>> Very true.  The fundamental difference is that the Government deals in
>> your life today, religion typically deals in your eternal life.
> 
> No, that's what I'm saying. Religions don't tell you about your eternal
> life. They tell you about what you have to do *today* to get your
> eternal reward. I can't think of any religion that tells you about your
> eternal life without telling you how to behave in this one.

But most of the major religions do use "eternal life" as the carrot to 
get you to follow the rules or directions of the leadership.  I'm not 
sure I understand what you're saying here, but I suspect we might be "in 
violent agreement" again. ;-)

> My point was that to break up a prisoner's dilemma situation, you can
> either increase the reward for cooperating or increase the punishment
> for refusing to cooperate. And government and religion are both in a
> good position to do one or the other of those.

Oh, I see....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:37:23 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Darren New wrote:
>> My point was that to break up a prisoner's dilemma situation,
> 
> Or, to clarify with an example:
> 
> Cheating:  I get $100, costing you $200. Government: I fine you more
> than $100 for cheating, so it isn't worth it. Religion: I reward you
> with more than $100 for not cheating, so it isn't worth it.
> 
> The idea comes from my attempts to write a constitution for my own
> little island empire based on sound reasoning and logic. :-)

Oh, that makes sense to me, yes, we're talking about different things, 
but I think agreeing on the same principle.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:58:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> They turned into a means of controlling the people a long time ago. IMO.

I don't know that that's a matter of opinion, though - I think that's 
pretty well established fact....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11 Jul 2009 16:55:28 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:13:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>Some people honour those who create things that demonstrate a high
>>>degree of knowledge or experience, so why not?
>> 
>> I suppose it depends on the meaning of honour. You can honour elders for
>> their age and wisdom which is a good thing, mostly 
>
>True....
>
>> but I would not
>> honour someone like Hussein or Hitler if they had reached an old age.
>> Except maybe out of fear. ;)
>
>Agreed. :-)
>

That's another world problem solved.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11 Jul 2009 16:58:28 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:58:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> They turned into a means of controlling the people a long time ago. IMO.
>
>I don't know that that's a matter of opinion, though - I think that's 
>pretty well established fact....
>

Drat! I just reinvented the wheel.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:16:26 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> but I would not
>>> honour someone like Hussein or Hitler if they had reached an old age.
>>> Except maybe out of fear. ;)
>>
>>Agreed. :-)
>>
>>
> That's another world problem solved.

If we keep going, we could probably solve world hunger, too, along with 
all the other major problems out there. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:18:40 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 11 Jul 2009 16:58:28 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:58:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> They turned into a means of controlling the people a long time ago.
>>> IMO.
>>
>>I don't know that that's a matter of opinion, though - I think that's
>>pretty well established fact....
>>
>>
> Drat! I just reinvented the wheel.

I hate when I do that. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:37:23 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> My point was that to break up a prisoner's dilemma situation, 
>> Or, to clarify with an example:
>>
>> Cheating:  I get $100, costing you $200.
>> Government: I fine you more than $100 for cheating, so it isn't worth it.
>> Religion: I reward you with more than $100 for not cheating, so it isn't 
>> worth it.
>>
>> The idea comes from my attempts to write a constitution for my own little 
>> island empire based on sound reasoning and logic. :-)
> 
> You forgot, "or you will BURN IN HELL!"  :-)
No, what he forgot is the catch-22 of religion, which is, "Someone else 
will reward you more than $100, and some unspecified time, but I can't 
and won't tell you how much, or even if its money, except that its a 
'lot' more, so, according to me, its not worth it to annoy this other 
person, by doing it."

The flaw of course being, how do you trust that a) this other person 
exists, b) tell which of the various things they claim is cheating is 
actually cheating, c) tell which of the various things people claim is 
"THE" reward, or not, and d) which one of the myriad people that make 
the claim actually know what this person will give you, why, when, or 
how much? Since none of these things are knowable, and often by the 
definition of the very people insisting that he "does" know it, yet this 
other person's plans, intentions and behavior is, at the same time, 
unknowable (always good for a groan), how do you even know that you can 
trust the person telling you not to cheat? You know the cops will haul 
your ass to jail, since you have **seen** cops. All you have is the word 
of one of million of people with tens of thousands of contradictory 
definitions of what constitutes, "Things this other guy, whose name, 
size, shape, powers, interests, dislikes, desires, and nature we can't 
even all agree on".

Its a bit like saying that the intent of someone with a fishing pole, 
and someone with a butterfly net is the same, when both are trying real 
hard to catch fish in a river. However, the question isn't if the 
"intent" is the same, its which one catches the biggest fish (or any), 
and which one just brags about the one that they "almost got, but it got 
away from them".

D&D is a different way of "knowing" in the same way religion is, and 
like religion, its only applicable to the imaginary universe that it 
describes, and then only when you premise that the world is real, and 
that "other" real world explanations for Dragons, Troll regeneration, 
and the mystical properties of bags of holding a) can't be explained by 
naturalistic methods (duh!), and c) there is something profound that 
will change reality as we know it, if scientists just stopped being so 
closed minded and took amazing spells like Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound 
seriously. The consequences for doing something wrong, in terms of both 
are similar too. Either nothing happens, or people insist that you have 
to wait to find out, or that you didn't do it right, and, in the later 
case, if you **did** the results would be, "truly profound!". If it also 
happens to be something we deemed illegal, then something entirely 
unconnected to the imaginary consequences happens, such as an arrest. 
Sadly, the sort of people that take this stuff seriously will quite 
often attribute the ability of the cops to figure out who did it, find 
their house, bust down the door, and, all without divine intervention, 
arrest them, as, "a miraculous punishment from my favorite DM." lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:21:10 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> The whole point of religion is to control people "now", in order to save
>> them "later", in some vague sense.
> 
> Well, if I were a cynic, I'd say that the point of religion is to get 
> people to believe in an afterlife and then use that belief in an 
> afterlife to control them now (by implanting fears about how they will 
> spend eternity if they don't do the things the religious leadership wants 
> them to do).  Making people think they will spend an eternity in hellfire 
> and pain will motivate people to do a lot of things.
> 
> Jim
Actually, this is relatively recent though too. It wasn't until the NT 
that hell really became defined (not surprising since it wasn't until 
then that the Judaic faith ran into the Roman/Greek concept of Hades), 
and it wasn't until Dante that the church really had more than a vague, 
"You will go to a sort of bad place!", concept of just what "bad" meant 
in context to the idea. Early Christian mythos was rather vague as to 
what happened if you sinned too badly, and basically didn't do much more 
than state, "Ah, well.. uh, I guess you just don't get to go to church 
in the big sky any more and worship god directly, at his feet.."

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I think the difference is significant. "I don't know" implies that you 
> can still look for an answer, whereas "I can't know" means that the 
> search ended. The former means that you are open to suggestions from 
> others who claim that they know more, whereas the latter is a sound 
> basis to build your own ethics.
> I don't like the "I don't care".

On the contrary, how is "I can't know" a grounds to build anything? You 
can't know if the people in the next tribe are like you, so kill them, 
in case they are not? You can't know if blacks are as smart as whites, 
but they seem pretty dumb now, so why bother finding out? There are a 
lot of seriously sick and stupid things you can come up with based on "I 
can't know X". Saying, "I don't know", in humbling, and demands you 
consider that a) you could be wrong, and b) an answer is **worth** 
looking for. Every single case of horror in history has stemmed from 
either people that said, "I can't know this, so will just keep doing 
what I was doing.", or, "I do know with absolute certainty this, so the 
universe, and the people in it, must conform to what I 'know'."

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 11 Jul 2009 21:45:15 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:16:26 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> but I would not
>>>> honour someone like Hussein or Hitler if they had reached an old age.
>>>> Except maybe out of fear. ;)
>>>
>>>Agreed. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> That's another world problem solved.
>
>If we keep going, we could probably solve world hunger, too, along with 
>all the other major problems out there. :-)
>

That's the plan :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:54:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:37:23 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> 
>>> Darren New wrote:
>>>> My point was that to break up a prisoner's dilemma situation, 
>>> Or, to clarify with an example:
>>>
>>> Cheating:  I get $100, costing you $200.
>>> Government: I fine you more than $100 for cheating, so it isn't worth it.
>>> Religion: I reward you with more than $100 for not cheating, so it isn't 
>>> worth it.
>>>
>>> The idea comes from my attempts to write a constitution for my own little 
>>> island empire based on sound reasoning and logic. :-)
>> 
>> You forgot, "or you will BURN IN HELL!"  :-)
>No, what he forgot is the catch-22 of religion, which is, 

[snip]

Thinking and faith don't go together.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 12-7-2009 8:04, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I think the difference is significant. "I don't know" implies that you 
>> can still look for an answer, whereas "I can't know" means that the 
>> search ended. The former means that you are open to suggestions from 
>> others who claim that they know more, whereas the latter is a sound 
>> basis to build your own ethics.
>> I don't like the "I don't care".
> 
> On the contrary, how is "I can't know" a grounds to build anything?

Easy. If you are convinced that you can not know if God exists or not 
(which is what agnosticism is about, all your other examples are 
irrelevant here), it means that you have to build an ethics that will 
work in both cases. You can not assume there is someone else that knows 
better (a god or her representative on earth), nor can you be certain 
that you won't be judged after death on what you did in your entire 
life. That means that you have to think about what you are doing and you 
will have to make the right choice everytime by yourself. With 'right' 
defined by a much broader spectrum of ethics than that of a single 
religion. E.g. simply defining another group as non-human won't work. 
(i.e. if your current social environment allows you to recognize this as 
an item, but that is a whole different discussion.)

Believe me, simply being one in a crowd of atheists or believers is much 
more simple. (BTW I am not an agnostic, in case you are wondering).

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:20:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>If we keep going, we could probably solve world hunger, too, along with
>>all the other major problems out there. :-)
>>
> That's the plan :)

It's always good to have a plan. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:58:16 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>  It wasn't until the NT
> that hell really became defined

You may not have noticed, but I wasn't actually speaking solely of 
Christianity - or any individual religion. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> God created x, y, and z. 
> 
> Um, OK.  I think an awful lot of religious nuts think God is actively 
> intervening, tho.

This is actually what eventually changed my opinion on the subject.

Based on my own observations, contrasting the time when I was actively 
going to church & obeying every little rule, with the time when I pretty 
much didn't give a f*ck, I didn't really notice any difference in my life.

Which means one of four things:
1) God doesn't exist,
2) God exists, but doesn't care about us,
3) God exists, cares about us, and doesn't intervene in our lives.
4) God exists, cares about us, and intervenes in other peoples' lives, 
but not mine.

Of those options, the first is the most attractive.  The other options 
all imply a God who is at best negligent.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:

>
> This is actually what eventually changed my opinion on the subject.
>
> Based on my own observations, contrasting the time when I was actively
> going to church & obeying every little rule, with the time when I pretty
> much didn't give a f*ck, I didn't really notice any difference in my life.
>
> Which means one of four things:
> 1) God doesn't exist,
> 2) God exists, but doesn't care about us,
> 3) God exists, cares about us, and doesn't intervene in our lives.
> 4) God exists, cares about us, and intervenes in other peoples' lives,
> but not mine.
>
> Of those options, the first is the most attractive.  The other options
> all imply a God who is at best negligent.
>

You missed out: God exists but he is occupied ATM or his timescale is too slow
to respond.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> You missed out: God exists but he is occupied ATM or his timescale is too 
> slow
> to respond.

Or his timescale is too fast to respond :-)

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:28:30 +0200, "scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:

>> You missed out: God exists but he is occupied ATM or his timescale is too 
>> slow
>> to respond.
>
>Or his timescale is too fast to respond :-)
> 

Did someone say something?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 12 Jul 2009 13:25:47 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:20:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>If we keep going, we could probably solve world hunger, too, along with
>>>all the other major problems out there. :-)
>>>
>> That's the plan :)
>
>It's always good to have a plan. :-)
>

And someone to blame ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:19:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 12 Jul 2009 13:25:47 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:20:08 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>If we keep going, we could probably solve world hunger, too, along
>>>>with all the other major problems out there. :-)
>>>>
>>> That's the plan :)
>>
>>It's always good to have a plan. :-)
>>
>>
> And someone to blame ;)

Oh yes, that's also useful. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> You missed out: God exists but he is occupied ATM or his timescale is too slow
> to respond.

If he isn't responding, he's still negligent.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:58:16 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>>  It wasn't until the NT
>> that hell really became defined
> 
> You may not have noticed, but I wasn't actually speaking solely of 
> Christianity - or any individual religion. ;-)
> 
> Jim
True, but I was referring in mine specifically to the last sentence. 
Prior... most of them where a lot more vague about what did or didn't 
happen to you.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 12-7-2009 8:04, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> I think the difference is significant. "I don't know" implies that 
>>> you can still look for an answer, whereas "I can't know" means that 
>>> the search ended. The former means that you are open to suggestions 
>>> from others who claim that they know more, whereas the latter is a 
>>> sound basis to build your own ethics.
>>> I don't like the "I don't care".
>>
>> On the contrary, how is "I can't know" a grounds to build anything?
> 
> Easy. If you are convinced that you can not know if God exists or not 
> (which is what agnosticism is about, all your other examples are 
> irrelevant here), it means that you have to build an ethics that will 
> work in both cases. You can not assume there is someone else that knows 
> better (a god or her representative on earth), nor can you be certain 
> that you won't be judged after death on what you did in your entire 
> life. That means that you have to think about what you are doing and you 
> will have to make the right choice everytime by yourself. With 'right' 
> defined by a much broader spectrum of ethics than that of a single 
> religion. E.g. simply defining another group as non-human won't work. 
> (i.e. if your current social environment allows you to recognize this as 
> an item, but that is a whole different discussion.)
> 
> Believe me, simply being one in a crowd of atheists or believers is much 
> more simple. (BTW I am not an agnostic, in case you are wondering).

Uh.. But, in that case, you are not basing it on the "unknowability", 
your doing it the same way that you would if no one had ever presented 
the idea that one existed in the first place. You might as well claim 
that you are, "building your system of ethics on a lack of being able to 
know if there is a tea pot in orbit." Its a meaningless statement. Well, 
unless you where describing it to someone that insists that all of 
creation is defined by how many invisible tea pots are orbiting life 
bearing planets, but, then its only meaningful in context of 
"attempting" to explain it to the person making that assertion, which is 
basically the same thing as saying, it is meaningless. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Watchmaker: Something complex like a watch must be designed, so God 
> exists to design it.

So, complexity indicates intelligent design?  That doesn't make sense.

A result of Occam's Razor would be that unnecessary complexity is 
evidence of unknown influences... but that's hardly the same thing.

> Clockmaker: God started the universe, wound it up like a clock, and now 
> it just ticks along with no further need for attention from the clockmaker.

Yes, this is the one I was referring to.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 5-7-2009 19:57, Darren New wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>> I.e., it's the same bit as prayer. Surely if 50% of the Catholics with 
>> cancer who prayed for remission got better, and only 10% of the 
>> non-Catholic population got better from the same kind of cancer, you'd 
>> say "Hey, maybe the Catholics are on to something."  But when there's 
>> no difference at all, you kind of have to discount the effacy of prayer.
>>
> Wasn't that one tested a couple of years ago? With surprising results? 
> Anyone can find that reference?

It's the kind of study that always gets mentioned in churches, but never 
referenced in papers.  I've heard countless stories of such things, but 
never seen a reputable reference to it.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
> > You missed out: God exists but he is occupied ATM or his timescale is too slow
> > to respond.
>
> If he isn't responding, he's still negligent.
>

I don’t think that I could argue with you but one thought crosses my mind. Do
you hava a contract with a SLA?

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> > On 5-7-2009 19:57, Darren New wrote:
> >> Darren New wrote:
> >> I.e., it's the same bit as prayer. Surely if 50% of the Catholics with
> >> cancer who prayed for remission got better, and only 10% of the
> >> non-Catholic population got better from the same kind of cancer, you'd
> >> say "Hey, maybe the Catholics are on to something."  But when there's
> >> no difference at all, you kind of have to discount the effacy of prayer.
> >>
> > Wasn't that one tested a couple of years ago? With surprising results?
> > Anyone can find that reference?
>
> It's the kind of study that always gets mentioned in churches, but never
> referenced in papers.  I've heard countless stories of such things, but
> never seen a reputable reference to it.
>

But it is mentioned in papers. Is that not what faith healing and juju/Obeah is
all about?
Well maybe not *all*

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Watchmaker: Something complex like a watch must be designed, so God 
>> exists to design it.
> 
> So, complexity indicates intelligent design?  That doesn't make sense.

I'm just telling you what it says.  I don't think it's so much the 
complexity - soap foam is complex - as it is the complex usefulness.

Of course, when you put watch parts in an environment of mutation and 
natural selection, you get watches evolving too.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Watchmaker: Something complex like a watch must be designed, so God 
>>> exists to design it.
>>
>> So, complexity indicates intelligent design?  That doesn't make sense.
> 
> I'm just telling you what it says.  I don't think it's so much the 
> complexity - soap foam is complex - as it is the complex usefulness.
> 
> Of course, when you put watch parts in an environment of mutation and 
> natural selection, you get watches evolving too.
> 
The usual argument is actually something like, "You can't get there from 
here." The idea being a bit like the age old, "A giant must have placed 
that boulder on top of the pillar, because there is no way it just 
'formed' there." I.e., irreducible complexity, which really just means, 
"We don't know precisely how it got there, but some idiot thinks it had 
to be designed, because we can't see the transitional state where the 
new and original copies existed, and you could still remove the new one, 
and removing any parts will break it." The problem starts with the false 
premise that you can't "get" to irreducibility save by design, and is 
further mangled by people like Dumbski, who are supposed math experts, 
but somehow can't do "basic" statistics correctly, with the result that 
they do stupid BS like suggesting that if the odds of something 
happening is 1:10,000,000, it will *never* happen, even if you have 
1,000,000 trillion attempts, in a span of a billion years...

No, design implies design. How do you determine design? Some sort of 
tool marks help, but the "design" needs to show some consistent 
implication that it does what it does "specifically", and not via 
accident. Well.. DNA show a "lot" of accidents, and no "design".

Stupidest thing I recently saw was, "Well, obviously dinosaur feet where 
designed, how else do you get only fingers 2-4?" Uh.. By knowing what 
the frack you are talking about? lol Fingers are numbered starting with 
the thumb, because humans didn't know any better. They "grow" in this 
order: 4 -> 5 -> 3 -> 2 -> 1 - stop, in humans. So, to get a dinosaur 
(and birds) you need two mutations:

Mutation #1 - Stop short.
4 -> 5 -> 3 -> 2 - stop (no thumb)

Mutation #2 - Frame shift.
3 -> 4 -> 2 - stop

Since only one step is "ever" taken from the start towards the "pinky", 
only digit 4 is produced, before #2 starts growing. But, since #2 is the 
index digit, the "stop short" prevents a "thumb/big toe" forming. Some 
bozo named Safarti tried to make the argument that the difference had to 
be "design", not mutations.. lol

Full article on what he gets wrong, and why here: 
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/bird_and_frog_development.html

They keep looking, and looking, and looking, for a smoking gun, and all 
they find is this kind of silly BS, where they don't get the actual 
details of what is going on, or worse, make shit up, claim its true, 
then whine when its pointed out that they made it up (same bozo also 
claims that he mechanisms by which frogs and humans develop are 
completely different. In reality, most of it is identical, with the main 
differences being in a "few" new tweaks (some of them rather stupid 
ones, from a design perspective), and a lot of stuff involved in telling 
things to turn on/off at different times between the two (which can also 
include some damn stupid flaws).

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> On 5-7-2009 19:57, Darren New wrote:
>>>> Darren New wrote:
>>>> I.e., it's the same bit as prayer. Surely if 50% of the Catholics with
>>>> cancer who prayed for remission got better, and only 10% of the
>>>> non-Catholic population got better from the same kind of cancer, you'd
>>>> say "Hey, maybe the Catholics are on to something."  But when there's
>>>> no difference at all, you kind of have to discount the effacy of prayer.
>>>>
>>> Wasn't that one tested a couple of years ago? With surprising results?
>>> Anyone can find that reference?
>> It's the kind of study that always gets mentioned in churches, but never
>> referenced in papers.  I've heard countless stories of such things, but
>> never seen a reputable reference to it.
>>
> 
> But it is mentioned in papers. Is that not what faith healing and juju/Obeah is
> all about?
> Well maybe not *all*
> 
> Stephen
> 

Usually, it works more like this:

1. Someone does such a study.
2. Raw data, when "properly" analyzed shows "no" significant results, or 
involves such a small, and homogeneous group that it is basically 
meaningless (and usually contradicted by other studies).
3. All the data that contradicts the premise is thrown out, and its 
deemed a success, because what was "kept" implies it worked.

The joke being that a) this isn't how you do science, since you let the 
evidence lead, not mangle the evidence to fit the premise and b) well 
funded, well run, large scale, studies often show either "no" positive 
correlation, or worse, as in the one case, actually imply a negative one 
(the one where a patient knowing someone prayed for them indicated an 
"increase" in the odds of dying, instead of being cured, and maybe a 
slight increase in deaths from those prayed for, but who where not aware 
of someone doing so, though the statistics where a bit less certain on 
that one). But, of course, people will pick the studies that "imply" 
positive results, for the same reason that the "researchers" ignore 
negative results, to promote their presupposition that the results imply 
it actually worked. They are not interested in the evidence, just the 
conclusion (which needs to be what "they" want it to be).

In general though, *properly* constructed studies always show a lack of 
correlation between anything like prayer and actual benefits. Its 
generally only the ones done wrong, or on very small groups with a 
predisposition to react positively to the magic joojoo that seem to show 
a positive result, and then its like.. the equivalent of, "I can 
magically make a random coin toss come up heads 0.0001% more often than 
'chance'." Wow, if we all prayed we should see armies of people, uh.. a 
few, uh, maybe one or two people, walking out the door, miraculously 
cured, every.. year?! lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 14-7-2009 7:07, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 12-7-2009 8:04, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> I think the difference is significant. "I don't know" implies that 
>>>> you can still look for an answer, whereas "I can't know" means that 
>>>> the search ended. The former means that you are open to suggestions 
>>>> from others who claim that they know more, whereas the latter is a 
>>>> sound basis to build your own ethics.
>>>> I don't like the "I don't care".
>>>
>>> On the contrary, how is "I can't know" a grounds to build anything?
>>
>> Easy. If you are convinced that you can not know if God exists or not 
>> (which is what agnosticism is about, all your other examples are 
>> irrelevant here), it means that you have to build an ethics that will 
>> work in both cases. You can not assume there is someone else that 
>> knows better (a god or her representative on earth), nor can you be 
>> certain that you won't be judged after death on what you did in your 
>> entire life. That means that you have to think about what you are 
>> doing and you will have to make the right choice everytime by 
>> yourself. With 'right' defined by a much broader spectrum of ethics 
>> than that of a single religion. E.g. simply defining another group as 
>> non-human won't work. (i.e. if your current social environment allows 
>> you to recognize this as an item, but that is a whole different 
>> discussion.)
>>
>> Believe me, simply being one in a crowd of atheists or believers is 
>> much more simple. (BTW I am not an agnostic, in case you are wondering).
> 
> Uh.. But, in that case, you are not basing it on the "unknowability", 
> your doing it the same way that you would if no one had ever presented 
> the idea that one existed in the first place. You might as well claim 
> that you are, "building your system of ethics on a lack of being able to 
> know if there is a tea pot in orbit." Its a meaningless statement. Well, 
> unless you where describing it to someone that insists that all of 
> creation is defined by how many invisible tea pots are orbiting life 
> bearing planets, but, then its only meaningful in context of 
> "attempting" to explain it to the person making that assertion, which is 
> basically the same thing as saying, it is meaningless. lol

I think you missed the point completely. Or perhaps it is something that 
you have to understand before you can understand it. i.e. the 
philosophical equivalent of the mathematical 'trivial'.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:02:20 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> True, but I was referring in mine specifically to the last sentence.
> Prior... most of them where a lot more vague about what did or didn't
> happen to you.

Perhaps, I'd have to ask my brother who's actually got a degree in this 
field...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:20:26 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Of course, when you put watch parts in an environment of mutation and
> natural selection, you get watches evolving too.

There was a fascinating demonstration of this somewhere on the 'net....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> There was a fascinating demonstration of this somewhere on the 'net....

Yeah, exactly.  Let me know if you ever find that again.

Also, the other one I was looking for was a list of plausible pairs of 
detrimental mutations that when combined gives you and advantage, so as to 
give counter-examples to the "all mutations must lead to less fitness" 
arguments.  I tried to reconstruct some from memory and imagination, but 
none of mine were even close to as convincing as the ones I found.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:19:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> There was a fascinating demonstration of this somewhere on the 'net....
> 
> Yeah, exactly.  Let me know if you ever find that again.

I think this is it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> I don’t think that I could argue with you but one thought crosses my mind. Do
> you hava a contract with a SLA?

Service level agreement?

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:05:27 -0700, Chambers
<Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> I don’t think that I could argue with you but one thought crosses my mind. Do
>> you hava a contract with a SLA?
>
>Service level agreement?

Yes, it is important in modern day life :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:40:12 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
wrote:

>
>Usually, it works more like this:
>
>1. Someone does such a study.
>2. Raw data, when "properly" analyzed shows "no" significant results, or 
>involves such a small, and homogeneous group that it is basically 
>meaningless (and usually contradicted by other studies).

Referances?
If you have not read Ben Goldacre's column from The Guardian, "bad science".
http://www.badscience.net/

>3. All the data that contradicts the premise is thrown out, and its 
>deemed a success, because what was "kept" implies it worked.
>

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

>The joke being that

 [large snip]

placebo effect?

It workes you know.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message