What do you lot think of this?

RichardM1

Ian Shlasko wrote:

The trend is for the "god" answer to become less and less necessary.

The "god" answer has never been required. If it was required, it would be proof, and that isn't how faith works.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

You're still dodging the issue of the trend. I've stated multiple times how the historical trend has been for the alleged influence of "god" to, through reinterpretation, become more and more indirect as we find the REAL answers to the universe around us.

Yes, and I've stated multiple times that absence of evidence isn't an evidence of absence, and I've addressed the trending directly, but I will do it again, from a different perspective. I think you are seeing the result of institutional lag. It always looks like religions are "behind", because integration of understanding takes time, and there are always examples of those who are never able to integrate it. So you add each step up and say "less and less", going back to "my dad wasn't a monkey" and literal 7 days and such. Plus, people see what they want to see: you throw your lot in with a side, and you look for rationals to prove it. I'm not denigrating you. Everyone, including me, does it. In fact, while some, like you, see science as a limiter on God, and some who will never believe science if it is different from their beliefs, there are some who understand it as a view into what He did and is doing. They work to see how things really are, not how we want them to be. They work and learn to gain understanding. They integrate what they know, understand the interplay. Different fields of science do the same thing. Ideas seem contradictory, at first. People think about them, hash them out, understand them better. If they are lucky, they may reconcile them, but not everything does reconcile, even between two theories that are very successful in the areas they address. There. Your turn, explain for me why you think He is a "God of the cracks", cuz I don't see it. [mod speeeelng]

Opacity, the new Transparency.

Ian Shlasko

You know, you've tiptoed around it quite adeptly, but you haven't actually disputed the trend issue from a logical perspective. As I've said repeatedly in various ways, over the span of history, "god" has always been put in place of "I don't know" as the edge of scientific understanding, and that "I don't know" region is becoming smaller and smaller. That's a pretty clear trend.

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)

Ian Shlasko

Well, since I'm responding to your posts as they come in, late at night or first thing in the morning my time, you already have me at a disadvantage, so let's try to keep this to one arc at a time... Don't feel like typing the same thing twice or having to keep track of which arguments were made in which subthread.

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)

RichardM1

Ian Shlasko wrote:

you haven't actually disputed the trend issue from a logical perspective.

Sure I have. Maybe you don't agree with me, but that is a different issue. The Christian God is not a god of the cracks. He is not stuck in the "I don't know". For me and those I know, science is the study of God. Integration between different views takes time, kind of like Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity haven't been reconciled, but people are working on it. You perceive that integration time with a narrowing of your "I don't know" window, but that is not truth. The trend does not exist. I gave you reasons you might perceive it, without it being true. I see your statements about God of the cracks. I hear you saying unknown gets smaller, so the space for God gets smaller. Only if that is how you see God. You think science is not explanation of how God's universe works, so you think it is a chisel that cuts pieces out of the space He could live it. You only see it as true because you have faith in it being true. If you believe God is ignorance of science. But then it gets to be circular logic: God is ignorance of science. Science chips away at God. Since there is less ignorance, you think God is now smaller, reinforcing, for you, that God is ignorance.

Opacity, the new Transparency.

RichardM1

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Don't feel like typing the same thing twice or having to keep track of which arguments were made in which subthread.

Me either, plus I have a couple other arcs with other people, making it more confusing as to where I have said what, so we close this one and I respond to you next one on the other thread?

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Well, since I'm responding to your posts as they come in, late at night or first thing in the morning my time, you already have me at a disadvantage

That is true for both of us, so we each have each other at a disadvantage :laugh:

Opacity, the new Transparency.

Ian Shlasko

You're still dancing around it... It's not circular logic. In the old days, "god" was credited for everything that wasn't understood. Go back far enough, and a storm was just Zeus/Jupiter throwing down thunderbolts. As more and more becomes understood, "god" is instead credited for whatever's left. Science is not "chipping away at god". That would require a "god" to be present to be chipped. Science is revealing, bit by bit, that we don't need one to exist. You're operating from the basic assumption that one does exist, and trying to tackle a logical issue from that perspective. You keep referring to this as "god's universe" and saying that we're just "seeing god." I look into a telescope, and I don't see "god." I see stars. At least, I would, if I wasn't living in the middle of Manhattan now (Threw away my telescope when I moved here... sigh). I'm supposed to "see god" just because some preacher or book tells me that it's there, yet can't offer a single shred of proof?

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)

RichardM1

Ian Shlasko wrote:

You're operating from the basic assumption that one does exist, and trying to tackle a logical issue from that perspective.

No, I'm not. I have made asides about my belief, but I have never used it as part of the logical argument.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

You keep referring to this as "god's universe" and saying that we're just "seeing god.

No. I keep referring to "God's universe" and I did not say "seeing God", I said "if that is how you see God", where "see" was reasonably seen as "understand" :rolleyes:

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Manhattan

Funny, I thought you were in UK.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Threw away my telescope

That sucks.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

I'm supposed to "see god" just because some preacher or book tells me that it's there, yet can't offer a single shred of proof?

:laugh: Nope. Well, I didn't. But YMMV. [shrug]

Ian Shlasko wrote:

As more and more becomes understood, "god" is instead credited for whatever's left.

You do keep saying that, but I don't do that. You don't do it either, as you don't credit God with anything. Between the two of us, I don't see this trend, at all. Out in the wild, I don't see Christians saying it, only atheists. I don't see the validity taking of a "trend" in atheist thinking and applying to how Christians "credit" things to God. I credit the laws of physics to Him. I also credit Him with the underpinnings that we don't understand, why there are the number of quarks, why there is mass. As you drive physics down to its basics, you get to a bunch of "it works like this" statements, on which the rest is built, but why does it work like that? Why is Planck's constant what it is? I credit all of it, the laws, the underpinnings, the results, this argument. He gets credit for it all. And, ian, God, as you are using it, referring to the Christian God, is a proper noun, and should be capitalized. When I write "god", I am referring to the concept, as I have during the logical argument about whether "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Since you keep trying to drive from the concept of a god to using God as an example, it is proper, both grammatically and logically, to differentiate them. You wrote Zeus/Ju

Ian Shlasko

RichardM1 wrote:

I don't see the validity taking of a "trend" in atheist thinking and applying to how Christians "credit" things to God. I credit the laws of physics to Him.

Fact: In ancient times, the Greeks and Romans attributed nearly all aspects of nature to their pantheon of gods. Fact: Before Darwin came along, many people thought that "god" created the world 6,000 years ago. Some people STILL think so, though they recognize the natural processes behind things like weather and changing seasons. Evolution is pretty much a given now, so you're crediting "god" with the creation of the basic laws of the universe. Now, I'm no historian... If I was, or if I did a bit of research, I could fill in a few more points on that trend line, but I think you get the point.

RichardM1 wrote:

And, ian, God, as you are using it, referring to the Christian God, is a proper noun, and should be capitalized.

Personal preference, and intentional. I only capitalize Zeus and Jupiter, because everyone pretty much agrees that they're fictional characters... And I happen to like Greek and Roman mythology, from an entertainment perspective. I actually refer to "god" as "the g-word" when speaking aloud.

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)

RichardM1

problem with your "Fact" about Darwin changing people from thinking the world was 6k yrs old is that it isn't a fact. Darwin was not a driver in that arena, he was on the Evolution bus. 2) problem with your trend is you only give two data points - Greek/Roman and Darwin - and they are not on the same line. That makes it hard to do curve fitting. You don't account for how different religions evolve, how many people are involved in them, etc. Parts of Islam do not hold that Allah follows rationality - if Allah says 2+2=5, that is the way it is, even if I put two stones and two stones in a bucket and it is still four. Include them in your trend line, as well. It doesn't go in the direction you want. Evolution is a given, as are the rest of biology, quarks, plate tectonics, whatever. They are better or worse description of what God uses to work the universe. God wrote, and modified, the fitness function. He drove the particles and chemistry that caused mutation. Evolution went where He wanted it. He controls the collapse of each and every wave function. So, I don't see any restrictions on God, based on what we know today, the things we know reinforce my belief in a rational God. So I am another point in curve, and, while you don't effect the trend line, I do. To add to your problem, most people on Earth don't know enough to fit your trend line. You assume understanding that is limited in the intellectualized world. Even there, most people just believe in Relativity, but don't have a clue of what it really describes. Ask them about how a transistor works, most can't answer. Talk to them about the underlying particle physics, and they look at you blankly. Worse, the knowledge is almost non extant in most of the world. For them, a falling star is just that. Weather happens, and they do what they can to make sure the seasons go in the correct order. They have no limits imposed on their view of a god, based on the understanding you bring up. When you base you trend on the knowledge of people, you forget the vast tracts of ignorance that spread across the globe. You give God no space. The unknown is a bounds for where you think others can't find and rationalize God, so you can say "God didn't work in evolution. We see the bones, we know what happened, God didn't do it." Just because you understand what it looked like, why does that restrict God? As I said before, it isn't a correct method to allow a groups opponents to define "truth" for a group. Atheists don't really know the "trends" that are

Ian Shlasko

RichardM1 wrote:

problem with your "Fact" about Darwin changing people from thinking the world was 6k yrs old is that it isn't a fact. Darwin was not a driver in that arena, he was on the Evolution bus.

Which has no effect on my point.

RichardM1 wrote:

problem with your trend is you only give two data points - Greek/Roman and Darwin - and they are not on the same line. That makes it hard to do curve fitting.

As I said... I'm no historian, and frankly I don't care enough about this issue to research more of them. People used to think that the gods did everything directly... Over the centuries, their alleged role became more and more indirect as people figure out what was really going on. That looks like a trend to me.

RichardM1 wrote:

To add to your problem, most people on Earth don't know enough to fit your trend line. You assume understanding that is limited in the intellectualized world. Even there, most people just believe in Relativity, but don't have a clue of what it really describes. Ask them about how a transistor works, most can't answer. Talk to them about the underlying particle physics, and they look at you blankly.

Doesn't matter. They aren't claiming that "god" makes transistors work. They know that it's science, and it can be PROVEN.

RichardM1 wrote:

You give God no space. The unknown is a bounds for where you think others can't find and rationalize God, so you can say "God didn't work in evolution. We see the bones, we know what happened, God didn't do it." Just because you understand what it looked like, why does that restrict God?

I don't give the pink elephants any space either. We look at fossils in the ground, and we can scientifically deduce how they ended up there. Some invisible man in the sky didn't just *poof* them in there.

RichardM1 wrote:

As I said before, it isn't a correct method to allow a groups opponents to define "truth" for a group. Atheists don't really know the "trends" that are going on any particular religion. It is in the interest of some people, such as yourself, to find trends that downplay religions. I don't know why you have a bone to pick with Christianity, but your earlier comment that you are not sure there isn't God, it kind of falls by the way side when you talk abo

RichardM1

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Which has no effect on my point.

That half the data points are false does not effect your point that it's a trend?:confused:

Ian Shlasko wrote:

As I said... I'm no historian, and frankly I don't care enough about this issue to research more of them.

But you care about it enough to make claims based on what you haven't researched. That goes back to this being a belief for you. You have faith in your argument, and don't care to do the research to support it by facts.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

They aren't claiming that "god" makes transistors work. They know that it's science, and it can be PROVEN.

No. They are blindly believing that they work on a basis they do not fathom. While empirically that it works, it's no different than believing the sun is a flaming kitten being dragged through the sky bay a guy on an invisible pink elephant. They do not have less ignorance, and so it does not cut into the cracks you think God can fit in. They believe it is science, they've been told it can be proven. They don't know.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

All theistic religions are pretty much the same. A bunch of people claiming that some magical father figure is their only reason for acting ethically. Why should I capitalize "god" if I'm not going to capitalize "invisible flying pink elephants?"

Where did the ethically come into this argument? Is that part of your issue? Because one of them is named George, and when you speak of him directly, calling him george doesn't even satisfy the spell checker, let alone logic and specificity.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Except you've claimed repeatedly that the only logical position would be agnosticism.

Sure. I have life experience that helped me come to my conclusions. Is there a snowball's chance that makes a difference to you? That you would think it is evidence? Nope. That is why I say agnosticism is the only logical choice. I did not say it was the only rational choice. It goes back to knowing and admitting my biases. It goes back to you not admitting your biases.

Opacity, the new Transparency.

Ian Shlasko

RichardM1 wrote:

That half the data points are false does not effect your point that it's a trend?

It doesn't matter whether Darwin invented the whole thing himself. It only matters that evolution was discovered, which it was. The person behind it is superfluous.

RichardM1 wrote:

But you care about it enough to make claims based on what you haven't researched. That goes back to this being a belief for you. You have faith in your argument, and don't care to do the research to support it by facts.

I have the two endpoints of the line, and given human nature, it's reasonable to assume that there were intermediate points in between. If I took the time to research every little fact connected to every conversation I ever had, my life would be even more dull than it is now.

RichardM1 wrote:

No. They are blindly believing that they work on a basis they do not fathom. While empirically that it works, it's no different than believing the sun is a flaming kitten being dragged through the sky bay a guy on an invisible pink elephant. They do not have less ignorance, and so it does not cut into the cracks you think God can fit in. They believe it is science, they've been told it can be proven. They don't know.

It's very different. The difference is that if they wanted to know exactly how transistors work, they could open one of hundreds of textbooks and learn it exactly. If they didn't believe the books, there are scientific experiments that could be done to analyze exactly how it works. Can religion do that?

RichardM1 wrote:

Where did the ethically come into this argument? Is that part of your issue? Because one of them is named George, and when you speak of him directly, calling him george doesn't even satisfy the spell checker, let alone logic and specificity.

Are you going to nitpick every single word I type, however unrelated it is to the issue at hand?

RichardM1 wrote:

Sure. I have life experience that helped me come to my conclusions. Is there a snowball's chance that makes a difference to you? That you would think it is evidence? Nope. That is why I say agnosticism is the only logical choice. I did not say it was the only rational choice. It goes back to knowing and admitting my biases. It goes back to you not admitting you

RichardM1

Ian Shlasko wrote:

The person behind it is superfluous.

Darwin and evolution wasn't the issue, he had nothing to do with the 6k year thing you said. The issue is you are putting "facts" forward to support your argument, when you don't know them. Lord knows if I did that I'd be called an irrational religious nut.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

I have the two endpoints of the line, and given human nature, it's reasonable to assume that there were intermediate points in between.

you don't have 2 endpoints when one of them is wrong. 2) So you see a straight line between between the greco-roman pantheon and atheism? You think there was not maybe a twist or two in there, you know, given human nature?

Ian Shlasko wrote:

If I took the time to research every little fact connected to every conversation I ever had, my life would be even more dull than it is now.

OK, so you don't mind if I just kind of make up facts that fit my argument? And this is not "every little fact". Just the 50% that are incorrect.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

It's very different. The difference is that if they wanted to know exactly how transistors work, they could open one of hundreds of textbooks and learn it exactly. If they didn't believe the books, there are scientific experiments that could be done to analyze exactly how it works. Can religion do that?

The difference is that people tell them they can, and they believe it. That they can or can't prove it, if they tried, does not diminish that it is belief, not knowledge. But as far as the "trend" goes, how many people do you think fit in this category? Lets say a billion people have enough belief in science to, as you say, ring God into a tiny little space. That only leaves 5 billion who don't. How does that make a trend?

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Are you going to nitpick every single word I type, however unrelated it is to the issue at hand?

Trying to understand why you are at a place why you seem so hostile to religion. Do you say "the c-word" about communism? It has done no better than religion. Which it brings back to an earlier question: on what evidence do you base your percentages that you use to give existence of a god an infinitely small probability? Are they as reliable as the facts you used? Y

Ian Shlasko

RichardM1 wrote:

Darwin and evolution wasn't the issue, he had nothing to do with the 6k year thing you said. The issue is you are putting "facts" forward to support your argument, when you don't know them. Lord knows if I did that I'd be called an irrational religious nut.

Oh bloody hell... You understood my point just fine, and that's what matters. Don't expect perfect facts when I'm writing replies first thing in the morning while my breakfast cooks. Evolution made Intelligent Design obsolete (Or at least abstracted "god's" role to guiding it instead of just *poof*ing animals into place). Geology and Astronomy made Creationism obsolete, because we know that the Earth isn't 6,000 years old. See? Now we've got two points on this end of the graph instead of one.

RichardM1 wrote:

The difference is that people tell them they can, and they believe it. That they can or can't prove it, if they tried, does not diminish that it is belief, not knowledge. But as far as the "trend" goes, how many people do you think fit in this category? Lets say a billion people have enough belief in science to, as you say, ring God into a tiny little space. That only leaves 5 billion who don't. How does that make a trend?

Exactly what point are you trying to make here? People may be stupid, but I think they can tell the difference between religious stuff with zero proof, and scientific facts which theoretically can be proven. You're trying to advocate that anything other than omniscience is "belief" in this context.

RichardM1 wrote:

Trying to understand why you are at a place why you seem so hostile to religion. Do you say "the c-word" about communism? It has done no better than religion.

Because atheism is more persecuted than any religion, and I got sick of people telling me I was going to hell because I didn't believe in "god," when I was growing up.

RichardM1 wrote:

Which it brings back to an earlier question: on what evidence do you base your percentages that you use to give existence of a god an infinitely small probability? Are they as reliable as the facts you used? You said 90 and 10, but not to use those as though they are real. Which makes sense. Infinitesimally small would be 99.9[bar] to 0.0...01, where the "..." represents an infinite number of zeros. We got on this unrelated "trend" issue

RichardM1

Busy week. :|

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Now we've got two points on this end of the graph instead of one.

There is no linear process associated with human belief trends. Sure, I understood what you were trying to say. But it is only valid for people who think anything God does has to involve fire from the sky, burning bushes and slaps to the forehead, who think the understood can't be God's work. I can make a trend out of people not believing in God ending up with somewhere between 75 and 150 MILLION people dead last century, at the hands of their own countryman, in the name of communism. Just internal persecution and mismanagement. Does that count against everyone who doesn't believes in God? I gave you a real account of an end point that does not follow your trend, and you didn't even bother addressing it. Did you see my point?

Ian Shlasko wrote:

How about this one... You claim that "god's" role is to define the universal constants and the laws of nature and such... Since we have zero proof of any of this, then the impetus behind their creation/selection could be absolutely anything. It could be totally random, it could be one of your gods, it could be designed by committee, or by an entire multi-dimensional alien race working in concert... Maybe one of those constants and laws actually exist, but are an artifact of the way we perceive the universe around us. With enough imagination, I could probably think of a dozen more possibilities, and the more different ones you can think of, the less likely any individual one is, since we have no evidence that would lend more weight to any single option. Since there are a potentially-infinite number of possibilities, choosing one specific one as the answer seems kind of silly. Play with that one for a while Smile

Man, it took you long enough to get there. :laugh: "No god" is one of those infinitely numerous options. That is what I have argued the whole time. I'm not trying to convince you there is a god, I've just argued there is not evidence to support either that there is, or isn't, a god. Agnosticism is the only logical choice. Going back to the start of this:

Ian Shlasko wrote:

It's not a matter of believing in the negative. It's a matter of NOT believing in the positive. It doesn't take "belief" or "faith" to see the utter lack of pink elephants flying around my head. It just takes working eyes.<

Ian Shlasko

RichardM1 wrote:

There is no linear process associated with human belief trends. Sure, I understood what you were trying to say. But it is only valid for people who think anything God does has to involve fire from the sky, burning bushes and slaps to the forehead, who think the understood can't be God's work.

If we understand it, we know it wasn't done by "god." You've made it pretty clear that you don't think "god" just went *poof* and created everything... You credited him/her/it for the basic laws of the universe, the things we don't understand (We know what they are, but not WHY they are what they are).

RichardM1 wrote:

I can make a trend out of people not believing in God ending up with somewhere between 75 and 150 MILLION people dead last century, at the hands of their own countryman, in the name of communism. Just internal persecution and mismanagement. Does that count against everyone who doesn't believes in God? I gave you a real account of an end point that does not follow your trend, and you didn't even bother addressing it. Did you see my point?

What does people killing people have to do with "god?" You're reaching.

RichardM1 wrote:

Man, it took you long enough to get there. "No god" is one of those infinitely numerous options. That is what I have argued the whole time. I'm not trying to convince you there is a god, I've just argued there is not evidence to support either that there is, or isn't, a god. Agnosticism is the only logical choice. Going back to the start of this:

"No god" isn't just one of those infinite arguments. It's every argument that doesn't include "god." But that's irrelevant, since any number divided by infinity is, for all intents and purposes, zero.

RichardM1 wrote:

The difference between pink elephants and gods is that we have parameters for detecting pink elephants, and can verify that they are there are not. We do not have detection parameters for gods, so we can not just look around and not see them.

Not if they're invisible, undetectable pink elephants. So should I say that I can't decide whether there are invisible, undetectable pink elephants flying around my head, or should I just assume that there aren't, unless proven otherwise?

RichardM1 wrote:

You think the warnings of hel

RichardM1

Ian Shlasko wrote:

If we understand it, we know it wasn't done by "god."

Nice for you to say, but not true. If you know how it was done, or not, you know it was not done by god. If I know how it was done, or not, I know it was done by God. I believe God did it all, and is doing it and controlling it, now. I brought up the fundamentals because you were making an opposing claim of science explaining all, when, in general, it just describes. Don't claim I think that's the only place God works, because I do not, and I did not say I did.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

What does people killing people have to do with "god?" You're reaching.

To quote you:

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Oh bloody hell... You understood my point just fine, and that's what matters.

You showed two points, admitting they where not researched. I showed a trend that as atheist governments take over, mass murders becomes the norm. The trend you apply to all theists has as much support as the trend that all atheists are mass murders. 100% of the people in this argument don't follow your trend. You don't think any god ever had any room, and I know God has all of it.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

"No god" isn't just one of those infinite arguments.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Oh bloody hell...

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Not if they're invisible, undetectable pink elephants.

Except you are redefining something that is known into something that is not. You are going from a ridiculous, but defined, image to something that does not fit that definition. In effect, you say: "He's a rich man. Except he's not human. They have 15 sexes, two of which correspond to male, and "he" is three that don't correspond to female, either. And "he's" here because "he" was kicked off the home planet for having no material goods. Turns out "he" doesn't have jack here, either. But other than that, hes a rich man."

Ian Shlasko wrote:

If you tell a Muslim that he's going to hell because he isn't a Christian, that's religious persecution.

Is it? Here in the US? Can you show me precedent? I don't doubt it, I just don't know it.

Ian Shlasko wrote:<

Ian Shlasko

RichardM1 wrote:

Nice for you to say, but not true. If you know how it was done, or not, you know it was not done by god. If I know how it was done, or not, I know it was done by God. I believe God did it all, and is doing it and controlling it, now.

If I know that hurricanes are caused by temperature differentials and atmospheric humidity, I know they aren't created by "god." As long as the cause-effect chain can be traced backward, there's no room for "god" as the cause.

RichardM1 wrote:

Except you are redefining something that is known into something that is not. You are going from a ridiculous, but defined, image to something that does not fit that definition. In effect, you say: "He's a rich man. Except he's not human. They have 15 sexes, two of which correspond to male, and "he" is three that don't correspond to female, either. And "he's" here because "he" was kicked off the home planet for having no material goods. Turns out "he" doesn't have jack here, either. But other than that, hes a rich man."

Which, to me, seems just as credible as your idea of a "god." I give a ridiculous definition, and you just skip that by saying that he defies all logic and definitions.

RichardM1 wrote:

Is it? Here in the US? Can you show me precedent? I don't doubt it, I just don't know it.

The law isn't going to do anything about it, but then, the law doesn't do anything about the "god hates fags" signs either, and those are pretty obviously persecution.

RichardM1 wrote:

You made reference to my beliefs being drug induced, twice. Wolfbinary thinks I'm one of the small minded bigots and carnival barkers of politics and fear. If either of you think your comments were made of anything less than derision, I would be amused by my over sensitivity.

I can't claim innocence. I have my viewpoints too, and I do express them strongly on occasion, when my right NOT to have those beliefs is challenged. My general attitude is that everyone can believe whatever they want, so long as they don't try to push it on me.

RichardM1 wrote:

But the people who treated you like that were not doing anyone a favor. Christianity is not a convert by the sword religion, though people did it and probably still do. There are ash holes everywhere. There are people wh

RichardM1

Ian Shlasko wrote:

As long as the cause-effect chain can be traced backward, there's no room for "god" as the cause.

Again, even if there is no causal chain, you do not believe it is done by a god, right? But you are not limiting my understanding or belief by saying so. Stuff happens. The sun fuses more or less intensely, heating the water. The wind blows east or west, responding to that butterfly in Australia. The butterfly takes the day off, or gets eaten by a bird. The bird doesn't gets hit by a car the day before, blown by a gust of wind that is the chaotic result of (among other things) a moth in Malaysia. The hurricane is the result of a complex chain of events, all going back as far as how the probability wave for a couple of particles collapses (trillions of trillions of times). Or maybe further, we don't even know what is under that. The results of the collapses follow a slew of complex, chaotic processes that make seemingly unrelated things happen. Those collapses heat the sun, transport heat through the air and ocean, cause the air and water currents, make you like Hellman's versus Heinz mustard. It is not a deterministic universe we live in. When you drive to the store, you move your arm. You don't have to consciously run a thread of thought for each muscle to fire in the appropriate way, you just "move" your arm. Or higher, "turn the car left", "down shift", "speed up". Even higher "Avoid that lady in the street", "get to White Street", "Park the car". These are much higher level functions, driven by even higher level functions. Underneath, through much complexity, but still causal, is the thought of "Maybe I should try Grey Poupon". Lets say God wants Jack to learn something. This high level goal, molded together with His other high level goals, requires a hurricane to go up the Atlantic coast, versus into the Gulf. The same way your "try mustard" goes through a series of lower and lower level tasks and goals, which finally gets down to neurons firing, God's high level goals fire lower and lower level intermediate tasks, all the way down to the butterfly flapping its wings, and down to particle interactions. I'm sure you will say that just makes QM the "crack", but that "crack" is causal to everything that happens in this universe. Everything.

Ian Shlasko wrote:

Which, to me, seems just as credible as your idea of a "god." I give a ridiculous definition, and you just skip tha

Ian Shlasko

RichardM1 wrote:

I'm sure you will say that just makes QM the "crack", but that "crack" is causal to everything that happens in this universe. Everything.

That's exactly what I'm going to say... Yes, that's causal to everything else, but you're just making my argument... The role of "god" has been moved up and up the chain, from effect to cause, until we hit the "I don't know" point. That's EXACTLY what the "crack" is.

RichardM1 wrote:

I start with one fuzzy definition, and stay with it. You start with a hard definition of a physical thing, and then redefine it into obscurity.

You're criticizing my definition as absurd, then claiming that something is more credible because its only definition is effectively "infinity" or "unknown."

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)