dagblog - Comments for "Snappy Gorebacks To Stupid Questions"

I agree, Theres a good

Resistance — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:08:56 +0000

In reply to It's been good, but I think

I agree,

Theres a good article up on the main page on the left side about systems, I thought it was very good I

It's been good, but I think

Verified Atheist — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:06:10 +0000

It's been good, but I think we've probably exhausted this train of thought anyways. Dealing with an Alzheimer's patient can't be easy, especially if it's someone close to you.

You must be the fastest

Resistance — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:48:23 +0000

In reply to Your first part assumes an

You must be the fastest typist I've ever met. and still keeping your thoughts together, that's good.

I look forward to reading more.

I'll be back.

I have to take care of an elderly person in the AM (Alzheimer's)

I like the simpler

Resistance — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:42:01 +0000

In reply to Yeah, Ockham's razor is not

I like the simpler explanation, the other stuff gets pretty deep....... in thought

Your first part assumes an

Verified Atheist — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:40:50 +0000

In reply to We would need to factor this

Your first part assumes an Abrahamic God, but that does not necessarily follow from the logic of Pascal's wager (although Pascal did assume it himself). I see no reason to assume an Abrahamic God is more likely than a pantheon of gods.

To answer the last part, I'm being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but only somewhat. If there truly is a God (we'll assume singular for the moment), then he has gone to great lengths to hide himself from me. He's put me in a society where the Bible is considered the foremost authority on his existence, while confounding that Bible with stars apparently billions of light years away and fossils apparently hundreds of millions of years old. He's given me an explanation for thunder, lightning, the paths of the planets, and myriads of other phenomena that used to require a deity to explain. He's given me a brain that questions his existence. He allows natural disasters to plague his people. Note, I'm not looking for an explanation for all of these, I've already heard them. I'm just explaining my position for why it seems like if He exists, He really doesn't want me to believe in him. Thus, why would I risk angering Him by going against His wishes?

We would need to factor this

Resistance — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:35:18 +0000

In reply to Note that it says they were

We would need to factor this into the risk assessment

“You must not have any other gods....... (exclusive devotion)

Record of pharoah's gods and the Cannanite's gods, unable to stand against this GOD

The other statement, tell me more, I want to understand why lack of knowledge is better?

God,he obviously doesn't want me to believe in him, so why risk making him angry by believing in him?

Yeah, Ockham's razor is not

Verified Atheist — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:33:03 +0000

In reply to In the beginning ...

Yeah, Ockham's razor is not always easy to apply. Some people think God is a simpler explanation, others think the Big Bang is. Some people think God using the Big Bang is. (Lemaître was the one first credited with coming up with what ultimately became the Big Bang theory, although he referred to it as the "primeval atom". Lemaître was a Roman Catholic priest.) Regardless, for any of these one then has to answer the question what was responsible for the "creator" (be it God or the Big Bang). Theologists and cosmologists both have answers to these questions, and most people don't find these answers very satisfying. The traditional cosmology answer is that there was not necessarily a creation, with some cosmologists invoking a universe going through cycles of some sort or another (e.g., vibrating 'branes), and others (most notably Stephen Hawking) noting that at a true 4-dimensional singularity asking what comes before the Big Bang makes as much sense as asking what's south of the South Pole. (This one sounds pretty good at first, but a thoroughly true 4-dimensional singularity would seem to require violating certain precepts of quantum mechanics. That said, quantum mechanics and general relativity have never played well together.)

In the beginning ...

Resistance — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:10:33 +0000

In reply to We're definitely sympatico,

In the beginning ...

We're definitely sympatico,

Verified Atheist — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 13:46:48 +0000

In reply to Well Verified Atheist, I

We're definitely sympatico, but I like to consider Ockham's razor in Einstein's phrasing:

Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Two more things:1) Lest I be

Verified Atheist — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 13:42:19 +0000

In reply to They were quick frozen

Two more things:

1) Lest I be guilty of deception myself, I definitely want to point out that I'm outside my field of expertise. I have advanced degrees in astrophysics and computer science, and have done a lot of research in the mammalian hippocampus as part of my work in artificial intelligence, but my knowledge of geology, biology, and climatology is strictly amateur.

2) Simlarly, I should point out that the lead scientist referenced in that article, Sir Fred Hoyle, was a cosmologist (he died in 2001), and by all accounts a brilliant man who sometimes made invalid claims (even in cosmology). As far as I know, he had no expertise in the field of geology, biology, or climatology either. He did expertise in denying global warming, however.