h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Excellent post.

There are other considerations having to do with determinism vs. non-determinism and their relationship to a hypothetical God. For example, if the universe is deterministic but God is not, and the universe isn't up to God's standards, logically that is only the fault of God. (Which is a bit of a blow to Christianity.) God could always have created a different universe that was "perfect" (whatever that is). If God couldn't have created the universe differently, then there's still no point in getting upset over the imperfections in the universe. If the universe is non-deterministic, then it is also incorrect for God to become upset over the imperfections in the universe, since there is no reason why the universe should have turned out one way or another.

The arguments are similar to those surrounding free will.

[bows respectfully]

--Caledonian

I was talking about the time *before* they found out that the earth was curved. do pay attention, 007...

Heavens to Mergatroid! (That's Jupiter to you atheists). I have just digested a week of debate in about an hour and I think I have jsut about caught up.

We have a Creator God (genuine thanks to MyRedDice for consulting a dictionary) and it is his creativity that defines him. But Slartibartfast making fjords is not the right model for looking at creation.I am a Creator too. I have two kids, a boy and a girl. It took me a few minutes. Believe me they get more complex all the time. We have a model for explaining the complex arising fom the simple. If the mechanism of creation is set out beforehand does that mean that the mechanism of overseeing the development of that creation is equally determined? No, I can do as Phillip Larkins Mum and Dad did (or try not to, which I prefer). In fact the "fatherhood" of God is also present in many religions. If God made the universe complete and fully formed then your argument would hold. But most religionists and evolutionists alike allow the world to make some progress after its creation. The perfection and innocence of a child and the complex but flawed adult that it grows into are the same person. Is our Universe a creation in the manner of a child? If so "determinism vs. non-determinism and their relationship to a hypothetical God" is kind of irrelevant. I'm only asking.

Glider

If they didn't yet know that the Earth was curved, then they wouldn't have enough knowledge to made even a guess as to the best way to represent it... they wouldn't have Cartesian coordinates yet! With that much lack of knowledge, they wouldn't have been able to draw a map of much more than what they could see and have it be accurate.

[bows respectfully]

--Caledonian

Sorry to butt in. Maps were in existence before the discovery that the earth was spherical. And they were accurate enough to use for rudimentary navigation (admittedly by latitude only and so sailors often found themselves along way off course). The mercator representation actually distorts the real shape of a country to fit a 2D projection and so cannot be used to correctly measure the distance between two points (for instance). I know we are off the beaten track but doesn't this all lead back to the production of acceptable varied views of the world in which we live. A globe, a mercators projection, an OS map, an AA road map, or a sketch all have their place. The veracity of each depends on how much information you need and in what form you need to enlighten you. A theist is satisfied with what information he has (and many accept no correction of any kind); an atheist expects that the more information that is generated the more his viewpoint will be vindicated; the agnostic believes that the right type of information will probably never come along to satisfactorily answer the question and that it is therefore wisest to say "I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that".

Glider

umm - cartesian co-ordinates - that's X and Y co-ordinates. They are used, for example, on the space station, which isn't curved. They are used in maps of small local areas, which are also effectively flat. They are used to describe geometry in 2D, or pictures on walls, and architectural drawings.

I believe many people created maps before they discovered the earth had curvature, and remarkably they managed to find their way around using them. The curvature of earth doesn't make an effect when you're sketching the layout of your fields, or the quickest way to get to market, or where you've buried the family fortune, or many other important tasks.

Back in that time, you seem to think that, merely because they didn't know the earth was curved, there was no point in constructing maps. Analogous to your view that today, merely because *PERHAPS* in the future the definition of what it is to be a god may change, that therefore there is no point in being atheist.

*note to self*: Use 'Euclidean' in future. It sounds more complicated, but less likely to cause this sort of confusion.

The early cartographers (cloistered flat-earthers) have a lot to answer for. Because they thought Europe was the centre of the universe large countries like Australia and New Zealand are still pictured as far smaller than they really are - the stretched effect. Great Britain 88,000 sq miles v NZ 103,000 sq miles for example.

The only people who got their facts more wrong were the early novelists who wrote ripping, contradictive, drug-fuddled yarns to appease their rulers (treated as gods by many early communities).

Never underestimate mankind's ability to twist the truth while striving to get (or keep) power over the great unwashed. Yes, that's you and me.

A modern example can be seen in the American elections. So-called leaders of the free world (modern-day gods) twisting the people's will to their own advantage. Aided by poorly-designed voting cards created by modern-day cartographers of course. Some things don't change.

Another modern-day god is television. ....after these wonderful commercials for Barbie dolls we will be crossing back to the war in Bethlehem...

I thought most of them thought that Jerusalem was the center of the earth?

The Greeks made the first maps - though the Chinese might disagree... and the Japanese.

Jerusalem was a good place to have a glass of wine after a successful crusade. Nowadays it is a world-leader in hate-thou-neighbour intolerance as well as being an excellent place to buy rubbishy religious souvenirs.

Gooday Loony,

Gee, you are in acerbic form, that five-zip All Blackwash must have left you embittered. This is really just a reason to say hello, how have you been, but who exactly are those "early novelists who wrote ripping, contradictive, drug-fuddled yarns to appease their rulers."? Take care, cobber,

Walter

Mathew, Mark, Luke and John spring to mind. Apparently that well-known trouble-maker, Anonymous, write most of the Old Testament. Talk about a poisoned quill...

say what you like about Anon, but he wrote some darn fine limericks too...

There was a point in making maps of the local area -- WHICH THEY HAD ENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT TO MAKE AN INTELLIGENT MAP. They couldn't have made an accurate map of the entire world -- and if they did, it would've ended up being flat, which is incorrect.

[bows respectfully]

--Caledonian

But it was entirely reasonable to speculate as to the nature of such a map. And fully accurate (at the time) to state that cartesian co-ordinates are the best system to use for maps.

Without actually traveling around the world, or speaking with people who had, there is no way that ancient people could reasonably have speculated about the shape of the world. It would be accurate to say that Cartesian coordinates are the best systems for maps only to the limited-area maps that would have been possible to make at that time. On a curved surface, Cartesian coordinates don't work -- it's necessary to use something use, such as our latitude-longitude system.

Not only are Cartesian coordinates NOT the only valid way to identify a location on a map, they aren't even always a valid way.

The metaphor supports agnosticism, not atheism or theism.

[bows respectfully]

--Caledonian

Latitude and longitude ARE cartesian coordinates. The fact that they're still useful today means that it was the best solution. We simply had to allow for the longitudinal lines to have a common origin and termination, and the system worked. It means there will be a larger margin of error longitudinally as you approach the equator, but, absent homing devices, it's still our best method for location.

So now we have another case of drawing distinctions where there are none. Lat & long = cartesian. What this means to the whole metaphorical argument, I will leave to Lucinda to decide... it's her metaphor, after all.

I'm giving up on the metaphor - Caledonian seems to be rather missing the point - probably due to faulty explanation and dodgy thinking... {oh, that's *my* dodgy thinking}

I guess I'll try one more time.

The claim about cartesian co-ordinates held AT THE TIME. Not now. Because now we have maps of large enough areas that cartesians don't work as well as better systems (long and lat, which is effectively cartesian, is more accurate at the poles than the equator, so it is not ideal, unlike in the euclidean case).

But BACK THEN, in the DEPTHS OF HISTORY, the claim about cartesian co-ordinates held.

It no longer holds because the CONCEPT of what it is to be a map has EXPANDED.

So too, RIGHT NOW, the claim about atheism can hold for all concepts of God currently in existance.

PERHAPS, some time in the future, the CONCEPT of what it is to be a god will EXPAND, and the claims of atheism will no longer hold. Big Deal. What's important is that they hold NOW - we can leave the philosophy of the future to the people who live in the future.

Okay, allow me to rephrase that. EUCLIDEAN Cartesian coordinates aren't the best way to represent the surface of a sphere. Calling the system of longitude and latitude Cartesian only works if you generalize to the case of spherical surfaces -- it's not the original meaning of the words. Cartesian coordinates (in the original sense) only apply to planar surfaces.

Okay, this is more than a little pedantic, I admit it. The fact remains that without actual evidence, ancient people would have no basis for making absolute statements about the shape of the Earth. (They could always make random guesses, of course, but that's not the same.) Neither do we have any basis for making absolute statements about the possible existence of a divine being.

[bows respectfully]

--Caledonian