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

Stuff that occurs to me, in that order...

'Pagans worship Satan' etc.: I was giving an example of a flawed/incomplete opinion... (Not the same as stereotype, but often an element featured in one...)

The peeps from Nod: Weren't they Cain/Abel's sisters? (I can't be bothered checking to see that this is what you mean, I can't recall precisely - but yes, I do think they had kids with their sisters. And yes, I am tired. Yes, in fact, I /could/ do with a chocolate milkshake...)

2nd Law of thermodynamics: He was only quoting smoething I said to him some time ago. And I'm still not happy with entropy. Though it's tantamount to saying that I think an ice-cube could appear in a cup of boiling water. Unlike gravity, it's statistical. Gravity isn't a most-of-the-time thing. But on small scales dealing with a system with only a few ickle bits, entropy could easily decrease... Though I accept that it's something one could rely on, and I wouldn't really bet on it going the other way in, say, the Universe...
BTW, do the Laws of Physics change when dealing with isolated systems that are a lot smaller than (don't have as much in them as) the Universe? Say something with two objects and a millionth of a joule KE between them?

Anyway - the whole 'you will die' thing was a translation along the t-axis; I may have said this before. I also recall saying that Adam /had/ to eat the apple anyway, and God knew it - and so, he sent them there so nobody could say 'hey, wait - he didn't even give them a chance!' Which they say anyway. In answer to any questions on a 'who God answers to' or 'why not' type tact, I'm sure that he has his own moral code as well.

Was that intelligible?

Science isn't intelligible... (I'm mutilating quotes, in case you didn't notice): I think David was trying to point out that no-one has a complete picture. Not that there are elements of it that are impossible (or, at least, fantastically difficult) to understand. Which I'm sure there are. And there are a whole lot of things that people aren't too sure about, or which can be nit-picked, with equal effectiveness as the Bible or religion in general, e.g. black holes - despite being accepted by the majority as real phenomena. Lots of scientists tell us things and we say 'no, I don't believe that' because we don't understand (I have been guilty, as I'm sure most people are). The same goes for the Bible. Sometimes they are right. The strength of science is that there aren't as many factions disputing over fundamentals as there are in religion - scientists at least are bound to admit their mistakes, and are often applauded for it. However, religious groups also have to maintain a social front which scientists might glimpse when trying to obtain funding. If they don't, they get a bad press and they /fall/. So a number of them fall into the trap of defending wildly contradictory beliefs. I'm not saying this is right, but it happens.

Be nice to David. Are you two enemies or something? At least someone is having a rant besides me, which makes a change... But let's keep this civil, shall we? And one could hardly argue that he isn't intelligent - witness the typical Sixth form crowd...

Incidentally, the strengh of this thread would have to be that it encourages people to discuss from a number of different backgrounds and a variety of viewpoints. However, it seems to be sufferring from the sheer volume of data - not every point receives due attention - coupled with an unhealthy focus on a very few points or contentions. Thus Noggin. Question: does anyone have an opinion on the Law of Utility and the Utilitarians, can anyone compare this with Kantian ethics (both are highly abstract, for a start) and could this be used to develop some fruitful debate rejoining the divergant morality/fact or fiction themes? Views on either side welcome.

On the button question, did anyone see the point - we all seem to be agreed that free will ought to be just that - free. Except for /you/, David - and just when I was getting a nice correlation! But I can fit that in - in the tradition of my Keepership, I will distort the data. We also see that many of us are tempted to impose our wills on others. Some of us might even be swayed, might rationalise the choice to press that big, shiny button. (Nice button... Pretty button!...) Let's see...

Take two people given the identical choice - press the button or not. Both think in the following manner: -

One of the following is true: (a) Free will is more important; (b) Our will is more important; or (c) Some other will is more important (not just God(s, little g first)). If (a) - we ought not press the button; (b) - we ought to press the button; - (c) we ought to press it if we are acting in accordance to the other will.

If both look at it from (a), then neither would press the button. Both would be right in their decision from the other person's point of view. From (b), both would press the button and both would be wrong from the other's point of view - universal law could not exist, if all people thought like this - not to mention being placed in an impossible situation. If both saw it from (c), one would press the button if he considered himself in accordance with the other will.

Thus, (a) and (c) seem like plausible alternatives for a universal law. But: if (a) and (c) were the opinions of the two people, then what would happen? If (c) pressed the button, then (a) would consider him to be doing wrong, while if (a) were in accordance with the greater will moreso than (c), then (a) couldn't help but do wrong. If, for all people believing (a) and all people believing (c), the degree to which each acts in accordance to the greater will could be said to be equal, then free will must be in accordance with the greater will. Therefore, free will should not be violated.

I understand that this reasoning is probably flawed (and is neither as erudite nor as demosthenic as that presented by Noggin), but it fits my theory: free will shold be inviolate. Additionally, I am sleepy, and any attempt to argue with me will be regarded with extreme suspition. Feel free to do so.

Anyway, I better sign out soon, so good night to you all. Even those in Australia, but especially the ones who already have a hot cocoa in their hands.

- Jordan

My we have been busy since I was last here - and it was only yesterday!
Right - general points first. I agree with Jordan, Eggs and Kaz; politeness, courtesy and patience are virtues, even if they are sometimes sorely tried. So is tolerance, unless the circumstances are truly unusual. I also agree with Hoo that intellectual integrity is important too. OK everyone?

Specifics:
Post 313: Of course it's true that no one understands the whole of science, but ANYONE can understand the scientific METHOD - and this means that science as a body is intelligible, even if you disagree with, or don't understand, particular theories. (I'm not a scientist, and there's plenty I don't understand, but I still find SCIENCE an intelligible project.)
God is a quite different proposition. (I'm operating with the Standard Theological Model here, which I know not everyone religious on this thread subscribes to.) Explanation operates according to rules: of inference, evidence, causality etc. Rules imply not only that some things MUST happen, but that some things MUSN'T/CAN'T happen. God is omnipotent. The rules don't apply. Consequently there is no understanding/explanation. QED

Something like that, but with an extra dimension. This is not definite, but is currently the best bet.

Entropy: Disorder increases from a minimum to a maximum. Therefore the universe starts with maximum order. A state of maximum order is FEATURELESS - wherever you stand, whichever way you look, it's exactly the same. There is no disordered explosion, just a rapid expansion. Complexity is a feature of partially disordered systems, so as entropy rises complexity increases (for the universe as a whole, but not necessarily for every bit).


Post 321: Your exposition of the button question looks fine to me.

What's demosthenic? I know I should look it up, but it's not in my dictionary.

I know I tend to hammer at a few points a bit, but they're the bits I know about. *Note to self - get out more*

Utilitarian/Kantian ethics. Both of these have a lot to offer, as do many other systems. But ethical discourse is fluid enough to encompass all of them; progress is largely made when differently based judgements confront (peacefully) each other. Ethical progress is loosely dialectic.

Noggin

There was (and I believe is) an old rule in the Royal Navy that women, politics, and religion should not be discussed on board. The simple explaination was that those subjects were all unknowable to any depth.

I think we are talking about separate things here. Monotheism, Christianity, Nature, or Science can all explain life. The very tenents of most religions state that their particular brand of (G)god is unknowable, greater than humans can imagine, and/or beyond understanding (ie outside of our logic). Any arguements that anyone puts forward pro or con can therefore be refuted easily by the other side. We are talking about theories on both sides here, while we stumble around in the dark shouting at each other. I'll tell you what, when I die I'll come back and let you all know. But that might not work either if only the religious or those who have known religion and refuted it find heaven or hell.

A lot of people have died in the past year for religion. Who has been killed for their scientific beliefs? I can chose with a clear conscience.

Someone (sorry, can't remember who) reponded to my last post asking why the universe can't be infinite, and someone else had questions about the statistical probability of evolution... I'll do my best to answer both.

Let's start with the second question. This is referred to as the chance argument, and was developed by A. Cressy Morrison. Someone once said to me that the chances of evolution happening are one in a million. Pretty bad chances, but not impossible. Consider this, though: If you label ten pennies from 1-10 and put them in your pocket, the chances of drawing the penny labeled as '1' first is 1/10. Now put that penny back. Next, try to pull out number one, then put it back and draw the number two. Your chances are 1/100. Your chance of pulling out 1, 2, 3 and 4 like this are 1/10,000, and your chances of getting all of them in order are exactly one in a billion.
If you want an idea of the factors necessary for evolution to occur, read Morrison's article, 'A Scientist's Defence of the Argument from Design'. The calculation becomes so astronomical that it's impossible to imagine such a number. Of course, the chance argument doesn't work if time is infinite, which brings me to my next point.

So if it can be shown that the universe is finite, there is only one alternative... let's see what we can do here. This is one of the arguments by Willam Lane Craig in "Philosophical and Scientific pointers in Creatio es Nihilo". There are, in my opinion, better arguments in the article, but they are extrememly complicated and lengthy, so let's just stick with this one for now. If you want to hear the other ones, though, let me know.
The second law of thermodynamics says that processes taking place in a closed system tend toward a state of equilibrium. So eventually, any system will run down and quit. So when you put a gas into a bottle, the molocules will spread out evenly inside it, and when you pour hot water into a cold bath, it gets warm all over instead of cold in one spot and hot in another. The universe is a closed system, too. So if eventually the universe will come to equilibrium, and everything in it will run out of energy. If time and the universe are infinite, then an infinite amount of time has already passed, since you can't add to or subtract from an infinite. If an infinite amount of time has already passed, then why isn't the universe already in a state of equilibrium? So if the universe is finite, then you either have to believe in an infinite creator, or be preapared to believe that the universe simply popped into existence, uncaused out of nothing.

zoomer

The rule about not discussing women, politics and religion applies in the wider world. The problem with any rule of that kind is that it stifles open debate and results in narrow, parochial attitudes to life, the Universe and everything.

The whole point of this and any other debate is to further the cause of knowledge. This arena particularly has the ability to do this in that it is part of the Global Village and people from all faith/non-faith systems can participate and grow!

Yes, we are talking about many different things here which all form parts of the wider discussion. Any and all views are welcome as long as they further the cause.

A lot of people /have/ died in the name of religion in the past year and I truly grieve for them and the consequences that the actions of the few may have on the world. (See F96399?thread=207323). However, many people have died in the last 2000 years for and as a result of religion -the Crusades, Native Americans at the hands of the Spanish Conquistadores and the British/European Americans, Sikhs at Amrhitzah (?spelling), Palestinians, Jews in Israel etc, etc, etc.

"Religion" has been responsible for a great deal as has Science - Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Jews in Russia and Germany.

These unlucky ones have not died at the hands of religion but at the hands of twisted fundamentalists who align themselves with a faith as an excuse to commit acts of unspeakable inhumanity. If there were no religions they would find something else to latch onto and do the same things to others for their insane idealistic causes (If the B******s won't listen to my view, that is RIGHT, BOMB the F*** out of them until they do!!).

Religion and Science are what they are. Mans inhumanity to man seems to know no bounds.

turvy

Beatnik, your penny-drawing example is a good example of the statistical likelyhood of drawing a predetermined sequence of coins within a closed, isolated system.

However, if you take your coin example and expand it to the kind of scale that early evolution occurred at then it is a different story. Imagine billions upon billions of people drawing coins at the same time, over and over again, for a billion years. What are the chances of the sequence occurring then? Pretty damn good I'd say. And that would also be without the handicap of a predetermined sequence; evolution works with what it's got, what works, works. If 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 7, 9, 2, 4, 10 did the same job as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, then it would be an equal to it.

I think you would already have to have a preconceived idea of a creator to believe that the coin example refutes early evolution. The statistical unlikelyhood of the ten coins being drawn in sequence is indeed almost impossible. From this you jump to the conclusion that this must be an example of divinity! Where is that link? Disproving theory A does not prove theory B. Also, surely it would be more logical and sensible to look at the bigger picture and decide what else would have to happen to lower the probabilities so that these molecules are able to occur. Just how many chemical reactions *can* take place in a test tube over a billion years given the right conditions, never mind on an entire planet. I think you'll find that this is where that infinity that you're looking for lies (well, such an astronomical number that you might as well call it infinity).



Ste

Hi, jwf - my comments:

<>> There almost certainly is a God, in the sense that there is an agency responsible for the workings of the Universe, and that this agency is beyond mankind's understanding.

There almost certainly isn't a God, in the sense of a being who created us in its own image, and with whom we can somehow communicate and ultimately "come to". <<>

Why, I wonder - could not the two entities, the 'agency' Pinniped accepts and the God s/he doesn't, be the same being? I happen to believe they/s/he is/are the same entity, in fact!

*the chances of evolution happening* ? Are you denying then that *any* evolution has happened? Are you denying just the evolution of man? Or of all creatures? (Paleontological and visual evidence to the contrary?) We as H2G2 resarchers should know that infinite improbability is not an impossibility. Why should finite probability be? Being *impossible to imagine such a number* doesn't make the number imaginary. Imagine one followed by 100 to the millionth power of zeros. Give up? Do you think it doesn't exist?

*an infinite amount of time has already passed* How can you ignore time as a progress and see it as a *thing*? Do you think everything has always been the same for ever? Your argument brings to mind the old chestnut about the runner who starts ten seconds behind and can never catch up because he will always be a fraction of time behind the leader. Not to mention that if the universe is not *a closed system, too* as in your circular proof of it's finite nature then it can't achieve a state of equilibrium. Therefore both conclussions are faulty.
In short you have *proved* the universe is finite because you have trouble with the math and *proved* time is finite because of that finite space.

*beyond mankind's understanding* is the ultimate cop out. We can't even begin to prove God's existence so we must not be (ever) able to understand *It*. The same gigantic leaps of faith that support religion are embrassed while small logical steps in science are refutted.

turvy, forgive me I wasn't suggesting that the *women, politics, and religion* rule should exist in society. I just meant to point out that the rule recognised the futility of arguing *beliefs* rather than *facts*. If one believes something that everyone in his or her system believes, someone in another belief system can only respond with their belief. It is the nature and proof of these facts that we must deal with. Faith, love, and morality cannot be proven. And thereby lies the problem.

*beyond mankind's understanding* is the ultimate cop out. We can't even begin to prove God's existence so we must not be (ever) able to understand *It*.*

Nevertheless, cl zoomer, if you accept for a moment the existence of God (for argument's sake) then you'd accept that God *is* beyond human understanding - by definition!

Please let me say that I am not attacking anyone's beliefs here. I am attacking *proofs*. What you believe and what I believe are I am sure valid to each of us. If for instance I propose that again for argument's sake there is no God and that *because* of our lack of knowledge of him it would be an equally strong argument. The common response is that we cannot see gravity or love but they exist. They can be measured however to prove they exist. The end of a long chain of proveable evolution and natural science does not prove God's existence however, merely ours.

Noggin asked "What's demosthenic?" - Pertaining to, or in the style of, Demosthenes, the Grecian orator.

Demosthenes, the son of a wealthy swordmaker, was orphaned when he was only 7. His guardians so misused his estate that little was left when Demosthenes came of age. Seeking justice, he boldly pleaded his own case and won some damages. He was not yet an outstanding speaker, however. To learn to speak distinctly, he talked with pebbles in his mouth and recited verses while running. To strengthen his voice, he spoke on the seashore over the roar of the waves.

from http://www.crystalinks.com/demosthenes.html


Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

On a pointless aside:
Demosthenes is also a character in the Ender stories by Orson Scott Card. The main character, Ender has a brother and a sister, all three of whom are child prodigies. The eldest, Peter, is too aggressive, the middle, Valentine, is too passive, whereas Ender is half-way between.

Peter and Valentine create two identities on the net to try and rally public opinion. Peter makes Valentine become Demosthenes, a demagogue who inflames public opinion, whereas Peter become Locke, who is used to counter Demosthenes opinions.

Now aren't you so much better off

FwT

Post 307.
Hi Alondar!
"Some one before said that that would include people like axe murderers and so therefor they dont want to go but my argument is that everyone has a reason for doing things a murderer might kill his wife because he found he cheating or some other reason in heaven there is no reason and therefor no crime -you lose this argument"
Excuse me? Even with me being one of the religious oddballs on this list I find this argument a nonsense. I said I neither wanted to be hauled off to a Christian's idea of Paradise (so much for 'free will', thanks JHVH), nor did I think that their idea of universal forgiveness worked well for me. If this is your idea of Paradise then I can sell you a marvellous timeshare holiday in the Sex Offender's Wing at Strangeways Prison.
There is no acceptable reason, no moral or ethical argument, that can justify some of the horrific crimes that are committed by man gainst man. As far as I remember in my Catholic upbringing, there were very definite (and infinite) punishments for those who committed such crimes. I'm pretty sure that being sent to Paradise wasn't top of the list for murderer's or paedophiles.
And some people wonder why the abrahamic religions are in decline in every free country in the world, and both atheism/rationalism and paganism are on the increase.
Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

hmm....interesting concept. Personally i believe in the universe and higher forces all around us. The "Big white man in a floating sheet" and the "red dude down below" don't really live up to our high standards these days..... Im voting for Jihabradea -> My own little Imaginary Nirvanaland.


BSD.

Has anybody in this conversation read C.S. Lewis's, "The Great Divorce"? If so did you get a more acceptable idea of Heaven/Hell?

Post 312.
Indeed I am Welsh, and working in London, but home at the weekends.
Nosta,
Matholwch /|\.

Post 319:
"what exactly is the pagan faith, I'm not trying to be insulting, I just don't know :-S".

How long is a piece of string? Simply put there is no single satisfactory answer to your question. There are a wide range of paths that each broadly accept the overall term 'pagan'. Wicca, Witchcraft (and no these two aren't the same) and Druidry all certainly fall under the label, as do a plethora of others. However, specific beliefs and practices within each sub-label do vary widely. Then you can also call upon the 'Heathens', not strictly 'pagan', but similar in many ways.

'Pagan' was an insult/label applied by Romans and then Christians millenia ago. And like the labels applied to many oppressed minorities over time they eventually become badges of pride, a sign of their difference.

I suppose that a pagan could be seen as a person following a path that holds the earth as sacred, sees the divine spirit in many things beyond the narrow mortal shell of the human being, believes in having a personal relationship to the divine uncluttered by priesthoods and churches, generally despises dogma, often subscribes to one or more deities, many of which have roots older that predate the Abrahamic domination of Europe.

There is also the matter of 'faith' itself. When you have experienced a personal relationship to the divine, in whatever form you take that divinity to be, then the term 'faith' is irrelevant. For me, with my Catholic upbringing, the word 'faith' meant a laziness exhibited by my teachers who replied, whenever I taxed their knowledge and ability, that I 'must have faith'. I, as a druid, seek after truth, many truths, all truths. I accept science, and don't fear it. The more science shows me, the more questions it raises, and the more I am impressed with the complexity of the universe. You will find that most pagans, unhindered by dogma, are very broad-minded, inquiring individuals.

To know more you would need to browse a few sources. I recommend the UK's Pagan Federation website as a starter.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

The Great Divorce and C S Lewis; Ho hum! Have a look @ http://cslewis.drzeus.net/


The Great Divorce presents several fictional conversions that mirror the conversion Lewis relates in his autobiography, Surprised by Joy.

It is founded on Plato's ideas concerning universal forms, a world of shadows, the power of reason, and even the use of imagination.

Among the few women undergraduates Lewis was forced to accept as pupils in his days of grinding poverty, more than one remembered him as a bully. I think that this probably meant that he was immune to female blandishment when work was carelessly or inadequately done. True scholars, clever and hardworking pupils, had nothing, to fear from him.


Have I read C.S. Lewis's, "The Great Divorce"? No! Do I want to? No!
A more acceptable idea of Heaven/Hell? When will Christians realise that Hell is a pagan concept.


Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)