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

Moth,

"For some questions absolute proof is unavailable so we have to take probability as an answer. For me, the absence of an alternative purpose on offer means that I consider consciousness to be a function that fulfills the prime purpose . Which is experiental. What we all have in common is that we experience our lives individually."

The following is a quote from a novel, fiction, but I think the sentiment still stands. "Some facts are true facts and can never be altered, but in some cases my facts aren't the same as your facts."

I feel that this can be the way it is in some situations. It may be why different people interpret the same information in different ways, and from this arises the diversity and variety that exists in the world today. Sometimes this causes a difference of opinion, sometime conflict which can be far more harmful. This is regardless of whether you believe in God(s) existence or not.

Hi Yvonne
Agree with that.
That's why I said in an earlier post, that if you're looking for a proof of the existance of God, you'll only find it on a very personal level.

Myst, I think we've just found out why you don't believe in evolution. Your biology teacher failed to teach it properly! Why don't you make up for your own inadequacy by doing some reading instead of hurling about evangelical analogies about lego bricks? The theory of evolution is proven by fossil evidence, by mathematical logical reasoning, and by biological and genetic analysis of organisms. It has been seen in action.

I recommend:

The Selfish Gene (Richard Dawkins - Charles Simonyi prof. of the public understanding of science, Univ. Oxford)
The Blind Watchmaker (RD)
River out of Eden (RD)
The Salmon of Doubt (Douglas Adams, author of h2g2)
In Search of the Double Helix (John Gribbin, respected scientist and science writer)

Moth, your last post intrigues me because of the word only. Are you saying that there is no proof of God, except that we feel his presence? That we "feel" him making difficult times easier for us? I fully appreciate this feeling, because I "felt" the presence of God for a long time before realising that it was self-induced. I believed it because I thought that if I stopped feeling it, if I stopped telling myself that God is a lie, I would go to hell, or lose my soul, or be struck by lightning or something.

I think people should be careful about writing that "there are two kinds of truth" because it's tosh. Either something is true or it isn't. Don't tell me I'm blind because I can't see both sides of the story, because I can see them, and one of them is wrong. Would you say that a criminal is both guilty and innocent, depending on which "truth" you prefer? Would you say that a child does not die in Africa every two minutes, because that contradicts the existence of a loving God, which means that it although it is one version of the truth, you have your own personal version???

It sounds to me like you just take whatever you want to believe and call it a "special kind of true". It's a well documented problem, folks, and the techincal term is delusion.

On the subject of feeling things, there was a report on Radio 4 yesterday that infra-sound is responsible for feeling a presence. I did a search and came up with this;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4038891,00.html
"Infrasound is not easy to measure because it vibrates at a frequency below the level of human hearing. "Evidence from Nasa and other sources suggests that it can cause you to hyperventilate and your eyeballs to vibrate," says Tandy. Having established its presence here at a level likely to cause anxiety and apparitions, he is now trying to establish why some people are affected and not others."

The report yesterday was about research done by students using passages of music that contain very low fequencies. Infar-sound can be produced by pipe organs, drafty old buildings, standing stones etc.

Rev. Alji, Wizard of the Red Dragon (Swynwr y Ddraig Goch) SHC/ULC

Door -

The reason I don't believe in evolution is not that I had a bad teacher, which I did, but that even from what I've read on my own, and the papers and pages I've seen on the net, it still seems like putting the whole thing down to chance. I do appreciate your efforts, but it's not something that I can willingly accept. We cannot prove that evolution occurred any more than we can prove that Abe Lincoln walked 8,230,000 steps in his life. We can make an educated guess based on what we find, but we can by no means prove it.

>>Would you say that a child does not die in Africa every two minutes, because that contradicts the existence of a loving God, which means that it although it is one version of the truth, you have your own personal version?<<

This by no means contradicts the idea of a loving God, any more than saying that children die in africa every two minutes contradicts the idea of a loving human. Just as God could interfere in our conduct, we could interfere in that child's death. Sadly, more often than not, no one does. Whoever's ruling that country could stop it. Anyone with a bit of cash anywhere in the world could stop it with a donation and a phone call. We just don't care enough to.
That's our choice, and God respects it.

There's an article about infra-sound in stone circles @ http://www.peterhead.org.uk/history/stone_circles.htm

Rev. Alji, Wizard of the Red Dragon (Swynwr y Ddraig Goch) SHC/ULC

Alji
So it isn't a delusion then ?

Door
It's odd but you're beginning to sound like a fundamental evolutionist why should Myst read those books? Why shouldn't Myst be allowed to believe what he feels is true?

Moth. You're beginning to sound like Az. Sure folks can believe what they feel is true; but if that is as far as their thinking has gone, they shouldn't be telling us about it.

Myst.
"This by no means contradicts the idea of a loving God, any more than saying that children die in africa every two minutes contradicts the idea of a loving human. Just as God could interfere in our conduct, we could interfere in that child's death. Sadly, more often than not, no one does. Whoever's ruling that country could stop it. Anyone with a bit of cash anywhere in the world could stop it with a donation and a phone call. We just don't care enough to.
That's our choice, and God respects it."
Um... no. If I could lose 7.64 out of my bank (that's how much fiddling change I can't get out of the cash machine), instantly transfer it to Africa in return for a month's support for the child, I would. Unfortunately, it's rather difficult for me to instantly know which child needs it most, then to instantaneously transfer all the money it needs for the rest of its life into its hands, and then arrange for it never to be in danger in that way again. Not quite so hard for God, though. And he DOES care enough.

Myst - you said...

>>You perhaps should consider that, in this thread, are two people who have seen and talked with gods (putting aside any reservations I may have at this time to make use of an argument,) and another who has felt and been given some very interesting experiences (Oracular dreams, to name one,). I’d really like to see you explain that.<<

Bloody hel, Myst... Who exactly are you talking about?

Because if you are using me... Talk about double standards!

Well, there's a first time for everything I suppose...

OK - evolution.

Evolution is fine by me. I have no problems with the physics, chemistry or biology of it, nor with the math involved, nor with the theology of it.

I have no creator god. I have the gods who are around now, in this world and the others. My creation myths are gloriously impossible and I very much doubt if they were even believed when they were written down. Unlike Christians. we don't need to ignore all science as we are not in conflict with it.

Some stuff we do is inexplicable. So what? It works for me. It works for those I know. It doesn't mean I can't accept the reality of science, or that the gods I love and honour can't work stuff that falls outside it.

I am happily illogical in this.

What I /didn't/ expect was that Myst would use the example of what I thought he considered to be heresy or worse to support his point.

As far as I and every other heathen I have met can tell, there is absolutley no reason why evolution should be a problem to our religious belief.

It's only the triple O followers who seem to find the idea contradictory to their beliefs. And as it's a definite weakness in their arguments for an infallible creator, I suppose they will have to continue fighting the impossible corner until the day when

I say it, so it must be right...

and.

I read it in a book...

beats ...

I experimented, and this seems to be the best idea yet that fits the evidence...

Jez - heathen, witch, mathematician, logical thinker and magic worker, child of her gods and proud descendent of ape-like ancestors (who she reveres, as they are also a part of the whole which is the woven worlds)...

And contradictory through and through...

Moth, this is a debate, so don't have a go at me for "telling Myst what to believe". I'm telling you all what I believe. That's why I'm here.

Well Jez, your post is successful in baffling me. It sounds like you don't take your religion that seriously.

You describe yourself as a magic worker. Give me proof.

You claim that your parents are Gods. Proof, please.

You also revere dead hominids. Why does it have to be you that's on my side about evolution!!!???

Fnord, what do you mean by saying that God cares enough about these children to save them? Surely if that were the case, he would? Unless you think that is our responsibility. But if God doesn't interfere in our lives, well, that's half the Bible out the window.

I know that these days, there are theological arguments for God to be loving but distant. This is a diluted form of religion, which grows ever more vague until one day, a religious person will be somebody who officially has no opinion either way. Many priests don't believe in hell, think that Genesis is a metaphor, and think, like you (apparently) that God loves us but can't to anything about it until we die. A hundred years ago they wouldn't have been allowed to be priests. Surely if religion represents divine truth, it can't change it's mind?

Not just half, Door, I'd say all of it, since apparently it's dictated by "diving inspiration". But there seems to me to have been a simple mistake in my last posting, in that I inadvertantly gave the appearance of *supporting* the damned (literally, ha ha) theists. This is not at all the case.

Toxx

But does the universe need explaining? All explanation is explanation in a context, and the widest context we have is the universe. And God does not explain it. Any attempt to step outside all contexts for explanatory purposes is futile.

Myst

But even random events are in a context; in this case the context of chemistry, and particularly the propensity of carbon atoms to form complex molecules in the right conditions. The random element here is not that such molecules form, but only which of the millions of possibilities are realised. If you pick a pebble off the beach the chances of picking that particular pebble are almost zero; but the chances of picking *a* pebble are 100%. Life didn't have to end with us - that's chance - but life in some form may well have been a near certainty.

Moth

So which came first, consciousness or purpose? Is purpose possible without consciousness, or is consciousness the function that makes a bridge between the purposeless and the purposeful?



Not clear what you mean here. What has to have its own cause too - evolution or causation itself?

Door

Well, it's not tosh exactly. There are "truths of fact" and "truths of wisdom" for example. But you're right that people need to be careful here; confusing the two leads to much unnecessary confusion. Truths of fact have definite truth values; truths of wisdom don't. Truths of fact are not explanatory; truths of wisdom *are* explanations.

Noggin

Jez -

None offense met, but I don't think evolution can explain where Hel, Odin, or any of the other gods you've met.
I'm more than willing to accept that you've seen them. No problems here. But, as we've squabbled about before, my beliefs don't see them as gods, but that's me, and you've got every right to believe as you like.


Fnord -

There are countless agencies that will withdraw the 7.63 or so out of your bank account, pick out a child, support that child, and send you a picture of that child. I know of at least two I've seen advertising on TV, and a one other that mails stuff to our church to be handed out. It's all very possible.

Door -

God only seems to interfere when He is needed, and no one else can help. Like I've said before, I've seen with my own eyes a few things that proved to me that He cared, and lived one or two as well.
>>...that God loves us but can't to anything about it until we die.<<
I've yet to see a priest who believes this. Name, address? Proof?

Noggin -

However, we /are/ the end result, set up in an altogether wonderful system, where we hardly have to work to feed ourselves. By this, I mean that there is plenty of clean water, practically everywhere, tasty animals of all sorts, natural shelter, and weather conditions that aren't too bad, (excluding winter, which in the right areas makes me say very unholy things .)
I don't see this as random.

<(((><

Myst, I believe as a Christian, in evolution, because I believe it's the means God used to bring us about. That may be Toxxin's view as well (if I misinterpret you, Toxx, I'm sorry).
Christians are *not* required to be against evolution, and outside the USA, most are not.

Thanks! That's your wedding photo, I assume. I hope you don't mind - I saved it...
The Castle is interesting too.
It looks as if you had a lovely day! I hope you continue to have lovely days in your marriage...

Well Myst, you've just upset all the veggies on this thread! I also wonder if you are living on the same Earth as the rest of us!

Rev. Alji, Wizard of the Red Dragon (Swynwr y Ddraig Goch) SHC/ULC

> Assuming that whatever caused the universe has always existed;
> well, if that weren't so then something else would have had to have
> caused it, then a physical cause would have acted as soon as it
> existed. That was infinitely long ago so we'd have an infinitely
> old universe.

I think I already covered that error - time started when the universe started, there was no 'before' (infinite or otherwise) in the sense you speak of.