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

Thus we can't make the leap of saying that God's laws - such as though shallt not kill or (according to some) thou shallt not get too friendly with a person of the same sex - shouldn't be confused with natural laws.

Agreed. So we can conclude that both concepts are *equivalent*, inasmuch as they both result in - and account for - the universe as we see it, but not *identical*, because (as you say) the explanations behind them differ.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Well, they're only equivalent in that they try to cover similar ground, but it would be kind of meaningless to say they were equivalent as explanations of the physical world, since their equivalence only really arises from the fact that they are both explanations of the physical world.
The equivalence says nothing about how good they may be, it doesn't even necessarily mean they come above some minimum standard of plausibility or consistency, just that it is possible to *attempt* to use them for a particular purpose.

In the same vein, a club, a bucket of water, and a gun may all be potential murder weapons, and they are equivalent *in the sense they are all members of a particular category*, but that's as far as the equivalence need go.

Shades of Bill Clinton: 'It depends on what you mean by "is".'

No, they're equivalent in that they both explain and account for the universe as it is.



Only if we had an actual murder, the known facts about which could be accounted for by any one of these three 'weapons' being used.

I wasn't actually disagreeing with you, just extending (and agreeing with) what you said.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

>>"No, they're equivalent in that they both explain and account for the universe as it is."

That does risk an interpretation sliding close to an assessment of how *adequate* they are, rather than merely what they attempt to do, even if that interpretation is not the intended one.

The club, gun, and bucket have one particular property in common, and are therefore members of a potential category, but are not necessarily equivalent *as* members of that category, merely equivalent *in that they are* members of that category.
No deeper (higher?) equality is necessarily implied by their category membership, and indeed one would expect that there are any number of possible subdivisions of the category in the light of which various members could be shown to be distictly different.

Assuming two people recognise two or more things are members of a particular category, it seems unnecessary for either of them to talk any further about the equivalence of the things at that particular level, except unless maybe if they hope to leverage the mere group membership to imply some greater similarity.

Of course I am of limited intelligence, as we all are, it's not a cop out it's just a statement acknowledging my limitations. It's rediculous and arrogant to think that we can understand everything, if so, then we are the first animal to be able to do so.

For your information it's about 25% Dark Matter and 70% Dark Energy neither of which we understand or have ever found evidence of although many scientists still believe in it.

Belief and knowledge are ultimately the same, 1000 years ago we knew that the Earth was the centre of the universe, now we are told that we believed it. Proof of God is like proof of electricity, you can't measure it, you can only measure the results of it.

Of course I can't prove my theory, thats why I acknowledge that it may be wrong, but I'm still waiting for one of you to come up with another theory why the universe isn't random. Give me a satisfactory answer to any "law of physics" like "why does light travel in straight lines?" or "why does gravity always attract rather than sometimes attract/sometimes repel?" and I'll admit I'm wrong.

>>"Proof of God is like proof of electricity, you can't measure it, you can only measure the results of it."

Well, I have an oscilloscope, and several digital multimeters on my desk.
I'm not sure I've ever heard of a digital deitymeter (apart maybe from bogus devices along the lines of $cientologists' E-meters).

>>Of course I am of limited intelligence, as we all are, it's not a cop out it's just a statement acknowledging my limitations. It's rediculous and arrogant to think that we can understand everything, if so, then we are the first animal to be able to do so.


A very good point, and one which I make frequently myself. As I said elsewhere recently 'What does Richard Dawkins know about cosmology? What does Stephen Hawking know about genetics? And can either of them play the banjo?' It's the conceit that we can answer The Big Question that leads us to religion/mysticism.

>>Of course I can't prove my theory, thats why I acknowledge that it may be wrong,

Oh, me too! Scepticism is at the heart of empiricism and proof isn't what it's about at all. (waves to P-C) In the absence of any evidence for a creator god, and in the absence of any real-world evidence which needs a creator god to explain it...why invent a god?

>>but I'm still waiting for one of you to come up with another theory why the universe isn't random.

Gosh! That *is* a good question. I guess the answer is 'Because it is.' The universe can be observed to be made up of lots and lots of the same things. We'd expect the same things to behave in the same way, no?. But we still don't need an intelligent creator to personally create every single one of those things.

(Macro analogy: Ducks float every time you put them in water. Does this mean that God personally created every single duck?)

So, potholer are you the only person to have seen electricity? I thought that an oscilloscope only measured its effects.

I think that my theory is slightly better than "because it does"

It's the macro analogies I like because it simplifies things Ducks float because they just do, or that they may have been designed to do so by evolution and surprisingly, evolution has a law (survival of the fittest), maybe , just maybe the law didn't come about by random. Thats all.

Agreed: the law was invented by humans. Hopefully, the law reflects some aspect of the universe that results in behaviour which is consonant with that law. As to how/why that behaviour of the universe came about, who knows? I don't (although, like most people, I could advance one or more hypotheses on the basis of my beliefs...).

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

No. Now you're shifting the ground rules.

Yes, ducks arrived via an evolutionary process and god didn't have to design every single one. But that process ultimately involves the interaction of fundamental particles (evolution -> genetics -> biochemistry -> electron exchange...and so on.)

So did god personally create every single duck? Or strand of duck DNA? Or DNA nucleotide? Or atom? Or electron? Or quark? At what point did god stop getting personally involved and leave the inevitable to happen? Why at that point? Alternately...why do we have to propose a god as the creator of fundamental particles and but not of every individual duck?

>>"So, potholer are you the only person to have seen electricity? I thought that an oscilloscope only measured its effects."

You don't need to *see* something to be fairly confident it exists, especially if its existence results in highly repeatable, simply describable and predictable pheneomena (which isn't really the case when it comes to deities).

Accepting electricity is on a par with accepting the existence of atoms. There's only really one atomic theory, one theory of electomagnetics, etc, because they are compact theories relating to physical reality without convenient cop-out clauses.

By contrast, there are numerable theories of deities, since the basic limitiation is the human imagination, with an additional need to be not obviously too inconsistent with reality, unless one can persuade people that inconsistency isn't *really* a problem.

>>unless one can persuade people that inconsistency isn't *really* a problem.

The Jesuits call this 'casuistry'.

PC: <>

This argument is only possible if you buy into the "all beliefs are equal" fallacy. I believe something, you believe something, and how they compare to reality makes no difference as long as we're all happy.

Let's say your mother believes that investing her life's savings in Pokemon cards is a strong plan for retirement. Hey, she has her belief, and you have yours, right? As long as she's happy, right? All beliefs are equal, right? You can't absolutely prove that Pokemon cards won't increase in value, can you?

<>

I eat, sleep, breathe, and poop. I write posts on the internet when I'm being paid to work on a mainframe upgrade project. I drive, wear clothes, play sports, and take care of my family.

There are so many ways I can answer that question, and each of them would be easy to demonstrate as true. Any one of us could answer it in a million different ways, or we could even answer it for each other, our significant others, pets, people we saw on television, etc. Why can't you answer it in any way for God?

That last is a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious.

"Give me a satisfactory answer to any "law of physics" like "why does light travel in straight lines?" or "why does gravity always attract rather than sometimes attract/sometimes repel?" and I'll admit I'm wrong."

Here's a damn good answer: "We don't know. Yet."

And just because science cannot answer it right now in no way means you can stick a god in there to explain it away. People often stick a god in right before the big bang for the same reason. Saying "no idea, mate" is a perfectly good response. Fully understanding the limits to our current knowledge is the first step in overcoming them.

The god-of-the-gaps is perhaps the weakest, lamest deity imaginable. It is a withering, constantly shrinking affair, who can be superceeded by mere human science. It's just a matter of time before this god of yours vanished completely.

Ste

(as usual)

That was for BtM. But also for Ste's >>The god-of-the-gaps is perhaps the weakest, lamest deity imaginable.

Ah, why thank you, kind sir.

Mind you...even lamer is 'God as the undefinable'. Translation: 'I don't know what I'm talking about.'