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

I see what you mean.... The problem is 'reality', and our access to it. If we had a way to agree on what it is - to *know* what it is - then we really could compare our beliefs with it, to see if they match up.

However life isn't that easy. You see I think *my* way of looking at things accurately reflects reality. And so does everyone else. Even atheists think so! I tend to treat beliefs as being equal because I know of no way to judge or compare them to determine which is a better fit with reality. And I mean that hypothetical 'objective reality' that we all () believe is out there, but cannot actually prove. We all think we know what it is, but we have all seen how mistaken *other people* can be in *their* understanding of reality, haven't we?

Yes, there are easy examples of how trivial beliefs can be evaluated with sufficient accuracy for everyday purposes, but the sort of discussions we have here don't come into that category.



God is aware. Depending in the God in whom you believe, all events in the universe can be seen as the acts of God. [Personally I wouldn't go that far.] My Gaianesque view of God would lead me to identify the recent changes to our climate as the acts (or reactions) of God. Those of different beliefs will give you different answers, many of them. Like you said, this question can be answered so many ways that it is, in effect, meaningless. Which I tried (and failed ) to illustrate by turning the question around. Oh well.



Ooops!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

PC: <>

There are varying values of "accurately."

<< I tend to treat beliefs as being equal because I know of no way to judge or compare them to determine which is a better fit with reality.>>

I can only hope you're joking here. I'd like to think that if you're hiking in the woods, and someone points at an object and tells you it's a stick, and the other says it's a snake, you have some method of comparing those beliefs with the evidence in front of you and determining which is a better fit. The lack of such an ability would be considered an evolutionary disadvantage.

<>

Objective reality is that which exists or occurs whether you believe it or not. You interact with it in order to figure out which of the things you believe are beyond dumb.

<>

Well, at least you finally owed up to believing in something... though how anthropomorphicising a complex planet system is constructive escapes me. But if you're going to accept equal validity to all opinions, at least you could recognize that they're all equal because they're equally made up constructions of the individual imagination.

<>

I said no such thing. I said the question could be answered in myriad and useful ways, and each answer could be demonstrated to be true or false, because I and the rest of the examples given have an existence in objective reality that can be easily verified through interaction. God is an exception to this, because God has no existence outside of the human imagination. If he had any sort of external reality, we wouldn't even be debating this.

Thank no one in particular for this forum

.. and @ post 7918,

Cheered me up. Yes it did!

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

<>

You might even say that "to exist" simply *is* to be a cause of an effect, and that causes and effects require rules (are defined by their regular co-occurrence) in order to identify them.

From our perspective you *couldn't* have a universe that was entirely random. It would fail to exist.


Noggin

Potholer, how can you be satisfied with being fairly confident about electrity and yet ridicule the theory that the cosmos will have actually been designed.

I love all of your atheist's smug satisfaction about trying to prove me wrong when all you can come up with is "because it just does" or "we don't know yet". That's like a Christian saying that something is right just because it is written in the Bible.

I'm no fundamentalist, I'm not even Christian, so let me explain once again. Scientists and theorists all aknowledge that there are certain rules of physics that apply throughout the universe, e.g. time is always running in the same direction, light travels in straight lines, gravity always attracts etc...etc...In my opinion (which I have already admitted may be wrong) there are two ways in which this may have happened

1) All of this happened by accident (it would be similar to taking every page of war and peace seperately, dropping them from a great height and hoping that they land in order)
or
2) All of this is by design and therefore there is or was a designer behind it.

To me, the answer 2 seems far more likely than the answer 1. To use my analogy, if someone were to give you a copy of war and peace, you would come to the conclusion that someone had placed them in that order rather than they had happened by accident. And I am still waiting for a better argument than "we don't know" or "because it just does".

Am I missing something?

Actually, in my less cautious youth, I *felt* electricity on many occasions, and can confirm from those experiences that it is a phenomenon which propagates at high speed through both metals and people, which doesn't propagate very well through various other materials, which appears to need a continuous path in order to cause its effects, which involves a transfer of energy, and which seems to involve no obvious material transfer.
When it comes to the more theoretical side, I'm arguably on fractionally less solid ground, but due to the extreme repeatability and the frequent correlation of theory to practice by numerous people, I have a *very* high level of confidence that the theory is a comprehensive and useful explanation for what *has* happened and what *will* happen in reality, which is all I need a theory to do.

>>1) All of this happened by accident (it would be similar to taking every page of war and peace seperately, dropping them from a great height and hoping that they land in order)
>>or
>>2) All of this is by design and therefore there is or was a designer behind it.

1) assumes that this is the only way a universe can turn out. There are N! possible combinations of the pages of War and Peace (where N = No. of pages). Only one combination works as a novel. The universe also works probabilistically - so there was a very small (but finite) probability that we would end up with the platypus. We *do* have the platypus, because it worked as an organism in its ecological niche. But...and here's the thing...if he hadn't ended up with the platypus, we wouldn't have noticed. If, instead, we'd ended up with something with the body of a crab and the head of a certified public accountant, some people might have taken this as evidence of design.

DN Adams gave a good analogy. Imagine a hyper-intelligent puddle. That puddle might see evidence for design in the fact that the hollow in which it is sitting is *exactly* the right shape for it!



>>Thank no one in particular for this forum

>>.. and @ post 7918,

>>Cheered me up. Yes it did!

Ahfangew! Another example of designerless systems...free markets: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/comment/story/0,,1564620,00.html

voodoobluesman, did you read Noggin's post? A universe with us in it *must* have rules, otherwise *we* could not exist. It's like saying 'we live on earth, so the earth must have been created for us'. By necessity we will find ourselves in a universe which has rules. There is no way around this.

Darwin destroyed the design theory for living things, so I can't see it being particularly powerful as an explanation for anything else. Modern cosmology allows for a multitude of universes, most of which would not have the same physical constants as ours, and which would presumably be unable to support life. The fact that we find ourselves in a (part of?) the universe which can support life is entirely to be expected, and is nothing more than a selection effect.

Of course, the fact that the universe does exist at all is a far deeper mystery.

>>"I love all of your atheist's smug satisfaction about trying to prove me wrong when all you can come up with is "because it just does" or "we don't know yet". That's like a Christian saying that something is right just because it is written in the Bible."

On the contrary, "I don't know *yet*" implies a possible future attempt to find out, and does seem rather more honest than "I don't know, *therefore* God must have done it (unless 'it' is bad, in which case it's the Devil's Work)".

>>"1) All of this happened by accident (it would be similar to taking every page of war and peace seperately, dropping them from a great height and hoping that they land in order)"

I'm very interested how *you* know how unlikely certain things are to happen without conscious intervention?

In any case, your argument is far from novel, and doesn't actually achieve anything beyond moving 'how did the universe come into being' to 'how did God come into being'.
You're replacing an "I don't know" answer about the natural with an "I don't know" answer about the supernatural, which many people wouldn't exactly consider an upgrade.
Why invent a deity you don't fully understand to try and explain a natural world you don't fully understand?

Pedro, a universe doesn't "have" to have rules, it doesn't have to do anything unless it's a rule that it has to have rules. (Navel-gazing anyone?!)

Edward and Pedro, the multi-world theory is the only theory that I have found to match my theory and it works, imagine an endless number of universes, it's just a co-incidence that we live in a structured universe. Elsewhere there are many other universes, some in which light doesn't travel in straight lines. Negates the need for a designer.

For my part, in reality I believe that both theories could be true, although I still believe in a design/designer behind it all whichever. This has been a great discussion and I've really enjoyed it, but you've finally come up with a good counterpoint, so I'll admit that I can't prove my belief against it and I'll bow out. See you all again sometime.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/05/filipino_judge/

>>"They should not have dismissed me for what I believed," he declared."

<>

Absolutely right and correct. A universe with US in it must have rules though. Which is why it's a selection effect.

Hey voodoobluesman, don't go away! I think everyone on here is looking for interesting discussion, rather than the actual answers.

So...getting back to the point I made to my headmaster, aged 13-ish 'So who designed god?'

Was it Bertrand Russell who came across an eccentric lady at a public meeting who insisted that the world was supported on the back of a giant elephant? He challenged her;
'And what, pray, madam, is supporting the elephant?'
'Why,' she said, 'It's elephants all the way down!'




voodoo...yes, don't go away. I don't think we're trying to be smug...simply putting forward an implacable argument. You're trying counter-arguments, and we're picking holes in them. It's nothing personal. It's how debate works.

Edward, is that true about Bertie? I read that as a joke in a Terry Pratchett novel, but I know he loves to pinch things like that from other places.

As I was reading your post something distracted me mid sentence and I ended up only reading as far as

"So...getting back to the point I made to my headmaster, aged 13-ish 'So who designed god?'

Was it Bertrand Russell..."

Amused me anyway.

<> (Pc)

Or better said, the god that one has invented? To explain away things that we don't want to really bother thinking about.

To me a computer might be a total heirarchy of angels - if I wanted to look at it that way. Or it could simply be a code that I would never be able to understand ever.

It seems most people prefer to think of life's mysteries in very simple analogical terms and don't want to get too heavily into the *thinking* thing, since really they are busy enough just getting by in their day-to-day lives.

Hence . . . all them gods out there!


az

<>

But you *can* understand that it *is* a code. That the right code has to be there to get the result. If the same code and the same inputs led to a different result every time, computers wouldn't work.

Conceptually, even magic has to work this way. Doing X (performing the ritual, intoning the incantation) has to result in Y. If doing X produced only random results there would be no point to it.

Even "supernatural agency" can only gloss over this essential feature. Without rules, there is no agency.

Noggin

What convoluted lives you two must lead! Wouldn't it have been easier to answer az directly, Noggin?

On the other hand...thank you for sharing it with us.

Getting back to this idea of 'so who created the rules?' - the Market example that I linked to earlier gives some insight into this. Markets run according to rules - what we call 'economics'. Are we to suppose that god invented one set of rules governing the physical world at The Big Bang, and then stepped in again once the Messopotamians started exchanging goods with one another? More likely...rules can develop spontaneously.

(And, yes, Pratchett stole it from Russell. Or was it JBS Haldane?)

I wasn't trying to be smug, I was just demonstrating how weak your argument is.

"1) All of this happened by accident (it would be similar to taking every page of war and peace seperately, dropping them from a great height and hoping that they land in order)
or
2) All of this is by design and therefore there is or was a designer behind it."

Let's address 1).

The probability that the series of events that have happened in the history of the universe led me to be sitting here in front of this computer typing these words is unimaginably small. I'm walking in the rain. The chance that any specific raindrop will hit me, and not anything else is pathetically tiny. The chance events that had to occur throught our lives for me and my wife to meet and get married - it's just ludicrous.

Flip a coin 100 times. You get the following sequence:
HTHTHHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHHHTHTHTTHTHTTHTHTHTHTHTHTTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHH
HTHTHTHTTHTHTTHHTTHHTHTTTHTHHT
The probability of getting that exact sequence is vanishingly small (is it 2^100?).

My point? You cannot sit at the end of one branch on a tree of other potential branching possibilities and claim yours is the "special branch" just because it happened. Random events happen, and because of those events you find yourself in certain situations. Turning around and saying your particular situation is "special" because you find yourself in it is farcical! If you found yourself on one of these other myriad of branches you would say the same!

I don't flip that coin sequence 100 times and declare it to be deemed by GOD, even though the probability of acheiving that sequence is so small. I don't claim my marriage was fate, or deemed to be by a god because it happened. I don't bless every improbable raindrop that hits my grumpy head.

Stuff happens ALL THE time. ALL OF IT is deeply, deeply unlikely when looked at with the benefit of hindsight. The universe included.

This is not called the "weak anthropic principle" for nothing, it seems.

Ste

Think of the implications of the above. We've just witnessed an event with 1 in 2 to the 100th probability of occuring. What are the odds against that?!!

Hi again, BtM!

P-C: << I tend to treat beliefs as being equal because I know of no way to judge or compare them to determine which is a better fit with reality.>>

BtM:

No, I'm not joking. As I said in the post you quote from: .

P-C:

BtM:

That's a description, not a demonstration. We all think we know what reality is, and that we can accurately observe it. But think how often you've seen *other people* badly misunderstand reality and its nature. Do you *really* think they could be so badly mistaken while your perceptions remain accurate? After all, *they* don't realise how mistaken they are. Why should you be able to do what so many others of your species can't? For myself, I reluctantly conclude that my perception of reality is as flawed as anyone else's, and this leads me to the view that all beliefs are (in practice) equivalent. Not because they *really are* equivalent, but because I have no reliable means of assessment.



That may be true - though I would prefer "assign" to "accept" - and it applies to my opinions and yours just as it does to anyone else. So how do *you* manage to weigh non-trivial opinions, given that your perceptions of reality - like everyone else's - are "made up constructions of [your] imagination"?

And finally:



Prove it!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"