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

"You know, I don't go out of my way to insult you for being stubborn, which is how I occasionally feel. I, contrary to your personal feelings, have intelligence. My IQ is over 180. My ACT scores were 32. I earned the Illinois State Scholar award. I was determined a genius in sixth grade. We aren't all grunting Neanderthals, as you may feel... Really."

OK. THat proves you're smart. Smarter than me. It doesn't prove that you're not gullible, or that you couldn't have been brainwashed as a kid.

Thanks! Actually, I dreamed of Ken Barlow (Coronation Street) telling me about his kidney disease, and how two other characters (I don't remember who) had set up a foundation to research renal failure on his behalf. He was very friendly, was our Ken...

"So the gravitational effect of the black hole has been affecting the furthest visible stars since they were both formed. Also the light from those stars has been approaching us for the same length of time. Hence the stars will be seen to be affected when their light reaches us."

Lets assume these farthest stars are 15 thousand light years away and the universe is 15 thousand million years old. Then, even if the stars are as old as the universe, we only see the light of when they are new. If the black holes are a thousand million ly farther than the stars, the stars will only respond to them after the universe is a thousand million years old. We won't see that light from when they react for another 15 thousand million years. Therefor, we won't detect the effects of th black holes until the unverse if 1 thousand million years old. In other words, we won't see them for another thousand million years. It gets worse if the universe is expandin.

Oh how I hate the British system for writing large numbers as words!!!

Sorry to butt in here, but I think Myst was the victim of a typing mistake! I think s/he meant to say 'than lose' rather than 'then lose'!

>>not that some of you Puritans believe that, of course)<<
It must be that you atheists *want* to believe that we Christians reject science and evolution, or you wouldn't keep insisting that you know better than we do what we believe!
Matholwch especially insists he knows better than I do what *I* believe, and accuses me of delighting in Hell, rejecting science (particularly hilarious given my background!) and being a biblical literalist.
Does it make any difference *at all* how often I say (a) unbpatised babies *do not* go to hell
(b) Few Christians actually do reject science and evolution?

"Nope. I don't see that a god could be characterless in that respect."

Well, if we define good as benifitin humanity and evil as being to the detriment of humanity, then wouldn't a goodness-neutral god be one who didn't really care about humanity. Maybe we're their science project--they set up the universe to make us and now they just want to observe. They don't care what happens to us.


"Simplicity is only one of the factors in what is believed. You can't just take out all variables in the interests of simplicity and have a featureless god."

No, but you can and should take out every variable that isn't needed. What in the universe is ewvidence that there is a god that is good or evil?

"I imagine relatively few people believe Arthur is coming back from Avalon when Britain is in its greatest need. If he was going to, WWII would have probably been as good a time as any."

Maybe he did. He didn't say that he would look the same, be king or have any magical powers, did he? Maybe he came back in the form of Winston Churchill.

""

What makes you think that we're at opposite ends of the spectrum and that you're closer to the middle?

It seems to me that a plane might be a better analogy.

Agnostics might bbe somewhere near the middle, monotheists in one direction, polytheists in another, atheists in another. A third dimention migh be adder for another trait. It would be interesting to see how it would map out. However, will atheists and Christian may be on opposite ends of the spectrum, I don't think you're any more in the middle than Myst and I are.

"Wyrd is wyrd."

No reason to complain about this, except that I wonder how many people here know what it means. I think it is a word that means something along the lines of fate, but I only know that from a fiction book--I'd be surprised if everyone else here knows what it means,and I may be wrong.

"It must be that you atheists *want* to believe that we Christians reject science and evolution, or you wouldn't keep insisting that you know better than we do what we believe!
Matholwch especially insists he knows better than I do what *I* "

Maybe the problem is that many have had bad experiances with fundamentalists who *do* hold the beliefs you've disavowed.

It isn't really fair of us to treat all Christiansas identical, though.

RDO. My example only requires the black holes to be 1 light year or less beyond the edge of the visible universe. The expansion works in my favour because when these things were formed the universe was a helluva lot smaller. Everything a lot closer to our location and each other.

If God is perfectly good, He wouldn't have created humans unless He thought that they too were good and cared about them.

In the case of God, variable are very few, none in a sense. They are all constants. They can only be seen as variables with God right at the extreme. You can't make a plausible spectrum out of that. Better or worse entails a variable. Perfectly good yields only a constant.

>>OK. THat proves you're smart. Smarter than me. It doesn't prove that you're not gullible, or that you couldn't have been brainwashed as a kid.<<

Right. Well, I became an atheist for a good two years, one of which I really didn't notice, the other, I was fully aware. Yet, God showed me the way back. I did this without the involvement of any other living being. Just me, and God.

Unless I am mistaken, it takes two to brainwash... unless you want to accuse God of brainwashing me to believe in Him, but that's not likely, as you'd have to admit God exists.

I did read something, and I'd like to issue a "red alert" about a certain sect of Catholisism... one called "Opus Dei," which has been in the limelight for rumours of brainwashing, coercion, and other rather wicked activities. That's the sort of thing you'd want to look out for... http://www.odan.org
Seriously. People like this are what gives the rest of Christianity a bad name...

>>Maybe he did. He didn't say that he would look the same, be king or have any magical powers, did he? Maybe he came back in the form of Winston Churchill.<<

Fasinatin' idea... wielding paper and pipe instead of sword and shield?

1)God can do whatever he wants, but not necessarily what you want.

2)Don't get too upset if he doesn't get as worked up about you as you do about him.

3)Relax!

diversity

IS



Agreed about the variables, but perfection is a constant. Slight metaphor there, but it's relevant I think.

My favourite bit of evidence is that things exist. It requires a huge amount of interpretation to tease out its implications though. As usual, I suggest the kalam as a starting point to this. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

Proof of the existence of God is easily available. Go to your nearest supermarket and buy some jammy donuts. Proof posistive that the Great God JD exists.

Or did you pitiful Darwinists think they evolved from do-ugh-nuts?

Get the religion or get deep friede!

Jimmy

Hi there and welcome to probably the best thread on h2g2.

As you can see it's a bit long - and the people come and go, but there are lots of good 'uns on here.

Druids, heathens, a witch or two popping in now and then, a few atheistics and a few Christians of various persuasions. A Buddhist or two, a pantheist, if she comes back, and so on...

The theme is

God, fact or fiction?

But the meaning of life, and even do-nuts, can make their appearance.

The general tone is a great deal more pleasant than on the boards, especially some of them, and the posting times are unrestricted (wahay). The mods don't seem to get involved much, either.

If you want to post something long, or place an article in the archives, you can, and you can post web addresses and emails if you want to.

generally, I reckon that once you know where people are coming from, the conversations are better than on the religion boards, and you tend not to get the trolls here.

If you feel like starting a related thread, then you can do that from your own space and post us the article reference for people to have a look at, and so on.

Some people here know a lot more about it than me. I just visit here

The smileys work as well.

Welcome and happy posting.

Jez - witch, heathen and general boshie git, at present waving at several people in frantic attempts to get them to wave back, which they won't...

"Unless I am mistaken, it takes two to brainwash...", yes Myst you are mistaken, you are perfectly capable of brainwashing yourself. Though it is more likely that the company you keep had more to do with it than you give them credit for.

Alji

IS

>>""
What makes you think that we're at opposite ends of the spectrum and that you're closer to the middle?<<

No particular reason to think I'm in the mddle, but the viewpoint of a fervent atheist and a fervent monotheist seem to be a long way apart.

>>It seems to me that a plane might be a better analogy.<<

Or an infinite misty blob?

>>Agnostics might be somewhere near the middle, monotheists in one direction, polytheists in another, atheists in another. A third dimension migh be added for another trait. It would be interesting to see how it would map out. However, will atheists and Christian may be on opposite ends of the spectrum, I don't think you're any more in the middle than Myst and I are.<<

Agreed. Bad analogy. But the point was a valid one. You are further from each other than either of you are from me.

>>"Wyrd is wyrd."
No reason to complain about this, except that I wonder how many people here know what it means. I think it is a word that means something along the lines of fate, but I only know that from a fiction book--I'd be surprised if everyone else here knows what it means,and I may be wrong.<<

OK - wyrd and orlog - and this is a simplistic definition.

Wyrd - the fate that the norns have spun for you, the things you get presented with - your physical abilities, your family, the things that life seems to throw at you without you having any control over. That's all wyrd.

Orlog - the fate you make for yourself. Whether you treat a disaster as a reason to weep and then give in, blaming the world, or whether you weep and fight, and come out stronger, and with increased knowledge and power. The way you deal with the hand you have been dealt.

Two people have have similar wyrd but different orlog, becasue they deal with it differently. We all know how two people can come through something traumatic with totally different results.

Jez

<quote from Positively Wyrd @ http://www.annwn.com/wyrd/poswyrd.shtml>

>In Nordic tradition the word "wyrd" or "weird" meant much the same as "fate". Like fate, it describes the fabric of our lives, yet we always have the choice, there's always a twist which changes each one into something we don't expect. It's those twists that give our wyrd its weirdness, yet the real weirdness is that those "messages from the wyrd" are always there to help us. We can ignore them, and wait passively, fatalisticallly, for life to change, which it probably never will. We can fight against them, try to wrest control of our life from the Fates, only to discover that control itself is nothing more than a myth. Or we can learn to work with life's weirdnesses - and use their help to weave the fabric of fate into a new form of our choosing. That's our choice, yet there's always that twist... <

Alji