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

Hi there, thanks for the reply to my questions on *that* thread
Appreciate it.
I think I do see where you are coming from. Black holes isn;t a good comparison, for various reasons - although something like String Theory would be since it is not currently testable, there is nothing which requires it (and only it) to explain it (ie there are other options) yet it is apparently accepted by many, many people.

Shan't continue this since the point (for me!) was just to try and understand where the 'dont cares' were coming from - and you've done that - so any further discussion would inevitably tend towards my trying to persuade you that what I think is right (which, of course, it is ) and that isn't the point and I doubt you'd welcome it anyway!

So, ta for the response!

No, no, thank you

I'm never sure if my posts get across what I mean to say; I don't want to go on too long but I also worry that, by aiming to be brief, I miss out things that would make what I say more sensible.

That was the first 'religious' thread that I felt like responding to, because I thought the question was interesting. Religion doesn't bother me but I hate people bashing it for the sake of bashing it. However, if someone says that they know this or that because they've "read it in the bible" (such as the biblical age of Earth) I get annoyed because there is very good evidence that Earth is much, much older than the bible states. And I would readily debate that with them.

Because you mention string theory, I have to ask if you've ever listened to 'Down the Line' on Radio 4?

Anyway, thank you for sending me a message (I didn't want to clog up *that* thread with secondary discussion). I'd be more than happy for you to try and persuade me of what *is* right. What I mean is that if you want to extend what we were talking about, or talk about anything else, I'd be most willing. I'm not Cartesian; I like to gain my own understanding but I'm happy to be taught.

Either way, stay well

No, can't say I have caught that - which is odd as I do listen to a lot of R4. Except when Melvin Bragg is on

My position on the whole thing is what I'd describe as aspiring rationalist. Aspiring in that being rationalist is difficult at times, but worth the effort I feel. Rationalist in that the only to way approach such subjects (and indeed many things in life) is to assume nothing and work up.

It's not teaching or evangelism. It's just that I find this stuff very interesting and the more people you talk to the more povs you get. But I also realise many aren't interested so I don;t like to expound unbidden!

So here's some thoughts on the subject.

In the case of a triple-O god (omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent) the problem comes with trying to rationalise this in terms of other things we know. They simply are not compatible.
The reason they are not compatible is that an all powerful being is one without limits. Doesn;t matter whether or not such a being exercises that power, but to have the ability means that nothing constrains them.

The problem with that is that unconstrained by any rule or order is a very good definition of randomness or chaos. In other words if there is not contraint, no rule set, then there can be no order, no meaning, no function. Hence intelligence, motive, meaning are all removed from the equation.

Of course, randomness, chaos can produce patterns, as is well known. Sequential numbers in the lottery for example (assuming a truly random generator existed!). However, where such patterns appear from chaos, there is no meaning to them except within themselves. There is nothing they can tell us about anything. Eg all the sequential numbers can tell us is that is that they are a sequence of numbers, nothing more. They can;t tell us anyting about that which generated them.

Extending on from this, it is possible that everything we see, the universe, ourselves, everything is exactly such a random sequence. It happened, there was no reason for it, and one day it may go. There is nothing that universe can tell us except about itself. It cannot be a guide to an outside power.

Of course, it could all have been created yesterday. But if it was, it was done by a being which was not triple-O but rather extremely powerful. A super-being. This is the other type of god and much more akin to polytheistic ideas of god as a super human.

My problem there is that I do not accept that I should worship Einstein, Bohr, Dirac on the basis of their greater intellect, nor Brown, Medvedev, Bush, Merkel on grounds of their greater political power, nor Geoff Capes, Arnie Swarzenegger on grounds of their greater physical prowess. Why then should I worship one of these gods? I'd watch out for them, to be sure. However, there is little evidence for them (but at least it is feasible they could exist). They aren't really gods to my mind. Just very powerful entities, be it through their own nature or their technology.

All this, of course, assumes that either type of god is part of nature. In this case nature is that which exists. If god exists, god is part of nature, although not necessarily that which we experience on a daily basis.

It seems a common theme of religions that god can interact with us and the world about us. Indeed, s/he created it. This is the primary argument against there being something which is 'other' or which cannot be studied using the scientific method. What we have here is a clear case of cause and effect. God wanted us to receive some message, and we did so. God wanted to create the world, and it was so done. Therefore, there must be some form of predictable mechanism by which the wish of god happens. Even if that is some hitherto unknown force which we might call god's will. There is some degree of interaction between the sendee and sender, the createe and creator. Therefore, god is not seperate and distinct from our phsyical realm, our universe, but in some way related to it. Therefore god is part of nature, that which exists, and is explorable using the scientific method. This doesn;t prove god's existence either way, it merely shows that if such a being were to exist, then we can investigate it. It argues against the overlapping magisteria argument.

The same goes for spirits and souls. If they can influence our phsyicality then they are part in some way of it, they are able to conform to the rules and thus are investigatable (if that's a word!).

Well, you did ask!
Ain;t all of it and there's various bits I've glossed over so feel free to question it.

One thing I do know is that this isn't my final thoughts on the subject.