351. Comment #88509 by BMMcArdle on November 17, 2007 at 7:30 am

Dianelos #346

We all agree there is an objective reality out there, in which we all exist, each one of us forming a tiny part. Well that objective reality out there, the whole of it, is not a huge physical mechanism as naturalists think, but rather a very very good person, a conscious being who, as we do, perceives, thinks, wills, loves, creates and enjoys beauty.

A very very good person who perceives/is insensitve to, thinks/ignores, wills/neglects, loves/hates, creates/destroys, enjoys beauty/ugliness.
Which is just like it would be if this person didn't exist.
Isn't it simpler to assume he/she/it isn't reality?

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

352. Comment #88510 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 17, 2007 at 7:37 am

SmartLX (post 286 or #88151):

A believer can't simultaneously claim the rational support of a god by way of its existence and an atheist's incoherence by way of its nonexistence, as long as both people are in the same universe.

Plantinga's argument against naturalism does show that naturalism is false; rather it shows that there can't be justification in reason for believing both in natural evolution and naturalism.

Therefore, even if both sides accepted the dependence of rationality on the existence of a god (which an atheist never would), an atheist then has no reason to entertain the arguments of anyone on the planet, let alone a believer, and can't be convinced of anything.

Well if rationality is dependent on the existence of God then we have the following state of affairs: Either there is a God or there isn't. In the former case the atheistic proposition "God does not exists" is false, and the latter case it is unjustified. Does not look good for atheism if you ask me.

Incidentally, what some naturalist philosophers are already discovering is that rationality cannot be accounted for by scientific naturalism. This is a much weaker claim than that rationality depends on the existence of God, but still. I when people realize that scientific naturalism not only implies that no ethical precepts are objective and that they don't possess libertarian free will, but also that they are not rational beings then I suppose most of them will say "enough is enough".

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

353. Comment #88511 by BMMcArdle on November 17, 2007 at 8:06 am

Does your belief teach you to demean and degrade people who act ethically and morally simply because they believe that's the kind of a world they would like to live in?
That they act that way because of some product of your imagination?
What would Jesus do?

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

354. Comment #88513 by smithyboy on November 17, 2007 at 8:09 am

DG, your comment #88477:

We all agree there is an objective reality out there, in which we all exist, each one of us forming a tiny part. Well that objective reality out there, the whole of it, is not a huge physical mechanism as naturalists think, but rather a very very good person, a conscious being who, as we do, perceives, thinks, wills, loves, creates and enjoys beauty. We form part of reality and hence are that person's children. And that person has designed and sustains for us the experiential environment we find ourselves living in – including, incidentally, of the physical facts and laws.

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy says that "the term 'pantheist' designates one who holds both that everything there is constitutes a unity and that this unity is divine". So you are propounding pantheism, not theism.

Classic theism defines 'god' as utterly different from the universe of which we are part. It makes sense not to be a classic theist these days, because science enables us to understand the universe without resort to an external agent (ie god). But instead of 'letting go of god' you, with the other pantheists, drag the divine into the universe by claiming that every part of the universe is divine. But of course the problem is that if everything is divine, the term loses all meaning.

It is just one small step from pantheism to atheism. All you need to do is ditch the divine language and stop mystifying everything. Once you have stopped mystifying everything, your talk of "an objective reality out there" might be a little more acceptable to somebody like me. But until then I don't think you ought to claim "we all agree" on "an objective reality" when you clearly load it with ideas I don't accept.

Other Comments by smithyboy

355. Comment #88521 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 17, 2007 at 10:10 am

Steve99 (post 287 or #88152):

The 'atheist' worldview includes Hitchens, Dawkins, the Dalai Lama, and (it seems) Mother Theresa.

What concerns me here is the reasonableness of New Atheism or more specifically of Dawkins's worldview of scientific naturalism. As I have already clarified I do not care about atheism in general, because indeed there are too many claimed versions of it, including your claim that Buddhism is atheistic despite its belief in rebirth after death and its belief in the existence of "hungry ghosts" and of many gods similar to the ones of ancient Greek mythology.

Suppose you are driving around an unfamiliar town and are lost (call it ethicsville) and are lost. You don't have a map. All you can do, is just try your best. The fact that a map of the town does actually exist somewhere doesn't help if you don't have access to it.

But we all do have a map; it's the image of God in which we are created. Actually your analogy of a map is a good one. The problem is that even though we have access to that map it's not easy to read, and it helps to discuss matters with other people (who all are build in the same image) and also to study what other people have said about this map.

We all have an innate sense of ethics as we are all build in the image of God. But how does that help? Bin Laden has an innate sense of ethics. So do you. I hope they are different.

No, Bin Laden, you, and I are all built in the same image. But Bin Laden's faith in his own reading of scripture (which is actually a graven image), has dulled his access to divine image inside. And it seems to me that Hitchens's atheistic worldview has dulled his: I observe that both Bin Laden and Hitchens's demonize their enemies and call for their utter destruction by any means necessary. I am sorry to note that Harris comes close to justify the torture of suspected terrorists and even of their families. So something bad happens when people, theists or atheists alike, lose sight of God's image inside.

But those whose worldview does entail that all people are built in God's image will be more likely to search for it both in private and in communion with other people, and will be less likely to stoop as low as to demonize or dehumanize their fellow human beings.

Your theistic reasoning adds precisely nothing as a practical guide to how we should live.

I agree with your sense that what really matters is a practical guide to how we should live. Unfortunately ethics is not as simple as writing down a guide. What theism offers is a conceptual ground for discovering how we should live, which is a necessary requisite for reasoning about ethics. And beyond the theoretical advantages, theism is far more ethically empowering than atheism.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

356. Comment #88524 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 17, 2007 at 10:30 am

Peacebeuponme (post 289 or #88159):

It seems to me, Dr Benway, that while the moral Zeitgeist for the last thousands of years has been slowly catching up with theistic ethics

AAAARRGHH! I just can't believe anybody can actually write that!

:-) Well, it's not my idea. And I invite you to think about it. Even Dawkins in TGD recognizes that Christian ethics were beyond their time. Some argue that the idea of equality under the law has its roots in Old Testament's ethics, and the idea of the equality of all people has its roots in New Testament's ethics. New Atheism's books select the most ugly bits of the Old Testament where God supposedly commands the Jews to destroy their enemies. But these stories were obviously concocted in order to find a way to whitewash crimes committed during war, and the very need to whitewash these crimes evidences the Jewish peoples' probably more advanced sense of ethics for their time.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

357. Comment #88525 by phil rimmer on November 17, 2007 at 11:08 am

theism is far more ethically empowering than atheism.

I'm sure Bin Laden thinks precisely this.

Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous drivel.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

358. Comment #88528 by Lauregon on November 17, 2007 at 11:53 am

But those whose worldview does entail that all people are built in God's image will be more likely to search for it both in private and in communion with other people, and will be less likely to stoop as low as to demonize or dehumanize their fellow human beings. - Dianelos

Faulty conclusion. Both history and a clear view of the present show that it's not at all unusual for theists to accept that all people are made in the image of "God" and yet at the same time prove themselves quite willing to demonize and dehumanize other people for not believing in "God" as they themselves do. Such theists are easily convinced by their leaders or even by their own reading of the Bible, or even by their own private contemplation to conclude that those who don't believe as they do, have done so by means of aligning themselves with "Satan," so that, even made in the image of "God," wrong-believers (and non-believers) have willfully chosen to part company with true believers and the one true "God" which legitimates true believers to persecute wrong and non-believers "in all Christian love."

(As it happens, this morning I heard several taped voice-recordings of true believers who called in to a free-thinkers radio program off-air to leave hate messages for the show's hosts, each message as hate-filled as those before and after it, all one way or another at least alluding to punishment to come for those awful free-thinking hosts who don't believe in "God").

Other Comments by Lauregon

359. Comment #88529 by Lauregon on November 17, 2007 at 11:59 am

Unfortunately ethics is not as simple as writing down a guide. What theism offers is a conceptual ground for discovering how we should live, which is a necessary requisite for reasoning about ethics. And beyond the theoretical advantages, theism is far more ethically empowering than atheism. - Dianelos

The sentiment, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out later" comes immediately to mind. I saw this sentiment prominently printed on t-shirts worn by groups of proud, aggressive, hate-spewing church members at several anti-anti-Iraq war demonstrations in 2003.

Other Comments by Lauregon

360. Comment #88530 by Lauregon on November 17, 2007 at 12:12 pm

It is just one small step from pantheism to atheism. All you need to do is ditch the divine language and stop mystifying everything. Once you have stopped mystifying everything, your talk of "an objective reality out there" might be a little more acceptable to somebody like me. - smithyboy

Dianelos is firmly committed to the idea of a God person out there running the whole show. Pantheism doesn't suit him even though it appears to be what he's actually promoting with his "all-of-reality" segment, because his primary concern is the maintenance of social order by means of religious belief in life after death and the guarantee of punishment for sinners in the hereafter. All the science talk he tosses around is merely a baffle-'em-with-bullshittery means to the end of keeping the world's rabble obedient to law and order which he thinks is impossible without the Big Sheriff In The Sky.

Other Comments by Lauregon

361. Comment #88573 by epeeist on November 17, 2007 at 10:49 pm

Comment #88342 by Veronique

Epeeist your Comment #88312

I have been off air because of the technical problems on the site. Back now (obviously).

I am glad you liked it, try this one as well.

---

One day Chicken-Licken was browsing the Internet and he came across a description of Schrodingers cat.

He ran out in to the road shouting "Dead and alive cats, naturalism is in crisis. I must go tell the king."

As he was running up the road he met Ducky-Lucky.

"What's wrong?" said Ducky-Lucky.

"Naturalism is in crisis," said Chicken-Licken, "and I must go tell the king."

"Show me what's wrong." said Ducky-Lucky. So Chicken-Licken started to show Ducky-Lucky the problem when they came across the name of John Bell.

Shocked, they ran down the road together shouting "Nothing is real, naturalism is in crisis. We must go tell the king."

It wasn't long before they met Turkey-Lurkey.

"What is the matter?" Turkey-Lurkey said.

"Naturalism is in crisis," they said, "and we must go tell the king."

"Can you show me the problem?" said Turkey-Lurkey

So they started to show Turkey-Lurkey what they problem was when they came across the name of Hugh Everett. It was even worse than before!

They ran down the road together shouting "We don't know where the king is and we must tell him that naturalism is in crisis."

As they came to a branch in the road they met Foxy-Loxy.

"Oh, dear. Oh dear," they said "We have to find the king and we don't know how to. We have to tell him that naturalism is in crisis."

"I can show you where the king is," said Foxy-Loxy, "just follow me."

But he led them to his lair, killed them and ate them.

Later, as he was sucking the marrow from one of the bones Wolfgang (for that was Foxy-Loxy's real name), thought to himself, "I really can't stand all that shouting, it ruins the appetite."

Other Comments by epeeist

362. Comment #88574 by epeeist on November 17, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Comment #88357 by Dianelos Georgoudis

GR is still classical physics

What do you mean by "classical"?

Other Comments by epeeist

363. Comment #88575 by epeeist on November 17, 2007 at 11:08 pm

Comment #88503 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Well, then you are not really engaging with what I suggest, for I suggest we understand the meaning and truth of proposition based on its predictive content.

and

According to my scheme the meaning of a proposition encompasses also what all the propositions it implies predict.

Some 2300 years ago Aristotle codified the basics of logic. In medieval times it became part of the "Trivium", the education of a gentleman. In the early universities it and the Quadrivium might have been amongst the few courses offered.

In the 19th century De Morgan made mathematical induction rigorous and Boole produced symbolic logic.

In the last century we have Frege, Carnap, Tarski and Quine as some of the people who have taken logic even further.

In this whole span of two and a quarter millennia the basic terms in logic have been settled and accepted.

But this isn't good enough for you. In your arrogance you think you can simply redefine these for your own benefit.

And this seems to be the way you go about most things. Make things up so you can attack your generated straw man.

Other Comments by epeeist

364. Comment #88576 by epeeist on November 17, 2007 at 11:10 pm

Comment #88508 by Dianelos Georgoudis

I am certainly guilty of not understanding what you mean.

ROFLMAO

Now the question is, is this a one word response?

Other Comments by epeeist

365. Comment #88585 by steve99 on November 18, 2007 at 12:46 am

Well that objective reality out there, the whole of it, is not a huge physical mechanism as naturalists think, but rather a very very good person, a conscious being who, as we do, perceives, thinks, wills, loves, creates and enjoys beauty.

One minute you are claiming that we can't know objective reality. The next you are claiming that you know objective reality. Which is it, please?

Also, please point us at the universal goodness meter that can be pointed at God to know that He/She/It is perfectly good.

Otherwise, I can just as easily claim:

"It is not a physical mechanism, but a person, a conscious being who really enjoys crosswords. It has been this person's objective that we should all achieve crossword-solving perfection. God has engineered the Universe to produce the Times Crossword, to show us the way. The uneven distribution of puzzles in the world may seem to be a problem, but what does it matter, when after death we shall all be provided with word puzzles for eternity.

I have FAR more evidence for this that you have for your version, as the existence of absolute goodness is questioned by many, but the existence of the Times Crossword is not a matter of dispute. You have the problem of evil to deal with. I don't (although I admit some crosswords are painful), as I claim God does not care about good and evil, only about crossword-ability.

So which is it to be? Either hard evidence for God being good (something theologians have struggled with for centuries), or you accept my worldview. (I know this is a false dichotomy, but you seem to like those).

Other Comments by steve99

366. Comment #88586 by epeeist on November 18, 2007 at 12:55 am

Comment #88530 by Lauregon

All the science talk he tosses around is merely a baffle-'em-with-bullshittery means to the end of keeping the world's rabble obedient to law and order which he thinks is impossible without the Big Sheriff In The Sky.

And his science talk has been shown to be exactly that, the old military term BBB (bullshit baffles brains). As can be seen by the last series of posts DG doesn't really understand mathematics and logic, so like his words on science and naturalism, he just makes stuff up.

In fact his whole idealistic theism is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Other Comments by epeeist

367. Comment #88587 by steve99 on November 18, 2007 at 12:57 am

Apparently, Steve99 does. When I say I believe in some proposition because it strikes me as completely obvious, he insists that in order to convince him I must present *evidence*.

Oh I am sorry. I understand now. I thought you were simply qualifying things as "obvious". I did not realise they where "completely obvious". The addition of "completely" is clearly enough evidence to reveal to me the truth of your propositions. Or maybe not.

Actually, I am FAR worse than you have described. I believe we should base what we personally believe on evidence. Evidence is should not just required for interaction between people...

You see, we are all poor fallible humans. We have a tendency to delude ourselves. We end up believing what we want to believe, and detaching ourselves from reality. Some end up flying planes into buildings; all based what what is 'obviously' true to them.

What concerns me here is the reasonableness of New Atheism or more specifically of Dawkins's worldview of scientific naturalism.

I just don't believe you any more, and I doubt anyone else does.

Plantinga's argument against naturalism does show that naturalism is false; rather it shows that there can't be justification in reason for believing both in natural evolution and naturalism.

Oh dear, I heard the CLICK of a [RESET] button again.

Just as global warming deniers search desperately for those few experts who agree with them, and when they have found such experts, claim that these experts are telling the truth, so you use the same dishonest approach.

Either point at a general review philosophical paper that shows a consensus backing your view, or Write your own paper on philosophy and get it published. Don't keep 'expert-mining' Plantinga when you know that his work has been criticised by others and you are in no position to judge who is right.

But Bin Laden's faith in his own reading of scripture (which is actually a graven image), has dulled his access to divine image inside. And it seems to me....

And it seems to Bin Laden that your reading of things have dulled your access to divine image inside. Who do I believe? You claim God is good, but I have only your word, and why should I believe you about that either? All you are saying here is 'I am right because I am right'.

In fact, your entire arguments over months can be summed up in one phrase:

"I am right because I know I am right."

That is it. That is all that is left when all the misquoting, misunderstanding, and misdirection is removed.

Other Comments by steve99

368. Comment #88589 by epeeist on November 18, 2007 at 1:09 am

Comment #88513 by smithyboy

All you need to do is ditch the divine language and stop mystifying everything.

Exactly - However entrancing it is to wander unchecked through a garden of bright images, are we not enticing your mind from another subject of almost equal importance?

Unfortunately if he ditches the divine language nothing is left.

Other Comments by epeeist

369. Comment #88591 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 18, 2007 at 1:42 am

Someone please take this thread out and shoot it.

No disrespect to the atheist posters here, great work really, but even you chaps must be wearying of saying the same thing over and over in different ways.

At what point do we qualify someone as a troll and move on? The 10th time they make the same debunked (or plain pointless) claim? The 20th? The 100th?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

370. Comment #88592 by steve99 on November 18, 2007 at 1:45 am

Moreover I think the distinction between individual persons is in a sense illusory: we are all in this together and in some fundamental sense the other person's suffering is my suffering also, and the other person's joy is my joy too.

I found this not only laughable, but personally offensive.

Dianelos - do you really think you are some kind of Jedi? When the planes flew into the Twin Towers, did you feel some kind of 'disturbance in the force'? Do you really share suffering, or is it only meaningless new-age twaddle?

The reason why I found this personally offensive is that in recent years I have lost dear friends and family members. Dianelos - as those people were ill and dying, did you suffer too? I don't think you did. I don't believe you shared their pain or mine. Or does the phrase 'in some fundamental sense' actually mean 'not in any sense at all' and you are talking crap?

Other Comments by steve99

371. Comment #88593 by steve99 on November 18, 2007 at 1:49 am

At what point do we qualify someone as a troll and move on? The 10th time they make the same debunked (or plain pointless) claim? The 20th? The 100th?

As I have said before, I don't think it is trolling. That is posting just to stir things up. I think it is spamming - trying to repeatedly sell a faulty product.

The problem is when Dianelos the Salesman hops onto a new thread to sell his wares, and starts all over.

Perhaps the solution is for a quick single reply informing others that all arguments have been dealt with, and a reference to (perhaps) this thread?

Or, if that fails, use of the 'spam' option.

Other Comments by steve99

372. Comment #88595 by Veronique on November 18, 2007 at 2:06 am

369. Comment #88591 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Bang, bang!!!

There, I have done it:-)

Nothing further from me and hopefully from no one else! Don't hold your breath though:-)

Busy fingers typing need to have other occupations to ameliorate the desire to answer drivelling posts from DG.

Goodnight all
V

Other Comments by Veronique

373. Comment #88603 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 18, 2007 at 2:49 am

Epeeist (post 290 or #88160):

Noted theist philosopher Alvin Plantinga in his paper "An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" has forcefully argued that if both naturalism and the theory of natural evolution were true than we would not possess reason.

However, you may also want to read http://fitelson.org/plant.pdf and
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/wesley_robbins/contraplantinga.html as well.

Thanks for the links. Plantinga's claim is so radical that it has caused quite some reaction. Now I have read the second of your links (I will read the other later) but I did not find it very convincing for the following reasons: 1) The author's argument is based on a premise which is not there in the science of natural evolution (namely that natural evolution gave us what he calls "generically pragmatist" minds instead of what he calls "generically Cartesian" minds), and I am generally suspicious when philosophers make scientific claims beyond what is actually there in the science. 2) Plantinga's argument is based on the obviously true premise that what counts in natural evolution is behavior, and not the beliefs and desires that gave rise to that behavior, to which the linked paper responds that our beliefs must nevertheless reflect the truths of our environment because of the way we learn to associate words with objects, or to associate mental states with external behavior. This looks like a smokescreen to me, for it only works as an intuition pump to try to give the impression of a necessary logical link between beliefs and external truths. But maybe I misunderstood that paper; I only read it quickly.

Anyway, I think Plantinga's argument against naturalism is overkill, as it sets to show that if naturalism and natural evolution are true then we don't have the cognitive capacity to justify any beliefs at all, including for example mathematical beliefs. I think a weaker claim allows for a simpler and hence stronger argument which attacks naturalism just as radically. I have explained my idea before, but let me develop it formally:

1. If naturalism is true and natural evolution is true then all our cognitive capacities are the result of natural evolution alone. (premise)
2. Through natural evolution we can only possess such cognitive capacities that offer some competitive advantage. (premise)
3. If naturalism is true and natural evolution is true then all our cognitive offer some competitive advantage. (from 1 and 2)
4. If naturalism is true then the cognitive faculty for deciding the truth of ontological propositions offers no competitive advantage. (premise)
5. If naturalism is true and natural evolution is true then we do not possess the cognitive faculty for deciding the truth of ontological propositions. (from 3 and 4)
6. Naturalism is an ontological proposition. (premise)
7. If naturalism is true and natural evolution is true then we do not possess the cognitive faculty for deciding that naturalism is true. (from 6 and 7)
8. To believe that a proposition is true, without possessing the cognitive capacity for deciding that it is true, is irrational. (premise)
9. If naturalism is true and natural evolution is true then to believe that naturalism is true is irrational. (from 7 and 8)
10. If natural evolution is true then if naturalism is true then naturalism is irrational. (equivalent to 9)
11. If natural evolution is true then either naturalism is false or naturalism is irrational. (equivalent to 10)

Some comments: By "naturalism" above, read "scientific naturalism". Premise #1 requires the truth of both naturalism and natural evolution, because if naturalism is false then we may have cognitive capacities that are not necessarily the result of natural evolution. Premise #4 should be clear: we only experience and interact with phenomenal reality, and therefore only true beliefs about phenomenal reality can possibly be of any competitive advantage. (As Dr. Benway insists we can live very well without worrying about objective reality.) To believe in a proposition without justification is irrational, and if we do not have the cognitive capacity for deciding the truth of proposition then we can't justify it, hence premise #8. That #10 is equivalent to #9 should be obvious, but in any case here is the derivation in Boolean logic (where "*" stands for "and", "+" stands for "or", " ' " stand for "not", "->" stands for "implies"):

N*E -> Ir
(N*E)' + Ir
N' + E' + Ir
E' + (N' + Ir)
E -> (N' + Ir)
E -> (N -> Ir)

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

374. Comment #88605 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 18, 2007 at 3:00 am

Steve99 (post 294 or #88174):

do this and you will get eternal pleasure. Do that and you will burn forever.

As I have said many times, I do not believe in these ideas, so I don't see why you keep using them against my position. On the other hand, atheists do believe that life ends at death, which entails that people can get away with doing bad things. Which is obviously dangerous. What I am saying is that theism can and certainly will outgrow the parts that are dangerous (as belief in heavenly reward and punishment is) but atheism can't.

Get rid of the divine authority, and a more reasonable discussion is possible.

I have done so many times: Something is objectively ethical not because God authoritatively says so, but because objective reality (and hence God) is so.

I don't mind you disagreeing with me Steve, but it seems to me that you are not really trying to understand what I am saying in the first place.


Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

375. Comment #88608 by epeeist on November 18, 2007 at 3:10 am

Comment #88603 by Dianelos Georgoudis

4. If naturalism is true then the cognitive faculty for deciding the truth of ontological propositions offers no competitive advantage. (premise)

And the evidence for this is?

If he can't show that this is true then the argument may be valid, but it isn't sound (you do know the difference I presume?)

7. If naturalism is true and natural evolution is true then we do not possess the cognitive faculty for deciding that naturalism is true. (from 6 and 7)

To understand recursion...

8. To believe that a proposition is true, without possessing the cognitive capacity for deciding that it is true, is irrational. (premise)

This is posited on two things:

1. The word "believe", but of course naturalism does not rely on belief.


2. Cognitive capacity. If we did not have the cognitive capacity then we would not be capable of distinguishing the difference between rationality and irrationality

I was going to go on, but it really isn't worth the effort.

Other Comments by epeeist

376. Comment #88610 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 18, 2007 at 3:18 am

Epeeist (post 295 or #88175):

It's naive to ask people for "proof" simply because there cannot be any proofs for ontological claims.

So I can make anything up I like?

:-P Where did I actually claimed or implied that? On the contrary I have been explaining for months now my reasons for considering the ontological worldview of idealistic theism far more reasonable than the ontological worldview of scientific naturalism.

That you can't prove X does not imply that anything goes. It only implies that it's not as simple as demanding proofs, and that those who do make such demands do not understand how things stand. That's why I insist people (both theists and atheists) should study more and think more critically with their own heads instead of assuming things (such as that science implies scientific naturalism).

What's an "atheist belief"? The only thing atheists agree on is that there are no gods (or in my particular version, the contingent hypothesis that there are no gods).

Once again: I am only comparing idealistic theism to scientific naturalism, which is Dawkins's atheistic belief system.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

377. Comment #88612 by epeeist on November 18, 2007 at 3:32 am

Comment #88610 by Dianelos Georgoudis

No proofs needed for logic or mathematics or ontology, as you said in post #88172.

If there are no proofs for ontological claims and no evidence is required then I can make up anything I like.

In fact I claim that it isn't god who is doing everything but 248 different varieties of daemon.

Given that left handers are evil (I just made this up too, but only because I have had a lot of experience fencing them) it is the left handed daemons travelling widdershins that cause all the misery in the world, while the right handed daemons travelling deiseil that are the forces for good.

Other Comments by epeeist

378. Comment #88616 by steve99 on November 18, 2007 at 3:48 am

As I have said many times, I do not believe in these ideas, so I don't see why you keep using them against my position.

Because it does not matter what you personally believe. It matters that your approach to belief opens the door to such ideas. Open the door to Jesus and it is opened to Bin Laden too.

"Because it is completely obvious" is a dangerous approach.

On the other hand, atheists do believe that life ends at death, which entails that people can get away with doing bad things.

That is just rabid nonsense, and you know it. It assumes that atheists only care about what happens to themselves personally, and don't care about what happens to friends, family, and the rest of the human race. Actions have consequences that go beyond ourselves. We don't need any silly 'God' idea to realise that.

I have done so many times: Something is objectively ethical not because God authoritatively says so, but because objective reality (and hence God) is so.

I know that is what you are claiming. But unless you can explain why this connection, you are just making things up. Just putting the words 'God is so' and 'objective ethics is so' in the same sentence does not make them connected.

At least those who claim that ethics are so because it is what God wants are providing some sort of connection, unlike you.

I can just as easily say 'objective ethics exists because penguins exist', and it makes just as much sense.

I don't mind you disagreeing with me Steve, but it seems to me that you are not really trying to understand what I am saying in the first place.

I understand all too well.

Once again: I am only comparing idealistic theism to scientific naturalism, which is Dawkins's atheistic belief system

You aren't comparing them. You are simply asserting one view is better than the other, in the face of evidence and argument.

Other Comments by steve99

379. Comment #88618 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 18, 2007 at 3:55 am

Clodhopper (post 298 or #88184):

DG: #85728 On Flea Circus thread...(So ultimately there is not really any difference between religious and humanist ethics).

Clodhopper #86565: Exactly so. Both are man made. Thank you.

DG: You conceding this?

I already did, didn't I? Once again: I concede that all human knowledge is human made. Of course it is. Which implies that anything we know can be wrong because we are all fallible.[1] But it does not imply that human knowledge cannot refer to objective facts. Human knowledge can be fallible and also refer to objective facts. For example some scientific naturalists used to believe that objective reality is local. That belief was proven to be wrong, but that belief nevertheless referred to or made a claim about objective reality. Similarly then ethical beliefs may refer to objective reality, while also being wrong.

I think the confusion is this: Some people think that if there is no general agreement about a proposition (as is the case with ethical propositions), then that proposition cannot be making a claim about objective reality. But to think in this way is plainly wrong. For example scientific naturalists deeply disagree about whether there is one physical universe or many, or whether the physical universe is deterministic or not. But this does not evidence that they are not talking about objective reality. The study of the dynamics of disagreement can at best serve as weak evidence. I have been arguing that the fact that the disagreements among scientific naturalists are widening and deepening with no end in sight evidences that scientific naturalists are not studying something that objectively exists, but I concede that's only weak evidence. Similarly the fact that the moral Zeitgeist is converging (albeit slowly) is evidence that ethics is objective, but again that's only weak evidence.

[1] There is an important exception though: direct experience while we are having it is knowledge that cannot be wrong.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

380. Comment #88619 by steve99 on November 18, 2007 at 3:59 am

2. Through natural evolution we can only possess such cognitive capacities that offer some competitive advantage. (premise)

Wrong!

Natural selection does not look ahead or understand its process. It can't say 'Let's design an organism so it will be able to do X in a future generation'. In the same way, it can't say 'Let's add limits to a capability so that it can only be used in certain circumstances'.

There is absolutely no reason why we should not be able to reason beyond the requirements of natural selection. In fact, this may be inevitable. The same logical processes that enabled us to count tigers to keep them all in view when they were trying to stalk us enabled us later to come up with theories of numbers and algebra.

So, that has dispensed with (at least your reading of) Plantinga's argument.

Plantinga's argument does show the danger of letting philsophers wander into areas in which they aren't experts. I mean, after all, he supports intelligent design.

Oh dear... the Creationist alarm bell is ringing again.

(If you are trying to quote the views of a creationist to support your view of evolution... let's just say it is not going to impress many people)

[1] There is an important exception though: direct experience while we are having it is knowledge that cannot be wrong

Wrong!

As any psychologist can tell you, our brain is perfectly capable of deluding itself, and frequently does. There are such things as false memories, hallucinations, illusions. Our brains make things up all the time. Part of what you are seeing now isn't real - it is the brain filling in your visual blind spots.

This is precisely why "it is obvious to me" is so foolish - it shows a deep misunderstanding of neurology and psychology.

You are confusing two things:

1. Having a sensation of something.
2. Knowledge.

1. Is not a sure guide to 2, not even in your own head.

Other Comments by steve99

381. Comment #88621 by epeeist on November 18, 2007 at 4:20 am

Comment #88616 by steve99

As I have said many times, I do not believe in these ideas, so I don't see why you keep using them against my position.

Because it does not matter what you personally believe. It matters that your approach to belief opens the door to such ideas. Open the door to Jesus and it is opened to Bin Laden too.

And of course since DG finds everybody's beliefs as valid as his own then this is true (for some definition of true).

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1752,Debate-between-Christopher-Hitchens-and-Alister-McGrath,Christopher-Hitchens-Alister-McGrath,page12#83524

Other Comments by epeeist

382. Comment #88623 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 18, 2007 at 4:34 am

Epeeist (post 377 or #88612):

No proofs needed for logic or mathematics or ontology, as you said in post #88172.

I try to respond posts in sequence (and am almost 100 posts behind :-( but here you are grossly misrepresenting what I wrote. What I wrote in post #88172 is this: "Strictly speaking not even mathematical proofs are really proofs, because they all use as a premise unproven axioms and production rules." Which is obviously true: The validity of mathematical proofs is based on unproven premises. But you take something I wrote that is perfectly true and twist it beyond recognition to claim that I meant something as absurd as that "no proofs are needed for mathematics". Of course mathematical proofs are needed, and we have confidence in them even though they are based on unproved premises. That's the point I was making.

Still, what's the use misrepresenting the other person's ideas? What do you gain by doing that? My problem here is this: When some posters consistently misread or misrepresent what I write then it should be no wonder I have to repeat the same ideas correcting them. But it's also a waste of my time and I can't afford that. So in the future I think I will try to not comment to any posts that grossly misread or misrepresent what I argue, and will only respond to those posts that to my judgment make a good will effort to engage in discussion. So feel free to misread or misrepresent me to your heart's content.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

383. Comment #88624 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 18, 2007 at 4:48 am

BMMcArdle (post 305 or #88221):

In your calculations in post #55061, are you saying that God is only responsible for the conscious experience of the 6 billion people on Earth?

I am saying that God is responsible for designing and sustaining the order of the experiential environment of all persons God has created, and as we have no reason to believe that there are more persons than the inhabitants of the Earth I do use the 6 billion number. But please observe that differences in complexity are so enormous that it would make not difference whatsoever in my calculation if I also assumed that there are a billion (or a trillion) Earth like planets out there each populated with another 6 billion persons.

Wouldn't God's side include everything in the universe+humanity's conscious experience+God him/her/itself?
Oops, I forgot, there is nothing but our conscious? experience and God.

Correct. According to idealistic theism all that exists is conscious experience following personal will. The physical universe and all the things in it we observe around us are simply patterns present in our conscious experience; patterns caused by God's will.

Can you explain why you think you think?

Well, if I think I think, then I do in fact think, don't you agree? :-)

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

384. Comment #88627 by steve99 on November 18, 2007 at 5:02 am

When some posters consistently misread or misrepresent what I write then it should be no wonder I have to repeat the same ideas correcting them.

I know the feeling. Like when you misuse 'atheist', and set up straw-men versions of 'naturalism', and when you misunderstand 'organisational complexity', and when you misunderstand Dawkins ("He is against all ideas of a Creator") and when you misunderstand the implications of QM ("It only questions the nature of the reality I don't like"). I could go on like this for pages.

So in the future I think I will try to not comment to any posts that grossly misread or misrepresent what I argue, and will only respond to those posts that to my judgment make a good will effort to engage in discussion.

Translation: I have lost the argument in certain areas. However, admitting I am wrong would indicate failure. Therefore, I shall only respond to posts that deal with my interpretation of things. You may claim all you like that you are misinterpreted, but you don't play by the rules. You don't want us to conflate science and reality, as apparently we can't know reality, and at the same time you claim to know reality - it is the mind of God.

Anyway, if your refusal to engage stops you spamming, good.

Other Comments by steve99

385. Comment #88628 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 18, 2007 at 5:04 am

Diacanu (post 306 or #88230):

as evidenced by the fact that the scientific discoveries (particularly in physics) in the last 100 years have forced naturalists to drop one after the other many of their most strongly believed intuitions about how objective reality is,

You said this crap before, and I asked you to back it up, and you ignored me. I say again. BACK IT UP.

I have done so many times already, so if you are really interested you'll have to read my past posts. I have also recommended various books. Perhaps the best one is Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality". That book explains very well how quantum mechanics destroyed the illusion that science describes objective reality, it extensively quotes the thought of some of the greatest scientists of all time, and it also includes dozens of books for additional reading. The book that best explains how scientific research has rendered the idea of an objectively existing physical reality all but incoherent is the collection of papers in David Mermin's "Boojums All The Way Through". Or see David Mermin's "Spooky Actions at a Distance" in Encyclopaedia Britannica's 1989 "Great Ideas Today" which you can find in you local library.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

386. Comment #88629 by phil rimmer on November 18, 2007 at 5:05 am

DG's premises in 88603 are extremely rickety. I think they're in serious danger of falling down without the helpful Puff from the "big, bad" wolves outside.

1. If naturalism is true and natural evolution is true then all our cognitive capacities are the result of natural evolution alone. (premise)

Excludes cultural evolution which appears to have quite distinct processes from genetic evolution. If you intend "natural evolution" as a catchall then it is disingenuous. And, yes, cultural evolution has had profound impacts on our individual (and collective!) cognitive capacities.

2. Through natural evolution we can only possess such cognitive capacities that offer some competitive advantage. (premise)

...that offer some competitive advantage to the replicating entity. What we "hosts" gain from it is quite another matter.

4. If naturalism is true then the cognitive faculty for deciding the truth of ontological propositions offers no competitive advantage. (premise)

But this is the bare-bones version of the truth you wish to derive! Shoving it in as a premise here is...well...disingenuous.

D.G. One day you'll get the message and build a brick house.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

387. Comment #88630 by phil rimmer on November 18, 2007 at 5:16 am

Veronique,

Whilst I applaud your metaphorical bullets aimed at this thread, I fear there are ideas here that may produce the real thing.

theism is far more ethically empowering than atheism.

On the other hand, atheists do believe that life ends at death, which entails that people can get away with doing bad things. Which is obviously dangerous.

I'm sure that Dianelos wouldn't take us Atheists out the back and put an end to the suffering we cause, but we know exactly who might.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

388. Comment #88634 by steve99 on November 18, 2007 at 5:23 am

OK. Had enough for now. I have a suggestion, which is that when DG posts things like this:

I have done so many times already, so if you are really interested you'll have to read my past posts.

Where he is referring only to his posts, and not the discussions in which they were refuted, that such posts are ignored, or even perhaps tagged as spam (if that is an appropriate use of the facility).

It seems like spam for me; after all, he is, against all evidence, suggesting he can improve the size of your god-belief.

EDIT: In view of epeeist's (and some others') continued politeness, this may seem harsh, and if so, I apologise to the general reader.

Other Comments by steve99

389. Comment #88635 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 18, 2007 at 5:24 am

Epeeist (post 308 or #88241):

DG - for the last time scientific theories are contingent, some of them are wrong.

I am attacking scientific naturalism, not science. You are once again conflating science with scientific naturalism Epeeist. I have come to realize that of all the fallacies that sustain the atheistic worldview, the most conspicuous and resilient one is to conflate science with scientific naturalism. No matter how often I point out the distinction between the phenomenal reality that science describes and the objective reality that ontological theories (such as scientific naturalism or idealistic theism) describe, no matter how often I point out the fact that the one scientific theory of quantum mechanics gave rise to many mutually contradictory ontological interpretations of quantum mechanics, no matter how often I even use the popular Matrix movie to illustrate that a scientist working within the Matrix may not be studying the physics or the facts of "real world", no matter how often I repeat that I don't have any problem with science whatsoever and name and quote from books where both naturalist scientists and naturalist philosophers discuss scientific naturalism's many problems and paradoxes while having nothing against science either, no matter how often I point out that quantum mechanics is paradoxical only if one assumes scientific naturalism, no matter my quoting naturalist philosophers such as Bertrand Russell who explicitly warn people not to confuse objective and phenomenal reality, no matter how many different arguments I put on the table - the simple insight that one cannot conflate science and scientific naturalism somehow fails to register. It's like hitting a blind spot.

I suppose without scientific naturalism's connection to science the atheistic worldview is left unsustained by anything, and therefore I imagine the atheistic mind simply refuses to go there. I understand it must be hard. Maybe it would help to consider that there is nothing "scientific" in scientific naturalism, except for the intent to take science's models of phenomena and rather arbitrarily insist that the same models apply to the objective reality that produces these phenomena. And as Quantum Mechanics has made absolutely clear scientific models simply cannot directly be applied to objective reality, and that's why naturalists had to actually invent such ontological models (see the various interpretations of quantum mechanics).

(Anyway, thanks of the link about the accuracy of GR, very interesting.)

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

390. Comment #88637 by epeeist on November 18, 2007 at 5:35 am

Comment #88628 by Dianelos Georgoudis

I have also recommended various books. Perhaps the best one is Nick Herbert's "Quantum Reality".

This is quite a good book, though perhaps a bit dated.

As I have said in a number of posts, given the lack of observational abilities, mathematical and computational capabilities it is hardly surprising that many assumptions have had to go. But this has always been so (see my feeble attempt at humour in post 88312).

What this change in views doesn't mean is that (in hysterical, journalistic 48pt bold type) naturalism is in crisis. It simply means that there are multiple, possibly equivalent, views that for the moment it hasn't been possible to decide between. In fact, given that GR, QM and QFT are incomplete (see my post above) it may take another theory to dispose of some of these different views.

Alternatively, as Steve has said. We may never be able to understand reality. All that this means is that we won't be able to understand reality. It doesn't mean to say that naturalism is at death's door and that we must invite god in instead.

EDIT: How good is your mathematics? If you can cope to any extent with tensors then as a popular book try "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose.

Other Comments by epeeist

391. Comment #88650 by smithyboy on November 18, 2007 at 9:53 am

Dianelos Georgoudis, in your comment 88603 you set out a logical argument summarising your view as to why scientific naturalism is wrong. Does this mean that if it could be shown that that argument is wrong you will give up your criticism? It ought to mean that, but somehow I doubt it. Nevertheless, please commit yourself on this and then I will try to show which of the steps in the argument are incorrect. (Or indeed, given that time has passed and others are likely to have done this already, please admit that the argument you set out is false and agree that your critique of scientific naturalism is false. We can but hope!)

Other Comments by smithyboy

392. Comment #88676 by Lauregon on November 18, 2007 at 1:19 pm

We all agree there is an objective reality out there, in which we all exist, each one of us forming a tiny part. Well that objective reality out there, the whole of it, is not a huge physical mechanism as naturalists think, but rather a very very good person, a conscious being who, as we do, perceives, thinks, wills, loves, creates and enjoys beauty. - Dianelos

There's nothing whatsoever out there that suggests any such thing to me. Hideous things abound in this world, and a "God" who for whatever reason is unable or unwilling to prevent them is either inept or perverse; in either case, not a "very very good person who...loves." A "God" person is a theological construct, necessitated by previous theological constructs before it, one that suits the purposes of authoritarians who firmly believe that humans can only be constrained from evil doings by a Big Cop In The Sky.

Unless and until you can prove otherwise, your efforts here are utterly pointless. As for your claim that you're here simply to understand how atheists think and to hone your arguments, you're not convincing us of that either. You appear to be merely a fast-talking saleman who lacks both interested market and demonstrable product.

Other Comments by Lauregon

393. Comment #88679 by Logicel on November 18, 2007 at 1:33 pm

V wrote: Busy fingers typing need to have other occupations to ameliorate the desire to answer drivelling posts from DG.
____

I would suggest self-masturbation to keep those fingers busy. It is more pleasurable than watching Dianelos masturbate continually discussing his self-centered goo.

Other Comments by Logicel

394. Comment #88688 by steve99 on November 18, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Nevertheless, please commit yourself on this and then I will try to show which of the steps in the argument are incorrect.

My dear fellow; far be it from me to discourage anyone from posting, but you would be treading a well-worn path that many have followed, leading to nothing but Dianelos' attempts at confusion.

Other Comments by steve99

395. Comment #88689 by phasmagigas on November 18, 2007 at 2:24 pm

ive got to the point where the philosophical debates (as little as im able to engage in them anyway) are a major turn off, its something i might engage in if i really feel the need to determine of my soul is in jeopardy but right now thats not the case. The more down to earth topics like evolution beckon (with its relevence to our lives at every step:food, illness, reproduction, behaviour) as soon as the threads start on the ontological bit im finding the left click ever faster.........

Other Comments by phasmagigas

396. Comment #88693 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 18, 2007 at 2:50 pm

Steve99 (post 309 or #88250):

Scientific naturalism implies that there are only simple laws.

That's news to me. I know that Dawkins assumes that's the case, but you don't have to believe anything Dawkins says. Have you ever seen him give any evidence for that claim of his? Lennox in his debate with Dawkins made the point that the laws of science tend to become ever less simple, and Dawkins responded that "simple" has two meanings, namely easy to understand and of low complexity, and that scientific laws are getting simpler in the latter sense. Actually, in the history of modern science physical laws get ever less simple in both senses. (For example, nobody who has studied both classical mechanics and quantum mechanics would ever claim that the latter are less complex than the former.) So the claim that the ultimate laws of physics (if they exist – that's another question) will be simple strikes me as an arbitrary not to mention wildly optimistic guess. (I am speaking about scientific laws because according to scientific naturalism they apply not only to phenomenal but also to objective reality.)

As anyone who has written simulation software (like me) can tell you, the simulator is far more complicated that that which is simulated.

I think you are mistaken (and I too have written simulation software by the way :-) After all you can simulate natural evolution, and surely the result of such a simulation can be much more complex than the software itself. That's the point that Dawkins often and correctly makes: Even though natural evolution is a simple process, the results of this process can be very complex. But there are many other examples too, such as cellular automata, or fractals such as the Mandelbrot set – where a simple simulation produces very complex results.

and have resulted in the development of an ever increasing number of desperately incompatible naturalistic description of reality,

If anything shows how you have no understanding of modern science and its implications and philosophy, this does. There are indeed different descriptions of reality like quantum mechanics. But these different descriptions co-exist for the precise opposite reason to that you give. The descriptions co-exist because they are all compatible.

They are compatible as far as phenomenal reality goes (for they are all mathematically equivalent to quantum mechanics), but they are grossly incompatible as far as objective reality goes. In other words they are grossly incompatible as far as what they claim to describe goes.

If they were 'desperately incompatible', then by definition they could not co-exist.

But it's a fact that the various interpretations of quantum mechanics are incompatible: some claim that physical reality consists of one universe and some that it consists of a huge and furiously growing number of physical universes; some claim that physical reality is deterministic and some that it's not, and so on. I find it remarkable that instead of looking at the plain facts of the matter, you try to steer around the facts using theoretical arguments, such as "if they were incompatible then they wouldn't co-exist". Well they are incompatible and they also co-exist simply because nobody has ever devised an experiment capable of objectively falsifying any one of them.

The majority of atheists are Buddhists. You are trying to use terms to fit what you want again.

Frankly it seems to me that it's you who is playing with words. I don't think that a worldview according to which a great number of gods exists, not to mention affirms the existence of "hungry ghosts" too, can reasonably be called atheistic. And I did not see any Buddhist monks at the AAI 07 conference :-)

But the scientific naturalism is more parsimonious. It does not require an infinite mind.

Neither does idealistic theism.

Physical reality as described scientific naturalism looks like it can be fit by just a few equations.

You mean the ultimate laws of physical reality rather than the description of it. Which laws you hope will in the end fit in a few equations. There is some evidence though that your hope will never be realized, see http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strtst/dirac/hawking/

Here I am with scientific naturalism. It has worked wonders we have used it to explore the universe like no other approach. It has provided increasingly powerful and easy to understand and useful explanations for the world.

Nope, sorry. You are again conflating scientific naturalism with science. Science works at least equally well if one's model of reality is idealistic theism. Indeed science is completely compatible with various versions of theism as evidenced by the fact that recent Nobel laureates in physics are theists. As for scientific naturalism, far from "working wonders", it has in fact offered the world nothing but hard problems (related to consciousness) and paradoxes (related to quantum mechanics). I don't think that anybody would take scientific naturalism seriously anymore if it did not form the intellectual underpinning of popular atheism (including scientists' atheism I might add). But some atheist philosophers are already realizing that scientific naturalism is simply not viable and trying to device naturalistic ontologies beyond the restrictions of scientific naturalism. Which is certainly a step in the right direction.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

397. Comment #88695 by steveroot on November 18, 2007 at 3:16 pm

397. Comment #88693 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 18, 2007 at 2:50 pm

No time to read this entire tome, but I did notice this statement at the end:

"Indeed science is completely compatible with various versions of theism as evidenced by the fact that recent Nobel laureates in physics are theists."

The assumption here is that winners of the Nobel Prize are unable to simultaneously entertain conflicting worldviews. I'll bet this assumption could be shown to be invalid. Maybe a touch of Argumentum ad Verecundiam as well. :-)
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

398. Comment #88699 by phasmagigas on November 18, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Indeed science is completely compatible with various versions of theism as evidenced by the fact that recent Nobel laureates in physics are theists.

indeed science is completely incompatible with various versions of theism as evidenced by the fact that recent Nobel laureates in physics are atheists.

should that not also be equally valid? I have no idea if it is but there you go.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

399. Comment #88701 by phasmagigas on November 18, 2007 at 3:35 pm

As for scientific naturalism, far from "working wonders", it has in fact offered the world nothing but hard problems (related to consciousness) and paradoxes (related to quantum mechanics).

better to have thought and found a problem than to have not thought atall.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

400. Comment #88702 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 18, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Epeeist (post 311 or #88312):

:-) Nice satire, Epeeist.

Just very quickly a serious point. You write:

Einstein shows there is a limit to how fast he can go.

Yes, but he was also almost certainly wrong. According to quantum mechanics massive bodies can travel faster than light, and there is little doubt in my mind which theory has it right. Indeed there is some evidence that light traveling faster than light has already been measured; and I quote: "In particular, Aichmann and Nimtz have recently [1995] transmitted Mozart's 40th Symphony as frequency modulated microwaves through an 11.4 cm length of barrier wave guide at an FTL [faster than light] group velocity of 4.7 c, receiving audibly recognizable music from the microwave photons that survived their barrier passage. The transit time through the barrier was about 81 picoseconds and was observed to be constant for barriers with widths varying from 4.0 cm to 11.4 cm." Amazing, huh? Here's the link: http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw75.html And there is more evidence, here is an overview: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000610/fob7.asp

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis