Comments by epeeist

2051. The Pagan Christ

Comment #106481 by epeeist on January 3, 2008 at 2:58 am

Comment #106433 by albondigas

I'm not exactly sure what would satisfy your requirements of an 'independently verifiable text' but I think that 66 books written by many different authors over a period of hundreds of years with a common thread running from beginning to end should be something that would be of interest.

There is a thing called the "Coherence theory of truth", here one looks for a "maximal consistent subset" (MCS) of a particular set of beliefs.

Unfortunately, there is almost certainly more than one MCS which raises the question as to how you choose a particular "warranted" MCS.

And as Russell points out, it is fairly easy to have a consistent fairy tale.

2052. Monkey, Business

Comment #106439 by epeeist on January 3, 2008 at 12:34 am

Comment #106120 by al-rawandi

You are the one who is deluded. The left is monolithic on the issue...

wealthy=bad
profit=bad
capitalism=bad
compensation for innovation=bad

all poor people=good
govt. pays for everything=good

To be blunt about it, this is total bollocks from someone who seems to have had little exposure to a left of centre society (and no, China and the Soviet Union don't count. They were totalitarian dictatorships).

I am with Rtambree on this. I prefer a society where the economy is the servant of the people rather than the other way around.

2053. Monkey, Business

Comment #106437 by epeeist on January 3, 2008 at 12:19 am

Comment #106120 by al-rawandi

Since you insist on treating me like an infant. Do away with the Patent?

Possibly not, but certainly better control of them is necessary.

In the IT industry we have had patents on dragging your mouse across the screen or having two windows on the screen at once. We have Microsoft claiming to have patents on technology used in the Linux kernel, but refusing to reveal on what in particular, purely to stop people considering adopting it. We have Amazon patenting "One Click Ordering", a simple business process. There are companies which produce nothing but buy patents purely to litigate against other companies.

And don't get me started on copyright and what the likes of the RIAA and MPAA are doing.

The original aim of patents and copyrights in the States was "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." (my emphasis). What is being done now flouts the spirit of that aim.

2054. Monkey, Business

Comment #106079 by epeeist on January 2, 2008 at 10:36 am

Comment #106073 by al-rawandi

Woh! The Daily Mail was:
a) around in the 30's
b) supported the Nazis?

That is pretty sick. I didn't know all the background on this stuff.

The Wikipedia article is reasonably accurate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail.

Going back to one of your previous posts - one of the things the DM hates with a vengeance is the BBC (as do the Murdoch publications).

If you are going to base your views on the UK on the press then I would probably use the Independent as the best source, the Guardian is good if left wing and the Telegraph is good (now that Conrad Black has gone) if right wing. Steve Zara and I have our differences on the Times which I personally think has gone down market.

I have described it as the "Sun with bigger words and no tits", but I must admit with my tongue in my cheek.

2055. Monkey, Business

Comment #106050 by epeeist on January 2, 2008 at 9:55 am

Comment #106042 by al-rawandi

Granted I read the story on the DailyMail. That is rather tabloidy.

I think you just lost the argument.

The DM is one of the two most hideous papers in the UK, I think it was irate_atheist who said it best, that he wouldn't allow his cat to crap on it in case it caught something.

The paper has had the mission of providing a daily hate for the petit bourgeoisie ever since Lord Northcliffe's time.

2056. Monkey, Business

Comment #106013 by epeeist on January 2, 2008 at 9:23 am

Comment #105998 by al-rawandi

They spend a lot of that money on research for new drugs.

Not compared with the amount they spend on marketing.

Have a look at some of the efforts to stop countries with significant HIV problems manufacturing cheap anti-retrovirals.

I have problems with any viewpoint that allows a particular bloc to gain power, this includes the state capitalists of the Soviet Union and China (not socialist and definitely not communist), the oligarchs that currently seem to have upper hand in Russia and America or the authoritarian bureaucracy that we currently have in the UK.

2057. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105898 by epeeist on January 2, 2008 at 4:55 am

Comment #105890 by BAEOZ

What exactly is your avatar? It looks like a pissed off goat wearing some court jester's robes.

I'll change it back shortly. I only put it up for Christmas because of some of the Scrooge-like comments that were being posted.

It is of course a sheep (baah) surrounding a lot of mint humbugs :-D

2058. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105887 by epeeist on January 2, 2008 at 4:34 am

Comment #105879 by wooter

Okay today in my class I mentioned evolution theory and asked the kids whether you believe it or not. Nobody bought the story that life came from a pond, amino acids-proteins

Why don't you try them with quantum mechanics or plate tectonics? I am sure they will dismiss these as incredible as well.

You commit two logical errors - argument from incredulity and argument from improper authority.

Second, if evolution is just a story which I proved on this web page already, then, a creation points out a creator.

You haven't "proved" anything, you have just spouted a lot of nonsense. The "creation demands a creator" is another logical error, that of false dichotomy.

Other logical errors - assume that there is a creator this does not mean the creator is god, which means that you are guilty of equivocation.

And of course - who created your creator?

You haven't answered my question - what is your primary language. Another question I would like answered - what qualifications do you have that permit you to teach primary school children science?

2059. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105884 by epeeist on January 2, 2008 at 4:23 am

Comment #105876 by wooter

Okay let's test the evolution again? Please answer the questions simply applying to our logic?

1. How did the medieval soup come out in the beginning?

As has been explained to you before, this has got nothing to do with evolution.

2. How do you explain fruit flies found in fossils that have remained as fruit flies for millions of years or arthropoda, sponges, and sea crabs found in fossils from rock formations formed 500 million years ago?

3. Scientists found bees and honey from millions of years ago. The bee produced honey and the honeycomb in the same way as it does today. How do you explain this?

4. In spite of having many varieties, bacteria have not evolved into anything different and higher though they adapt very quickly;

Perhaps because they fit their environment pretty well? This is what Darwin's theory is all about.

5. How do you explain the evolution of the horse from a small dog like mammal with five toes to the big horse with one toe or hoof. In fact, the evolutionists have no evidence for that claim. Nowhere in the world have they found a series of fossils to demonstrate such an evolutionary order. It is entirely hypothetical, delusional.

You have to remember what proportion of remains is actually fossilised, it is very small. However, we now have DNA evidence for descent. I am not sufficient of a biologist to answer this in detail, I will leave it to someone with more knowledge than I to fill in the gaps.

I find it interesting that you link the two words "hypothetical" and "delusional" together. Even given the fact that English isn't your first language you betray your standpoint with this sentence.

7. Evolutionists claimed that the coelacanth, a fish that lived 400 million years ago, as a link between the fish and the land animals because of its limb like fins. It was hypothesized that the coelacanth went up the land for food, staying there longer and longer until—about 70 million years ago—it disappeared from the fossil record. Truth has got bad habit; it comes out sooner or later. Local fishermen caught several dozen coelacanths off the coast of Madagascar in 1938. The fish were exactly like their ancestors, perfectly adapted to their deep sea environment and showing no signs of evolution. The coelacanth has been quietly dropped by many text books from the list of evidences of evolution, because it became the symbol of the non evolution of organisms, rather than of their evolution. How do you explain this?

They were wrong about the extinction of the coelecanth. Newton was wrong about gravity, Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics. All it shows is that people get things wrong.

8. Please let us know how embryo develops in womb?

Go read a medical text book. Your education is your responsibility as has been pointed out to you before.

9. How does Kasparov's body move, act, dream (while his eyes are closed) while robots (deep blue) move by power?

This sentence is nonsense, you are trying to correlate two totally different scenarios.

10. The Earth is tilted at an angle of twenty-three degrees. This gives us our seasons through revolving around the sun as well , and at the same time, spinning around itself to give us days and nights? How do you explain this?

Nothing to do with evolution. Go ready an astronomy or geology textbook. We are not here to educate you.

11. The sun, the source of all life, has a surface temperature of 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our Earth is just far enough away so that this "eternal fire" warms us just enough and not too much. How do you explain this?

It might do now, it didn't in the past and it won't in the future. It isn't eternal either, it wasn't there at the start of the universe and it won't be there at the end.

2060. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105847 by epeeist on January 2, 2008 at 12:47 am

Comment #105757 by Diacanu

I'm hard pressed to think of a single human on the planet I trust with a choice that big.

I am sure our theist friends will be along to say that it is an offence against god and we shouldn't even think about doing it anyway, so you are safe for the moment ;-)

Of course this could change if it could be shown you could select for faith...

2061. A War On Science

Comment #105587 by epeeist on January 1, 2008 at 5:44 am

Comment #105437 by room101

It may be simply my own lack of research, but I haven't heard much of Dembski's so-called model. Has anyone else in this forum heard of it? I had followed the Dover case pretty closely, read Hume's "Monkey Girl" book, etc., but this is the first time his model got mentioned that I'm aware of.

Have you seen the article on the Panda's Thumb site - http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/04/desperately-eva.html

2062. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #105584 by epeeist on January 1, 2008 at 5:35 am

Comment #105581 by Steve Zara

OK, so we have, in recent days, mention of Ron Paul, LOLspeak, and we have 911 conspiracy theories. All we need now is a something about either Britney Spears or Paris Hilton. These are the stories any self-respecting public site simply must have these days.

Absolutely - in fact I think I am going to drop out of this site and look for others on girl bands, celebrity Big Brother and football.

I think the first one I might try and raise some queries about is why there is so much tension between Everton and Liverpool or Celtic and Rangers.

I might also change my points of view on other things as well, for example agreeing with the Cardinal in today's Daily Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4UT1WT0E0AWGTQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2008/01/01/nchurch101.xml
(worth a comment Steve, though you might need to go to the DT News page directly)

2063. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105575 by epeeist on January 1, 2008 at 4:42 am

Comment #105528 by Adam Morrison

I was especially disgusted by the priest who thought it was acceptable to lie on television. Nice to see that some Roman Catholic clerics haven't lost the old touch.

If you thought that was bad then try Fr Renzo di Lorenzo on http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/12/bp-morlino-still-stepping-up-to-the-plate/

2064. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #105567 by epeeist on January 1, 2008 at 3:53 am

What else have people bought from Borders or elsewhere that they can recommend?

This site has re-awakened my interest in a number of areas. As a result of which I bought and can recommend.

Informal Logic by Douglas Walton

Philosophy of Logics by Susan Haack

Beginning Logic by Edward Lemmon (For people new to logic this is tougher than Introduction to Logic by Copi and Cohen)

I had read The Elegant Universe but some of Steve Zara's comments lead me to buy The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene

I also bought The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose. My mathematics is no longer up to the requirements of the book forcing me to skim read it places. Obviously personal and contentious in places but still an interesting read

Spinoza - a Guide for the Perplexed by Charles Jarrett. I am not sure whether this is the best introduction to Spinoza, I would welcome any other recommendations

I have obviously bought other things, but many of them are still on boxes after our house move. And of course not everything I bought has been associated with this site, for example I have Troubleshooting Tips for your Aga by Amy Willcock sitting in front of me, together with Understanding Fencing by Zbigniew Czajkowski.

Anyone else care to add to a good booklist?

2065. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105560 by epeeist on January 1, 2008 at 2:05 am

Comment #105559 by wooter

If you ignore all the facts in the scientific quatations,along with the scientists' conclusions I have no further comment for you.

I can match you quotation for quotation without any problem at all. To do so would be to commit the same logical fallacy that you do, namely argumentum ad verecundiam, the appeal to authority.

Science is not based on who has the best quotations. It is based on which hypotheses explain the most and have passed critical experiments designed to falsify them. Darwin's theory of evolution has been subjected to many critical tests in its 140 year history, it has passed them all.

I suppose the "mediaval soup" is true to a certain extent, in that I was actually taught logic starting from the idea of the Trivium, hence the reason I tend to use the Latin names for the logical fallacies.

2066. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105552 by epeeist on January 1, 2008 at 12:58 am

Wooter - I gave you a very simple explanation of the theory of evolution. All you did in return was to quotemine a few web pages and paste them in to an unintelligible set of posts.

In none of these do you present anything that looks like a logical argument, just the ramblings of a creationist without a clue.

Personally I have allowed you a fair amount of leeway because your primary language isn't English. However statements like

There is no way that process of the amino acids turning into, proteins cannot be started by themselves. I refer you to the quotations above. You will find the answers there. I fell funny when I repeat the answer: Causes and reasons cannot be creator because they are created. Creations cannot be superior to their creator.

are simply assertions with no evidence. The fact that you have included a few out of context quotations doesn't effect this.

2067. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105442 by epeeist on December 31, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Why is it when I hear the name "de Sousa" (British Spelling) I think of bad, loud music mostly created with a lot of (hot) air?

2068. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105385 by epeeist on December 31, 2007 at 11:58 am

Comment #105378 by dysolution

Brian, _J_, Dr. Benway, and anyone else who contributed to that Catholic blog comment thread:

Like _J_ I didn't quite get there in time. As you say, what a singularly nasty piece of work Fr Renzo di Lorenzo was. Can you imagine as your confessor?

I don't know about wine and crackers (in a wafer?), personally I would go for a good shower and then a single malt after having to deal with such a person.

And since it is that time of year Sláinte mhath!

2069. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105342 by epeeist on December 31, 2007 at 9:47 am

Comment #105291 by Wadsworth

What Prof Dick Joyce may have been looking for is a mathematically defined probability for God's existence. This has already been tried using Bayesian Theorem,-by a certain Stephen Unwin I believe.

It is also what a certain Alvin Platinga does. He comes to a much higher estimate, but his values for the a posteriori probabilities is somewhat debatable.

2070. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #105253 by epeeist on December 31, 2007 at 2:20 am

omment #105032 by Artifactorfiction

...then I read that the Vatican have denied the story

Well you have to look where the original story came from. The DM is hardly known for its accurate or unbiased reporting.

2071. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #105249 by epeeist on December 31, 2007 at 1:59 am

Comment #105224 by krisking

Surely part of what religion does is to think about whether it is right to accept changes as morally acceptable, e.g. euthanasia Science has no automatic moral underpinning. It merely says....we can (or cannot) do this or that.

I can't imagine why science should have a view on euthanasia, it is an ethical problem. The question is, should you try and force such questions into a framework fixed two millennia ago or does it need to be discussed in a more contemporary setting. If you choose the latter then I fail to see why a religious basis is necessarily "better" than a non-religious one.

Of course you could have chosen a less contentious issue, say stem cell research. Here there are medical ethics committees in place (certainly in the UK) that examine any proposed experiments.

2072. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105245 by epeeist on December 31, 2007 at 1:48 am

Comment #105242 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 31, 2007 at 1:35 am

Oh, and if anyone is going to hassle Dr Benway, they are going to have to go through me first. Women, being the weaker sex, need defending. And in spite of our weak wrists and tendency to shriek, we gay men are perfectly capable of doing that.

Wait. Are you saying Doctor Benway is a girl?

You were obviously away at the same time as she had her hysterectomy. I did try to raise a conspiracy theory around it, but nobody was biting.

And after Steve Zara's comments about getting words right I am disappointed with his weak wrists, surely it should be limp wrists.

2073. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105243 by epeeist on December 31, 2007 at 1:43 am

Comment #105229 by wooter

I asked them many times to write the evolution in a very simple and logical way

OK - this is as simple (and simplistic) as possible:

Organisms (viruses, bacteria, wombats, humans) need to replicate, i.e they reproduce, either asexually or sexually

Replication isn't perfect, some variations or mutations may randomly occur during the process

These mutations may make the organism less fit to survive in its environment, alternatively it may make it more fit or have no effect at all. Mutations that cause the organism to be more fit to survive in their environment are more likely to contribute offspring to the next generation, while individuals with lesser fitness are more likely to die early or fail to reproduce. This is obviously a non-random process.

I hope that is all you wanted. I am sure there must be something in your own language, but you have not said what this is.

2074. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #105239 by epeeist on December 31, 2007 at 1:29 am

Comment #105016 by TonyA

Why can't one Giant Phallus be behind all miracles?

There are a number of people who might not be able to cope with this - http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39100

2075. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #105109 by epeeist on December 30, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Comment #105016 by TonyA

... the Church gives credence to very few such claims.

They shouldn't give credence to any such claims.

Sorry to come at this indirectly.

It is a long time since I was a Catholic, but what is involved in the process of beatification and canonisation? Don't these involve the demonstration of some miracle purportedly by the person to be canonised?

2076. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104977 by epeeist on December 30, 2007 at 8:35 am

Comment #104670 by Steve Zara

I think you may be reading too much into this particular example. Almost no developer I know, of any level of skill, knows much about information theory. It is simply not appropriate for what most developers do.

I agree that for the majority of people involved in IT something like Information Theory isn't necessary. However, isn't it the mark of someone who is well educated that they actually are aware of things outside the requirements of their daily life?

Having discussed religion (and a variety of other topics) both with people on this site and elsewhere it fills me with despair that large numbers of them don't seem to realise that there is rather more to life than getting up, going to work, coming home, watching TV and going to bed (I know this is a caricature, but I think most people will see where I mean).

2077. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104974 by epeeist on December 30, 2007 at 8:21 am

Comment #104972 by Matt7895

I very much like and respect Lord Harries, but I disagree with his views that atheists ultimately get their morals through Christian heritage. That really doesn't explain how people living in Kuwait or Thailand can be moral, unless you go on to say all religions pass on moral teachings. Which is patently false.

If I can get my daily vitamin C from guavas, brussel sprouts, pineapples or broccoli then apart from personal preference and what happens to be in the shop at the time is there any reason to choose between them?

2078. The Pagan Christ

Comment #104295 by epeeist on December 28, 2007 at 9:36 am

Comment #104222 by al-rawandi

What is interesting (and convenient for the religious) is that you can't disprove something that has no evidence for its existence.

Exactly that - the common logical example is that "there are no black swans", all it takes is one black swan to disprove the hypothesis.

In the same way we can advance the hypothesis that "the class of personal gods is empty". All the theists need to do is provide a single counter example to predictions you can make from the hypothesis (e.g. a global flood never happened, the earth was not created in 7 days 6000 years ago). They have never managed to do this, hence the reason that we can assign a low probability to the existence of personal gods.

2079. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104290 by epeeist on December 28, 2007 at 9:27 am

Comment #104281 by BJohn

Because if it were not true (i.e. if everything came from something else) then there would be an infinite regress of causality, which is irrational. I think this is a better representation of the argument for "the uncaused cause."
I think the premise, then, would be something like this:
1. There are causes
2. An infinite regress of causality is not possible
CONCL: There must be an uncaused cause

Actually the infinite regression is simpler. If you want to stop the regression at some point then you are going to have to do better than asserting it is "not possible" or "irrational". You are going to have to give good reason to say that the regression stops at a particular point.

Otherwise it is just as easy to say that your uncaused caused stops at the start of the universe or at a meta-god as at a god. The former is of course the most parsimonious.

2080. The Pagan Christ

Comment #104193 by epeeist on December 28, 2007 at 4:29 am

Comment #104179 by krisking

Jesus's reply to this when challenged by the religious authorities of his day was clear..

No, this is at best the reported reply. Given it was written down a minimum of decades after the death of the purported Jesus by a member of his sect who wasn't there at the time then its accuracy is doubtful.

Comment #104190 by krisking

Show me your 100% guaranteed proof that God does not exist.

Nobody is capable of doing that, all that one can do is show that the probability of the existence of a personal god is extremely low.

I am happy to be corrected but I suspect that all the atheists here take the position that the non-existence of gods that interfere in the universe is a good working hypothesis until someone can produce empirical evidence otherwise. The claim of absolute truth seems to be something that religionists do rather than atheists.

2081. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104131 by epeeist on December 28, 2007 at 12:50 am

Comment #104080 by Billy Coconut

And when the laws of gravity were definitely proven is irrelevant to the point I was making, namely, that these laws work not because they are simple, but because they are true.

Like Steve Zara I too learnt Newtons mechanics and theory of gravity when I was about 17, I re-learnt it in Hamilton's formulation when I did my first degree and in a Lagrangian formulation when I did my Ph.D. The mathematics isn't particularly difficult.

Of course Newton's theory of gravity isn't true, it is a reasonable approximation but it doesn't explain things like the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury and it is only half-right when it comes to the deflection of light by a gravitational field.

You betray your lack of understanding of science by use of the word "Law" and the claim of truth of a scientific theory.

2082. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104128 by epeeist on December 28, 2007 at 12:40 am

Comment #104060 by Billy Coconut

The only thing I set out to do on this thread was to prove there is no incompatibility between science and religion - an easy thing to prove as all I needed to do to prove it is to name the great many people who have been quite religious and been great and competent scientists at the same time.

All you have done is show that some scientists were religious, extending your argument to say that this shows that there is no incompatibility between religion and science is invalid, you can't simply generalise from a few samples. I could equally well quote http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html and claim a definite incompatibility.

Incidentally, another claim that I could make using two thirds of the sample of scientists that you give is that there is no incompatibility between alchemy or astrology and religion.

2083. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104003 by epeeist on December 27, 2007 at 2:02 pm

That of course is one reason why the Darwinian Hypothesis is not an altogether scientific one. Read Charles Pierce, Ludwig Wittgenstein and the pre-war Karl Popper, on that issue.

Of course you would only want to quote Popper pre-war. You wouldn't want anyone to read this quotation

"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. ...

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological."
(Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind, Dialectica 32:339-355, 1978)

Or this one

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science.

This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."
(Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980)

2084. Survey finds most Americans believe Jesus born of virgin

Comment #103914 by epeeist on December 27, 2007 at 10:07 am

Comment #103898 by robotaholic

the real story here is the american public's lack of education because the better educated are generally less religious- here is a great wiki article about it-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

I would have thought this really needed a multi-variate analysis, surely it should take in things like demographics, education type and availability, parental educational achievement and income etc.

2085. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103879 by epeeist on December 27, 2007 at 7:21 am

Comment #103871 by al-rawandi

epeeist,

I just asked him the same thing (see my post 2 above yours). It doesn't help anything to posit a divine being, it obfuscates the issue.

Fairy Nuff.

It tends to irritate me when people say "very logically" when they can't tell the difference between a premiss and predicate.

2086. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103867 by epeeist on December 27, 2007 at 6:46 am

Comment #103858 by BJohn

Since spontaneous generation of itself is impossible for the universe there must be something pre-extant to the universe to generate it

You're sure of this? If you are sure then there must be some reasoning behind it, could you show this.

Thus the existence of the universe very logically indicates the existence of a being capable of creating it--a "Supreme Being". Surely this is not a "proof" in every sense of the word, but it is certainly some evidence for his existence.

If it is "very logically", it is extremely poor logic. It is a mixture of bifurcation (also known as false dilemma) and petitio principii (also known as begging the question).

If the universe was created then it does not necessarily follow that it was a "supreme being" that created it, a very powerful and knowledgeable being or beings is just as possible. Personally I posit that it was actually created by our descendants in order that they would have a nice neighbourhood to live in.

And your questionable conclusion is drawn from an equally questionable premiss, that because the universe exists it needed someone to create it. If you want to follow that route then the obvious next question is "who created that being?"

2087. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #103159 by epeeist on December 24, 2007 at 11:26 am

Comment #103144 by dsouzaphile

I understand that you have a PhD in science not astronomy, so you are either unaware of these things or you purposefully cloud your own mind (and therefore your poor unsuspecting students minds) to further knowledge because of the fear of where that will lead your life.

Your master taught you well young apprentice. The sneer in a written submission is masterly.

Could you reveal your qualifications since we obviously lack your erudition in this area, my own poor Ph.D. was only in quantum mechanics, I never managed quantum field theory or cosmology (though I did do a bit on the composition of meteorites using polarimetry and the presence of organic materials in molecular clouds using microwave spectroscopy).

2088. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #103135 by epeeist on December 24, 2007 at 10:58 am

Comment #103127 by csarven

My reference to GITs is not red herring and I think you should see Alan Turing's work if you think they "are really only applicable in the philosophy of mathematics."

I used to live in the same village as Alan Turing, which prompted me to look at his work. I would still contend that Gödel's theorems and the Turing halting problem is not really relevant to methodological naturalism.

You did however brought up an excellent point because it illustrates what I've mentioned earlier: "It would be incompatible to take the rules from system A and apply on system B." that; how can science rightfully refute religion or a religious doctrine evade scientific findings absolutely?

You are claiming a complete disjunction between the methods used within religion and science. This is fine so long as your particular god doesn't interfere in the universe. However, if he starts to meddle then this no longer holds, his interference should be detectable using the techniques of methodological naturalism.

I would also contend that while the making of hypotheses by individuals may be subjective the methods of science and criticism put together over the centuries effectively eliminate the subjectivity and conflict of interest.

2089. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #103009 by epeeist on December 24, 2007 at 7:18 am

Comment #102316 by csarven

An axiom is not proved.

Science is not axiomatic, unlike mathematics and other formal systems.

Science is hypothetico-deductive generating contingent hypotheses which are subject to critical experiments. If the critical experiments falsify the hypotheses then they are discarded. Hypotheses that are not falsified by a significant number of attain the state of theories. These are not considered to be true but are accepted as contingently valid in that they can be falsified at any time in the future.

Your reference to Gödel is therefore a red herring in that his incompleteness theorems are really only applicable in the philosophy of mathematics.

2090. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102945 by epeeist on December 24, 2007 at 2:49 am

Comment #102704 by _J_

I went to see a stage production of The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, recently.

You have to read the later books, in the same "allegorical" mode in which the books were meant to be read.

This essentially castigates anyone who is a) Non-Aslan in faith and b) Non-white in colour.

Lewis backtracks in the last book, but it is a bit half-hearted.

2091. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #102934 by epeeist on December 24, 2007 at 2:18 am

Comment #102857 by SurfDude

N-n-n-n-n-n-nineteen.
More mystical straw-clutching clap-trap.

Nineteen years just happens to be an element of the Metonic cycle, where 19 solar years is almost exactly equal to 235 lunar months. It forms the basis of the Jewish calendar (and a whole stack of other mythological calendars).

Of course it isn't perfect, which rather bollixes the crap numerology in Mansa Musa's post, but that is hardly surprising.

Has anyone read Spencer's "The Faerie Queene" (meant to be twenty four books on 12 private virtues and 12 public virtues, each written in 12 cantos, each stanza having nine lines, the first 8 having 10 syllables and the last twelve, all lines being iambic and each stanza having the rhyme scheme b a b b c b c c [c]) or Dante's "Divine Comedy" (three canticas, each containing 33 cantos, with an initial canto to make 100 cantos overall, each line having 11 syllables and the lines arranged in groups of three, there being three parts to the journey - hell, purgatory and heaven, and the reference to the trinity is of course one not to be missed).

These are two that I am aware of, there are probably a whole stack more. As is usual, the claim comes from someone who hasn't looked at anything more than one book.

Incidentally - do people know what the ratio of books translated into Arabic in a year compared to say, Spanish?

Next stop - the great pyramids and their dimensions.

2092. Taking children for a ride

Comment #102925 by epeeist on December 24, 2007 at 12:45 am

Comment #102845 by Rtambree

Let them built a monument to their idiocy if they want to (provided it's not taxpayer supported). I can't see it being commercially viable in England and it'll be a nice focus to everyone sharpening their comedy skills.

If Disney (another evil organisation) doesn't consider a theme park viable in the UK then what hope of these people got? Plus the fact that they would be competing against Alton Towers if they put it in the NW of England.

Nevertheless, something to keep a watching brief on, especially if they try to set it up as a charity.

2093. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102755 by epeeist on December 23, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Comment #102721 by _J_

Wow, a meta-flea. This one perches on McGrath's title, leaning over to sink its little teeth into Dawkins.

To quote that great theist Jonathon Swift:

So, naturalists observe, a flea
Has smaller fleas that on him prey;
And these have smaller still to bite 'em;
And so proceed ad infinitum.

2094. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #102589 by epeeist on December 23, 2007 at 9:17 am

Comment #102581 by Mansa musa

what book do you know has the same amount of opposite words like with man/woman and say/they said? this can't possibly be a coincidence. it couldn't possibly be the works of a man. no human being can put togethor something that perfect.

None of the numbers you quote are perfect, so your book can't be either. Neither does it contain any of the pairs 55/34, 89/55 etc., so it can't be golden. It doesn't include the numbers 11,13,14,16,21 and 44 so it can't be lucky.

All of these arguments are about as good as yours.

2095. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102548 by epeeist on December 23, 2007 at 7:49 am

Comment #102535 by dsouzaphile

duckhead, and dye-a-canoe? thats funny, i wasn't talking to college kids with their heads in their behinds. i guess thats what you get though. hmmm.

I believe this is what we doctors know as an "ad hominem" attack. No attempt to answer the question. The only assumption can be you can't provide an answer.

2096. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #102545 by epeeist on December 23, 2007 at 7:39 am

Just as a matter of interest. I was buying some CDs yesterday (Music from the court of Richard the Lionheart) and I came across a cantata that I didn't know.

It was "The Epic of Gilgamesh" by Bohuslav Martinu (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000631B0/ciaouk-music-21/ref=nosim)
Not sure whether this counts as non-religious or not, but it definitely doesn't have anything to do with Christmas.

2097. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #102486 by epeeist on December 23, 2007 at 2:18 am

I can't find an MP3, but these are the lyrics of the carol produced by Tom Lehrer which reflects the current spirit of Christmas:

Christmas time is here, by golly,
Disapproval would be folly,
Deck the halls with hunks of holly,
Fill the cup and don't say "when."
Kill the turkeys, ducks and chickens,
Mix the punch, drag out the Dickens,
Even though the prospect sickens,
Brother, here we go again.

On Christmas Day you can't get sore,
Your fellow man you must adore,
There's time to rob him all the more
The other three hundred and sixty-four.

Relations, sparing no expense'll
Send some useless old utensil,
Or a matching pen and pencil.
"Just the thing I need! How nice!"
It doesn't matter how sincere it
Is, nor how heartfelt the spirit,
Sentiment will not endear it,
What's important is the price.

Hark the Herald Tribune sings,
Advertising wondrous things.
God rest ye merry, merchants,
May you make the Yuletide pay.
Angels we have heard on high
Tell us to go out and buy!

So let the raucous sleigh bells jingle,
Hail our dear old friend Kris Kringle,
Driving his reindeer across the sky.
Don't stand underneath when they fly by.