201. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95795 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 8:14 am

We don't believe that Julius Caesar was a god because he never gave any reason for us to besides claiming that he was

Yes, he did. The senate declared him a God. That means that number of contemporaries thought there was reason enough to deify him. We know this from reputable historical documents. There are no contemporary documents describing Jesus' status.

Of course, I don't believe either is a God. All I am saying is that if you are going to in any way base your belief on historical reports, you should go for Julius above Jesus.

202. The art of the soluble

Comment #95780 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 7:37 am

You can't keep a good man (argument) down!

It is only used as an argument by those who don't (or won't) understand that a supernatural mind is an infinitely more complex thing than a finely tuned big bang. There could be many explanations for such fine tuning (assuming that it needs explaining). An infinite supermind that also happens to be a nice chap is a very silly non-explanation.

203. The art of the soluble

Comment #95778 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 7:33 am

I must say I confess to being a bit baffled at how all of you can so conidently review (aka write off) the review of a book without haing read the book that is being reviewed!

It is kind of like this. Suppose someone was writing a review of a book on ancient Egyptian architecture, and the review started as follows....

"Given that the pyramids were too large and complex to have been built by humans...."

See?

204. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95772 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 7:27 am

I place Singer in the same boat as those Islamic leaders who brainwash suicide bombers.

Woah! I think it might be an idea to rephrase that.

205. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95757 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 6:22 am

thats more likely than 1, of course, but to be tedious (again), i still think number 3 is most probable. jesus, his brother, his mum, his dad (both) and his 12 playmates are works of fiction.

Well, I think Jesus probably did exist, and was simply a convenient person to retrospectively use as 'the messiah' for political reasons.

My point was to illustrate that there is a possible non-supernatural explanation even if you assume that there were really reports of resurrection, and people really did believe that they saw the risen Christ, there is still an explanation that is vastly more plausible than 'he rose from the dead'.

In fact, even 'Jesus was cloned by invisible aliens from Alpha Centaurii' is vastly more plausible than 'he rose from the dead'.

206. The art of the soluble

Comment #95746 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 5:13 am

Who is Colin Tudge? He can't possibly be a scientist can he?

I am afraid so. Hard to believe, but he was trained as a biologist, and has been writing science books all his life. I can't see this review helping with that career.

207. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95745 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 5:11 am

B. 'Post-mortem appearances': as 'supposed events' these are of the same order as the resurrection itself and don't provide evidence for it. You might say there is some evidence that people believed they saw him after his death, but then we must ask how good that evidence is and what it might mean.

There is another possibility that I have never seen mentioned. Jesus had a twin brother.

I am not suggesting this seriously, as I think the whole resurrection business is a myth, but to anyone who seriously believes in the resurrection, I think it is reasonable to ask which of the following is more likely:

1. Laws of physics, biology and chemistry were broken, and Jesus was brought back to life.

or

2. He had a twin brother who took over his role.

Number 2 may seem unlikely, but nothing like as unlikely as 1.

208. The art of the soluble

Comment #95743 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 5:05 am

Is this not the most breathtakingly inane comment?

I would say it not just that - it is an astonishingly ignorant comment. We don't just assume some finely-tailored algorithm can produce complexity - we see it all the time in nature, and not just in living systems. The writer seems to want us to believe that life is a special case; too complex to have arisen from the laws of physics and chemistry. That is shameful for someone who is supposed to be a science writer.

209. The art of the soluble

Comment #95742 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 4:56 am

This is such utter crap. Atheism is about refusing to take seriously the proposition that there could be more to the universe than meets the eye unless someone produces some evidence.

Well, I am perfectly open to there being more to the universe than meets the eye, just that I am just rather suspicious when someone claims to not know what that 'more' is, but that they speak to it.

210. The art of the soluble

Comment #95726 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 3:51 am

They are in balance with one another, keeping each other in check

Sorry... are they? Does the charge on the proton somehow influence the strength of gravity?

211. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95722 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 3:32 am

Actually, there's a theory within string theory that gravitons fluctuate between universes, and this would account for gravity being such a relatively weak force, because it's distributed across the multiverse. Thus, gravitons could theoretically be used (assuming they could be harnessed) as a messenger particle between dimensions.

Interesting. Yes, I had forgotten about that.

212. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #95720 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 3:28 am

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Ah, but which Lord? There are so many! The Lord of the Anglicans? The Lord of the Catholics? The Lord of Pat Robertson? The Lord of the Eastern Orthodox?

So which do you fear? All of them?

213. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95509 by steve99 on December 8, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Since becoming an atheist, I've become acutely conscious of our cats

I reduced my meat eating for two reasons. (1) The worrying amounts of antibiotics pumped into farm animals in the UK. (2) Since I moved to a more rural setting about 8 years ago, I had a lot more contact with farm animals during walks with my dog. That really did it for me - I could no longer eat cows or sheep or pigs. I almost always stick to fish and vegetables these days, although I will very occasionally eat poultry.

Brian: Even eating those that consent is medically dodgy. This can spread diseases. Prions can apparently survive quite a bit of cooking!

214. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95493 by steve99 on December 8, 2007 at 12:47 pm

I believe it is sometimes better to be interesting than right

I want to be right! I argue politely but fiercely to push a point because I want that point to be challenged. On another thread, I have been debating with Bonzai. Recently, I realised that, as a result of that debate, I had made a big mistake. That was exciting. That is why discussion is fun. If anyone here thinks I am posting nonsense, please correct me, by private message if you don't want to post on site. I welcome it.

215. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95438 by steve99 on December 8, 2007 at 10:43 am

Logicel:

Forgive me. I had no intention of seeming boring to anyone. I guess I am somewhat self-indulgent in that I love debate, and I find psychology fascinating, even though I am no expert. I am using discussion to explore the boundaries of compartmentalisation that seems to go on in the religious when they face what seems to me to be unassailable logic.

As for 'workshipping politeness', I just can't agree - you need only read some of my posts to Dianelos in the past to realise I can get flat out rude when someone is being an idiot after having

But I just can't see any argument against being polite and showing considerable patience. Being rude and insulting may provide a feeling of instant satisfaction, but I am not sure what it is supposed to achieve other than polarize opinion even further.

But I guess that is just me.

Regarding the forums... perhaps that is a good idea, especially if the conversation has wandered off topic.

Anyway, I am sorry.

216. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95401 by steve99 on December 8, 2007 at 9:28 am

Northern Bright:

There is an interesting theory that human brains require certain fats that are present in seafood for full development, which is highly suggestive of an aquatic, or at least seaside phase in our ancestry. Of course, with our current knowledge of nutrition, vegetarians need not suffer from this deficiency.

217. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95382 by steve99 on December 8, 2007 at 8:17 am

yet another thread of comments muddied up with ADH and Steve. Boring!

If the consensus is that it is boring, then I am happy to stop. However, I thought that one of the purposes of the site should be to engage with people of different views. Even if we don't change their minds, surely it is an educational experience for both sides, and is a positive message about the nature of this site.

ADH is not a nutter - he represents mainstream Christian opinion. And as for uninvited, where does it say "atheists only" regarding membership here?

We could resort to a mutual admiration group; nothing more than patting each other on the back and praising each other for how rational and sane we are regarding religion. But that surely be behaving in precisely the way we have been stereotyped as behaving, wouldn't it? And wouldn't it be just a bit dull?

218. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95375 by steve99 on December 8, 2007 at 7:33 am

Diacanu:

Well said!

The idea that we need to imagine the existence of a God in order to be good and moral is worryingly condescending. It degrades people.

219. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95356 by steve99 on December 8, 2007 at 5:59 am

Steve, I suggest that your own moral decency (of which I do not have the slightest doubt) has a lot more to do with the moral foundations put in place in the UK as a result of a Christian world view. I know that you will object to this suggestion, but it is what I believe to be the case.

This does nothing to address my argument. There are moral foundations in societies as a result of secular world views that are just as good. There is nothing at all special about Christianity in this respect.

In fact, you are supporting my point of view that faith is irrelevant. If there are moral foundations already in society, it achieves nothing other than the promotion of irrationality.

However, I disagree that the moral foundations are as a result of a Christian world view, and I have evidence to back this up. Our current society in the UK has a morality of tolerance and support for gay people that has been achieved by battling against Christian world views. Being gay myself, I find this "founded on Christian principles" idea just a little bit cheeky :)

Obviously there is a moral concensus on many issues, as a result of which morally decent Christians and morally decent non Christians end up taking the same decisions.

Precisely. Which is my whole point. This clearly shows that faith in a Christian God is irrelevant.

When Christians talk about guidance they are not talking about the moral intuitions that we have in common.

Then what are they talking about?

Scientists have shown that we are here by blind chance: no meaning no purpose

This is clearly wrong. Evolution does not work by blind chance, especially not when there are animals with brains involved in selecting each other, and not having an externally imposed meaning or purpose does not mean that there is no meaning or purpose.

That is where "guidance" comes in.

Clearly not, at there is not the slightest sign that people who don't search for that guidance from a spiritual source are any less moral.

I could go one giving other examples from fiction and real life. But that will do for the time being.

I am after more than examples, I am interested in answers to questions of general principle.

Self-interest is a very powerful driving force, as any student of "the Selfish Gene" will be aware.

You have completely misunderstood Dawkins. He was talking about whether there is meaning or purpose in the universe as a whole, not within us. We create our own meaning and purpose. And one of the main themes of the selfish gene was how we aren't selfish - how we overcome the drives of the genes. Have you actually read the book?

This imperative however cannot be derived from natural selection.

No-one I know is claiming it should be. But what I do claim is that attempting to derive it from millenia-old supposedly magic books full of contradictions is even more crazy.

I am sure Diacanu will come with a far pithier response to you on this :)

220. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95346 by steve99 on December 8, 2007 at 4:16 am

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Although a quote from the great Carl Sagan, I have always thought this was a little glib. In fact, I think it is wrong. It think it supports wishful thinking.

As we theists keep saying, it is not only empirical evidence that makes a belief plausible.

That is not the case I am putting at all. I am talking about inconsistency of evidence.

You claim that you get ethical guidance from your god, but others claim they get ethical guidance from their god, and yet others claim they don't need guidance from a god to be ethical. Assuming you do behave ethically, and combining that with the fact that people in other religions, and atheists, mostly behave ethically, then I suggest that leaves the following possibilities:

1. Most people behave ethically, anyway. The influence of God one way or the other has little effect. He might as well not exist.

or

2. There really is a Christian God, and he really does provide guidance to only Christians. The implications of this are a bit troubling, as it would suggest Christians are more in need of moral guidance than average.

or

3. God provides guidance to everyone, whether they believe in him or not.

So either Christians are naturally less moral than everyone else, or it does not matter if you have faith or not.

So I guess this leaves a loophole... you can call Christian faith reasonable if Christians are typically more immoral.

221. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95343 by steve99 on December 8, 2007 at 3:54 am

For that reason I am not going to try to dig out evidence that I feel would convince you. It probably wouldn't, because it hasn't when I have tried.

I am also interested in the evidence that convinces you. How do you experience this guidance?

Nor does your absence of evidence, from your point of view, do anything to undermine the plausibility and reasonableness of my faith. (the words plausibility and reasonableness are important, so don't come back at me with Thors, Fling Spaghetti Monsters, orbitting teapots or pink unicorns!)

I will come back with those, because the absence of evidence should, if you are a reasoning man, do at least something to undermine your view of the plausibility and reasonableness of your faith.

You are obviously free to keep saying "I have faith", but you aren't free to call your faith "plausible or reasonable" when it fails the test of logical consistency. All of us have inconsistency and at least some irrationality as part of our make-up. It is natural. But what is so wrong with religion is that it attempts to exploit and praise this inconsistency. We fail often enough as it is without people claiming that the inconsistent beliefs of faith are 'reasonable' or 'plausible. That is an attempt to hijack language.

222. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95339 by steve99 on December 8, 2007 at 3:27 am

Sorry Downunder, how can you expect me as a Christian to leave God out of it when I am asked what life is? It's like asking Dawkins to define human nature without referring to DNA!

We have hard evidence for DNA... I recently saw a website that showed how you could extract it from vegetables in your kitchen!

For me life is all about discovering and enjoying nature and art, celebrating them with other people, under the guidance of the Creator

In that case, you need to provide some evidence as to such guidance. It has to be unquestionable evidence, otherwise you will need further guidance as to how to follow the guidance, if you see what I mean.

You see, I don't believe that guidance exists, and I believe the following statement is proof:

it is about enjoying my work and doing it to the best of my ability with the aim of bettering the lives of the people I work for and with

Atheists, and those who believe in other gods, do precisely the same.

You could just about get away with believing in guidance from other Gods (it could be yours in disguise), but the fact that those who don't believe in gods also follow you admirable strategy shows that we can be decent with no divine guidance at all.

223. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95328 by steve99 on December 8, 2007 at 2:32 am

In that case, God save us from rationalists! The hypothetical (potential??) root of much evil.

Oh come on now. This is just silly!

224. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95327 by steve99 on December 8, 2007 at 2:29 am

Dawkins' and Singer's arguments require one to believe that there is, ontologically and morally, no difference between taking the life of a fellow sentient creature and taking the life of another human being.

Depends what you mean by sentient. A human is more sentient than a turkey, which is more sentient than a carrot.

Therefore canabalism, and killing a human being to satisfy whatever physical, territorial, surval or supremacy need, is actually no more abhorrent than sitting down to a turkey dinner.

No, because of the difference in sentience.

At the most, it is wrong because protectiveness towards and empathy with members of our own species is somehow wired into us, and therefore it seems unfitting to fly in the face of that.

That is far too simple. We are more protective towards close relatives than others because of kin selection. But there tend to be limits to what we allow ourselves to do to others, but those change due to other influences - we can interact with others and change our minds. For example, in the past few centuries most of us have realised that all races are equally human.

It is a combination of wiring and culture; nature and nurture. We see changes in ethical standards in all cultures, no matter which God-given book they believe in, assuming they believe in any.

225. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95323 by steve99 on December 8, 2007 at 2:17 am

For systems merely in thermo equilibrium

You are focussing on the wrong thing altogether, I think.. We aren't dealing with anything like thermodynamic equilibrium. Universes don't exchange energy.

Ok, suppose you have a random variable, say a. If a is restricted to a finite interval, then "equally likely" means a uniform distribution and the probability density is just 1/length of interval.

OK, I am beginning to see what you are getting at. The likely situation is some limited range of the values of the constant, such as that provided by the so-called String Theory Landscape. That does not have an infinite number of possible values.

226. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95227 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 4:01 pm

Well then you're appealing to authority. I think there is a certain confusion among cosmologists on these matters and there is really no solid arguments. When an area of science is infested with philosophical speculations it is a sure sign that people are confused.

Again, as I said earlier, I don't consider appealing to authority to be a problem in areas of science. I also don't believe that there aren't arguments with at least some substance, if not actual solidity.

How do you make measurements across the multiverse?

We may be able to see in a few years, if we discover the influence of gravity waves on the cosmic microwave background. This may allow us to see the influence of ranges of the physical constants over an inflationary multiverse. We may (although it is unlikely) be able to detect the influence of multiverses in new particle accelerators.

On a more basic level, the purpose of statistical mechanics is to compute averages, it is not to explain the detail dynamics of individual molecules,for that you need quantum mechanics. In the present situation you are trying to argue that some kind of statistical mechanics across the multiverse is an explanation for the actual values of the parameters we observe,--as statistical fluctuations. That is cheating.

No, it isn't. All that is happening right now is attempts to build models of the ensemble of universes, extrapolating from known properties of particle physics. I am not trying to argue any explanation for the actual values of the parameters we observe than the simple statement that if our values are within a possible range of values, and sufficient numbers of universes exist, then it is understandable that our universe exists. This does not imply that our universe is within a particularly probable range of values of parameters, or a particularly improbable range of values. It only had to occur once.

This is not even my main objection, the main objection is your argument is circular because you assume things are random and then "prove" that the data is merely random fluctuation

No-one is trying to "prove" that the data is merely random. For all we know, the data may indeed be a special case. All that is happening is that we are feeding reasonable first approximations in multiverse models. At the moment all that is attempting to be shown is that the data is even possible using current models!

Moreover, total disorder doesn't imply uniform distribution. Even in equilibrium statistical mechanics (total disorder) there are other distributions besides the uniform.

Total disorder implies uniform distribution for large enough sample sets with no constraints unless you justify imposing some kind of bias to the distribution.

If you have some problem with this, then it is up to you to come up with a justification for that bias. Do you have some justification for, say, a Gaussian bias for the cosmological constant?

Only if you have a fairly concrete range of options to choose from where you can compare their parsimony on a meaningful scale. It is not the situation here, and in fact it often isn't.

Firstly, even if you don't have the range of options, parsimony is still clearly the best approach, even if only for reasons of practicality. Secondly, it is the situation here. We have models for how the values of the constants may arise, such as the String Theory landscape.

227. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95208 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 3:11 pm

But the Hawking-Hartle model's assumptions have still yet to be proven. And they need to be proven before you can shift the burden onto the multi-universe skeptic.

Not really. All current universe-origin models (at least those I know of) not only allow for more than one "big bang", but imply others.

And "it happened just this once" is a constraint. It needs to be justified, and you need to come up with a "just this one" model.

228. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95202 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Sorry Steve, maybe I just haven't really understood your question then. I'll have to come back to you about it tomorrow. Bear with me.

I will always bear with anyone who is prepared to debate politely and honestly :)

229. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95198 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 2:48 pm

The burden of proof however still remains on those making that case that such a multi-verse exists. That's my point.

Not really. Given the nature of quantum mechanics, there would have to be some kind of constraint to allow a fluctuation to happen only once. Unless you can describe such a constraint, the burden of proof is on you to prove the uniqueness of our universe, I would say.

230. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95196 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 2:44 pm

But none of this is the case of course.

But yet again, you have not answered my question. There is plenty of evidence that Julius Caesar existed, and that huge numbers of his contemporaries considered him to be a God. So why don't you believe it? Why are you struggling through proof, evidence, and controversy to claim the same for Jesus, when it is unquestioned (at the time) for Julius?

231. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95194 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 2:39 pm

I don't think multi-verse + a probability distribution out of the hat is an honest way to do that.

Many of the most respected physics and cosmologists would disagree.

In physics you don't normally assume apiori that something happens randomly and then embed it in some kind of imaginary ensemble which even in principle cannot be realized (so unlike in statistical mechanics) and then "explain" the data as only statistical fluctuations. This is a circular argument and it would be rejected in any branch of physics except for cosmology.

Why are you saying that this ensemble cannot be realised?

If you put all the weight of your explanation on probability, you'd better have a very good theoretical reason to assume whatever distribution you need to pull off your argument.

I am not sure I said I was putting all the weight of any explanation on anything. But it is far simpler, as I keep saying, to assume the situation which seems natural for physical states, which is entropy, combined with no additional parameters.

If you are going to claim a state before the origin of the universe which is not totally disordered, you need a good justification for that.

If you are going to start to talk about biased probability above disorder, you are implying a framework with parameters you need to justify.

it may be a useful way to think about things when you have a very concrete situation where there is a range of fairly specific models to consider, but it cannot be invoked as a scientific principle.

Yes, it can. In all areas of science we have investigated, parsimony has proved to be a profoundly useful principle for starting investigation.

232. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95189 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 2:29 pm

it doesn't offer particular reason to assume that they exist either.

Yes, it does, as that initiation of the Hawking-Hartle model was a quantum fluctuation in some timeless substrate. There is not constraint to prevent some other similar fluctuation.

233. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95180 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 2:13 pm

Do you mean if a body that could be shown to have been his showed up? No I would not believe he was God if that happened. That hould be decisive proof that he wasn't. But I'm not holding my breath! I suggest you don't either

I am certainly not expecting the discovery of a body with unknown burial site, and no mechanism we know could prove such a body as Jesus unless we had his dental records, or a sample of the DNA of a close relative.

But why are you mentioning this as a mechanism for rejection? I could come back to you, and claim that Thor is a god, and I will not believe he is not god unless you show me his dead body, and prove it!

Rational people don't wait for evidence to disprove claims of the supernatural. This is completely the wrong way around. You should be demanding evidence before you believe.

Otherwise, you could be fooled by anyone!

Believers in the early church worshipped Him because they believed him to be God.

The same was surely true of many of the Romans.

But you STILL have not answered my question. As the contemporary evidence for Julius Caesar being a God is vastly more than for Jesus, why don't you also believe Julius Caesar was a God?

They did not believe he was God because other people were worshipping him.

Of course they did, and there is historical proof of this. If they spontaneously believed in Jesus as God, then this should have happened at the same time all over the world. It didn't. Therefore, belief was clearly spread by culture.

234. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95178 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 2:05 pm

The term "uniqueness" only applies after you've assumed the existence of a container and a variability of constants.

But to assume otherwise is to add additional constraints.

You seem to be saying that the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate that there does not exist other "universes" outside of knowable existence, and that without proof we must assume that other universes exist.

I can't answer it. I just disagree.

But, you see, the 'container' of the universe that you have invoked (such as the framework that Hawking uses) automatically implies other universes. If you invoke the Hawking-Hartle model of a quantum fluctuation of spacetime, then you have to accept the possibility of countless other fluctuations.

As I have suggested, assuming just one Universe is a form of solipsism. A solipsist says "I am the only, the unique mind - everything else is imaginary, and illusion". A Universe Solipsist claims "This is the only, the unique universe - no other can have ever existed".

It is also hugely premature to know that we can't test for the presence of other universes.

235. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95172 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 1:50 pm

That is not one of the proofs of his deity.

If that is not one of the proofs of his deity, why are you even discussing it? What is the point?

You see, what I am after is why you actually believe he is a deity.

I and am afraid that your defense of history here would seem to me to be part of that.

If it where ever shown that that there was almost no evidence of the historical Jesus, would you still believe he was a deity?

You see, my point is that the only reason why you believe he was a deity is how you were raised. If you were raised in ancient Rome, you would have believed that Julius Caesar was a deity.

So how do you know which is true?

236. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95164 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 1:28 pm

It's not me that needs to specially justify myself. If you are postulating that all of known existence is just a "universe" in a cosmos full of other universes outside of our own, then it's you that has a need to justify yourself.

No, I don't. If you look at Hawking's self-contained universe model, he based it on the idea of a quantum fluctuation. At no time did he claim this could have been the only quantum fluctuation.

You could be right, but the burden of proof is on you, not me.

No. Uniqueness is the special case. The view that this is the only universe is something like solipsism. There is a big difference between believing that the universe we are in could only have been this way, and that this is the only universe that is this way.

237. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95156 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Many of these people are coming to faith in Jesus Christ without the intervention of Western missionaries.

And you may be surprised by the number coming to belief in Buddha in the Western world without the intervention of Eastern missionaries.

You are going to have to face the fact that you believe what you do not through reason or truth, but because it was what you where introduced to as a child.

238. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95152 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 1:08 pm

Steve, this quote, the words of a Christian hymn already being sung in Christian communities BEFORE Paul wrote this letter, shows unequivocally that Jesus was being worshipped as God in the 40s and 50s AD

ADH: Plenty of people where worshipped as gods at that time. However, you STILL have not answered my question.

words of a Christian hymn already being sung in Christian communities BEFORE Paul wrote this letter

Far more songs were sung in praise of the god Julius Caesar in the few years after his life.

The contemporary documentation for Julius Caesar being a God is FAR more reliable than that for Jesus.

So why do you believe what you do?

239. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95149 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 12:57 pm

It's the lack of evidence for the existence of other possible physical constants that I'm speaking about. We don't know weather or not the universe had other options.

Absolutely! Which why I am so puzzled as to why you claim that if there were such options, they should have a constrained distribution of parameters.

Unique is not an apt word.

I think it is.

Why is it not philosophically reasonable to postulate that this is an unbounded and self-contained universe, as is theorized by Stephen Hawking.

I agree. But where did Hawking write that this was the only unbounded and self-contained universe?

I wouldn't assume that there couldn't be more, but let's not assume that there is a basis to say that there probably is more either.

There is certainly a basis to say that there is probably more than one. Parsimony. If you say there is only one, you are applying a constraint that you have to justify.

240. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95143 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 12:38 pm

ADH:

You STILL have not answered my question. You can trace things through carefully researched historical documents in an attempt to prove things about Jesus, but the evidence that Julius Caesar was deified, and worshipped as a god is vast - FAR more than that for Jesus.

So why do you believe the 'Jesus' story, as against the 'Julius' story?

241. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95141 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 12:32 pm

And you are assuming that there are, or could possibly be, other universes without any evidence to support that claim. Based on parsimony, without evidence to the contrary, we should just assume there are no other universes.

No. Almost all physical models we now have that attempt to explain the origin of our universe point to our universe not being unique... the same circumstances, quantum fluctuations, or whatever, are not limited to just one occurrence.

It would be very odd indeed to think that the Big Bang banged only once, and these were the only set of dimensions in which matter was created, and in which life appeared.

Even if the physical constants we have in our universe are the only possible ones, it is not philosophically or scientifically reasonable to consider us unique.

242. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95133 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Creating a non-uniform probability model is justified by what we know about the universe.

No, it isn't. You can't assume any distribution from a sample of one. Therefore, when attempting to investigate this area, one assumes, based on parsimony, the distribution with fewest parameters.

I wouldn't claim much confidence in this guess, but it's at least as justified a place to start and arguably a much better place to start than to assume that all possibilities are equal.

No, it isn't, as you are pre-loading any model of things with your assumption that our universe is one of the more likely ones. You have no justification for assuming that.

The simple fact is, we don't yet know what the probabilities are because we can't reliably test them, and until we can, you're not going to produce scientifically valid findings from a model based on such probabilities (e.g. the finely tuned universe model).

Sorry, but this sounds very confused to me. Firstly, I am not sure what 'a finely tuned universe model means'. 'Finely tuned' is a description of a sample, not of a model. For example, a model that suggests a wide range of possible values of the physical constants occur is not fine tuned, yet the universe we find ourselves in may well appear so.

243. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95114 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 11:23 am

This is not even a model, by pulling a probability distribution out of the hat it is just a device to invoke randomness so that you can "explain the problem away" by burying things under the rug.

Quite the contrary. This distribution is not pulled "out of the hat" ... total entropy seems to be the most natural state of things.

The randomness assumption by necessity cannot explain any particular sample. Statistical hypothesis testing is a way to infer about the distribution, not the sample But in this case we are asking questions precisely about the "sample".

I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I am not talking about statistical hypothesis testing. I am talking how one starts to begin to postulate physical models that might, at some point, be able to produce statistical models.

244. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95110 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 11:11 am

I heard Rice has become a born again Catholic and has repented for writing those unholy books. In the future she will only write about Jesus.

Oh dear. Only read a couple of books. Somewhat discouraged now!

245. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95108 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 11:07 am

Exactly, You assume any convenient distribution as a first step only if the purpose is to learn something about the "true" distribution.

No, I disagree. In developing physical and mathematical models, you always start with the fewest parameters.

A way to think about this case is to assume that the entropy of the physical system of the (potential) multiverse is at its greatest level. If you impose a non-random distribution on the values of the physical parameters then you are either implying that there is some additional order, or that there are other constraints forcing that distribution.

Also, Dr Benway is right. If you are going to assume a convenient distribution, you have to say why you are assuming that distribution. If you assume non-uniformity, you are imposing additional structure, and that has to be justified.

246. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95094 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 10:43 am

Steve, good question.

I'll come back to Paul later. The thing is, you haven't really answered my question. There is vastly more contemporary 'evidence' that Julius Caesar was a god than Jesus was. So why don't you believe it?

Anne Rice has written a lovely novel where she brings Jesus' childhood to life, and in fact dramatises this sibling tension. I recommend it

I am a fan of Anne Rice - could you name the book?

Bonzai:

I fully agree with your position on the existence of Jesus.

247. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95071 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 9:41 am

Steve, therein in act lies the challenge that Jesus indircetly issued to Caesar, as Paul later points out in Romans. "You think you are the Son of God. You are not - I am!".

You are missing the point of my post. The statements about the activities, and divinity, of the Roman emperors was contemporary. This is a non-contemporary report from Paul.

I think as a general principle, we take contemporary reports over those written decades or centuries later.

(If this sounds like I am being deliberately provocative here, I hope you don't mind. I think that this is the way ideas should be tested)

248. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95066 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 9:34 am

Roger Penrose has estimated probability parameters based on the assumption that all states are equally likely. It's a fine hypothetical exercise to engage in, but he does not assert that his initial assumption is correct.

Of course he does not assert that. But it is the right hypothetical starting point.

How do you jump from: "we don't know" to "we don't know, we can't say anything" !?!?

Because when Dr Benway and I attempted to say something - start with the assumption all possibilities are equally likely, you said that all we can say is "we don't know".

but doing so is not a claim to knowledge, it's simply the first step in the process to test the parameters and assumptions.

Yes, absolutely.

Stating that: "When we don't know the constraints on a value, we assume all possible values are equally likely" is not only a gross generalization, it's especially silly when the very question that we seek an answer to IS weather or not all possible values are equally likely.

It's not silly at all. It is science. As you say above, it is the first step in the process. We are not making a truth claim; simply saying that this is the best place to start.

I really don't think we disagree about that much. We both are sure that "fine tuning" is hopeless as a justification for any supernatural activity. My disagreement is with what I understand to be your attitude of "we don't know what the probabilities are, so for all we know the probability of the constants being what they are could be very high". I think this verges on a "begging the question" fallacy, as the probability of the constants being what they are being high assumes yet more parameters than just the constants themselves - additional constraints.

Incidentally - thanks for this discussion... I am enjoying it. this is a topic I am very interested in.

249. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95053 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 8:56 am

USA_Limey makes a good point. There is evidence that Roman Emperors were historical figures. Many were proclaimed to be Gods. The senate deified Julius Caesar, and Augustus styled himself "Son of a God". The difference between them and Jesus is that we know this from contemporary writings. So, if you are going to believe that someone was a God because of words in old books, surely it would make more sense to believe that of the Roman Emperors? This is a serious question.

250. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95042 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 8:13 am

In science when 'we' don't know, 'we' conclude: "we don't know".

No, that is not true. If we wish to investigate new areas, perhaps where information is sparse, we take the case with the least parameters.

Just to give an example, I used to work in simulation modelling of liquids. When we started work in a new area that no-one had dealt with before we did not throw our hands in the air and say "we don't know", and assume that any approach whatsoever was as good as any other. We started with the simplest possible models, with the fewest parameters, and only tweaked things as results and evidence came in. The fact is that if we want to start to think about why the constants of the universe have their values, we should not think "we don't know, we can't say anything". If we want to make progress; to start to explore possibilities, then we have to make some assumptions. The situation with fewest assumptions is the best place to start, and it is "there are few if any constraints on the physical constants: their values are not fixed". This may be completely wrong, but experience has shown that it is a good place to start.