Comments on: Green’s speech

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 12:04:08 +0000

Hurrah! Etiquette is not dead.

(But who on earth decided in the first place what is internet etiquette? Wasnt it Alex Comfort who redefined chivalry as carrying condoms?)

By: Garry

Garry — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 14:20:50 +0000

The reason I keep mentioning the fact that we agreed that Stephen Green is a fundamentalist (comment 14) is related to good manners in blog commenting. We have both gone massively off-topic in this thread. The original post is about Stephen Green. We have agreed that he is a fundamentalist. Lets leave it there. This off-topic ramble we’ve both been participating in might be considered impolite by many people. We should really stick to discussing the post we are commenting on, in this case it’s about Stephen Green’s fundamentaist views. This is the only subject I will comment on further in this thread.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:03:03 +0000

Of course! That’s why I said ‘generally’. There is another possible explanation: it seems messy to us because of our poverty of understanding.

Do you think we might also agree that the Pope is a Catholic? Or is that too much to hope for? 😮

By: Garry

Garry — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 21:10:19 +0000

Just one of many problems with your latest remark: There is one golden rule which I have found often to apply: When the answer one is coming up with seems messy, one is generally on the wrong track.
Electrons: very messy, almost impossible to understand properly, accepted scientific theory all the same. We already did this one in this thread. You ignored it last time. Generalities don’t prove/disprove anything. And round and round we go again.
Still, Stephen Green is definitely a fundamentalist (comment 14). What do you say we leave it at that? It’s the only thing we’ll ever agree on.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 09:09:43 +0000

Hi Garry-
The main problem of multiple universes is not that we can’t fully explain how they got there. That is a problem which arises no matter which theory we hold. Whatever was there first, we can’t understand how.

The main problem of multiple universes is that they are a much less economical ‘explanation’ than the alternatives. In addition, the theory (as it is often stated) seems to me to require more or less an infinite subdivision of universes every millisecond in every location. Given how incomparably vast the known universe is, this seems to me to fail to answer the question of where the extra energy/matter actually came from.

The universe had some origin or other. At present, there are no unproblematic contenders, So we can do only one thing: go for the least problematic of the available contenders. We don’t arrive at our answer entirely by (positive) reason, but also partly by (negative) procewss of elimination.

There is one golden rule which I have found often to apply: When the answer one is coming up with seems messy, one is generally on the wrong track.

By: Garry

Garry — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 19:42:49 +0000

Hi Doc – I have. Several times. In this thread. This was the last hole you failed to respond to:

And you say the theory of multiple universes also fails to address the question of how they got there in the first place. As opposed to a creator whose existence we can fully explain?

There is no logic, no reasoned argument. You argue that the existence of multiple universes must have an explanation otherwise it is false. You make no attempt to explain the existence of a creator and yet you “reason” that this is true.

I’m bored of this now. There are many more holes you’ve chosen to ignore. Why don’t you read all of the above and see how many flaws there are in your “reasoned” arguments before you add anything else to this thread. It’d save us all a lot of trouble.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 17:37:30 +0000

Hi Tom-
I guess God and the universe are not ‘items’ in the same category as one another. So far as we can tell, the universe as we know it is not the sort of thing that would have powers of creativity, eternity or necessity. This forces us to look beyond it to someone or something that does have these powers or qualities.
When did I speak about an afterlife? I spoke about the nature of time meaning that the present is the sum of the past, and the past can never be erased, but is always indelibly written into the universe. A lot of afterlife-thought is wishful thinking. The fact that something is what ppl wish does not in and of itself make that thing either true or untrue.

Hi Garry-
Hey, if there are holes all you need to do is isolate them, rather than give a general notice of their existence.

By: Garry

Garry — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:16:28 +0000

Doc, given the entire conversation in this thread, your last comment has amused me more than any of the others! If you could provide one “reason” which wasn’t full of holes, which wasn’t based on a presupposition, on a default position, I’d consider taking your arguments seriously. As is, I’m afraid it’s all getting rather tedious.
Only trust a person who never knows in advance what they are going to conclude.
Indeed. I predict that every “reasoned” conclusion you suggest is supportive of Christianity.
We are still agreed that Stephen Green is a fundamentalist though (comment 14).

By: tom p

tom p — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 09:56:44 +0000

But you weren’t deducing anything from reason.
Even if there is a creator (and you still, consistently, refuse to answer what created the creator – all you’re doing is shifting the question back a level, then saying that this answer is a must and a given. A bit like Bertrand Russell’s ‘the universe is and that’s it’, but substituting the universe for god), that doesn’t necessarily mean that there is an afterlife. It’s purely assumption that there must be one. And, of course, the concept of an afterlife also fails Occam’s Ravor (since you invoked it).
All we know is that before the big bang we know nothing and (presently) can know nothing. To say that you know there must have been a god is false. Plain and simple. It’s a lie (although because there’s sufficient people who have bought it, the rest of us are generally polite to your sort and call it a belief, although, of course, you can’t spell belief without lie).

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 09:16:59 +0000

Dress up the hocus pocus? I scarcely mentioned Christianity from beginning to end. I was just seeing how much of a worldview one can deduce from reason alone. We’re all stuck together in this world, & therefore need to work out, and refine, whatever seems the best possible default theory about what’s actually going on.

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who have presuppositions and those who have tentative/provisional conclusions, pending further discoveries/info/evidence. The former assume and the latter argue. One should never listen to the former camp, albeit there are penty of Christians (and of humanists, and of relativists, and of atheists, and of most other things) among them.

Only trust a person who never knows in advance what they are going to conclude.

Of course, it is never this straightforward, because one’s tentative conclusions then become one’s tentative presuppositions. But at least we should be people who are aware of the fact that our presuppositions may not be watertight rather than people (and there are many of them) who take their presuppositions for granted.