On 2/17/2012 11:17 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 17, 12:57 pm, John Clark<johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 a Craig Weinberg<whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
if comp is true, no God is needed. It's just an arithmetic machine.
Even if it's not true God is STILL not needed, that is to say the God
hypothesis is of no help whatsoever in understanding anything; it makes no
attempt at explaining HOW God does things nor does it explain how and why
God came to be.
How and why did evolution or physics or statistical laws come to be?
See Lawrence Krause "The Universe from Nothing" and Vic Stenger "The Comprehensible
How is that really different from the God hypothesis?
It makes good predictions. It doesn't come with a lot of medieval baggage: like God wants
you to kill people who won't worship Him.
All it does is kick everything we don't understand upstairs
and say further investigations into these matters are off limits.
And physics does the same by kicking everything downstairs to simple
The difference is we can get to the stuff downstairs and test our stories and use the ones
explanation at all is preferable to a explanation that just makes things
worse and adds a pointless layer of complication. There is no disgrace in
saying in a loud clear voice "I don't know", but counterproductive
pseudo-explanations are a disgrace.
Quantum physics and computationalism may be doing exactly that right
now. Our chasing ever more insubstantial chains of logical causality
may be entirely misguided. At some point it may be necessary to
realize that the universe cannot be understood by relying exclusively
on the knowable,
So we'll rely on understanding the unknowable?
Religion: the daughter of Fear and Hope, explaining to Ignorance the nature of
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at