Re: Believing ...
John M wrote: > Well, Brent, this was a post that requires multiple replies (marked JM) > and a longer reflection (with my apologies). > * > "...individuals within that "belief system" will have a variety of > views. Some will have some views in conflict with the belief system." > JM: right. Some are converted to Islam as well. > * > "...they may simply stop thinking about it and rely on faith ..." > JM: my late brother in law did not 'dare' to die because he - catholic > and an excellent natural scientist - lived in sin (had a 2nd marriage) > and was afraid of Hell. > In my wordset an atheist requires a god to deny and agnosticism may be > an irrelevant mindset 'who cares'. > * > About my 'opinion' "Big Bang": I wrote it several times, in varied > detail, that Hubble was a genius thinking of the redshift as an optical > equivalent to Dopler, marking an expanding universe, but it was not > scrutinized before the scientific establishment took it for granted. > Lookiong for 'other' explanations was seen as heretic and unscientific. > Since 1922(Hubble) - 3 generations of scientists were brainwashed into > that, (including you and me) and literally millions of experiments were > carried out for *proving* it > only. You are very much misinformed. There have been plenty of alternative explanations put forth - dust absorption and re-emission, "tired" light, variable speed of light. And they all failed one empirical test or another. So it is your opinion that is unsupported - not the Doppler shift explanation of the Hubble constant. > If a result was 'not good' it was rejected (alternate > (oppositional) opinion of mine landed a quip in a friendly discussion > (1997) without any further word from an MIT cosmologist: "HOAX"). Professionals sometimes get testy in dealing with cranks. > > As I said: I owe myself the distinctions of the extenf of > a 'belief system'. One may be a western natural scientist and have an > unusual 'belief' imbedded in it, what does not make one so 'obtuse'. The > applied math is so reassuring. The fact that the regression counted > backwards linearly and it was detected that the 'moves' in cosmology go > nonlinearly (call it chaotic?) (e.g. many body interactions) - but more > importantly: that the physical connotation was recognising in the vastly > different (concentrated into a miniaturized?) universe quite similar > 'laws' to our present (expanded?) world, leading to hard to swallow > paradoxes - is a basis for my disbelief. Then marvellous ideas were > invented (assumed?) to solve the controversial math: inflation in the > first place, and others, what makes me call the cosmological Big Bang > view a scientific narrative. However: mathematically/theoretically > proven. Even new theories added and adjusted. > The starting point still remains: did the spectra shift to a lower > frequency by receding lightsources, or (guessably) by passing > magnetic/electric/or else(??) fields that slow down the > (observable/registrable) 'frequency' in our model of light? Doesn't work: EM fields are light - they don't slow light down as is easily observed in the laboratory. >Or by some > effects yet to be discovered, not fitting into our conventional > (historic) model of the 'physical wiorld'? Well you could suppose God did it - that's yet to be discovered. It's easy to claim a scientific theory may be overturned by something yet to be discovered; that's the essence of science. But it's hardly a reason to libel scientists for maintaining a theory that has passed all the tests they've been able to think of. > I consider Hubble of similar importance to the DeCusa-Copernicus duo in > their establishing (changing?) a geocentric physical worldview into a > heliocentric - for the coming generations - it was also temporary and > later on gave place to a wider informatics. > That's all, not any denigration for people with a more conventional > 'scientific' basis. I even value the practical > results of reductionist scientists (I am one of them). > Trying to step out from the quantized reductionist model-view and its > (beyond model) conclusions makes me a scientific agnostic and renders my > 'talk' vague. I feel we are not there (yet) But being "not there yet" doesn't imply that we need to reconsider the flat-earth theory or keep an open mind about the sin theory of disease. Newton's theory of gravity was wrong in the sense that it gives the wrong bending of light and wrong advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But Einstein's theory didn't disprove Newton's, it just showed it to be an approximation. And we already know Einstein's theory is wrong; it's inconsistent with quantum mechanics. But that doesn't mean we should reconsider the theory that the Earth sucks. Of course the Big Bang isn't the last word; but the next word is still going to include the Big Bang >and I try a different path > from the UD or comp etc. ways,
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute
Mark Peaty wrote: > No Brent, what I AM saying is that they are GONE! Well and truly > gorrnn! But they lasted a lot longer than we have. > > We could get side tracked into all sorts of discussions about how each > of the civilisations you named, waxed and waned more than once in the > face of environmental changes and the inherent instability of feudal > societies, but I haven't got the time [fascinating though it would be :-]. > > My point is that, with all due respect to the late Douglas Adams, and I > suppose to whoever it was who wrote the book of Daniel in the > Judaeo-Xian Bible, the TRUE > "Writing on the Wall" AKA God's last message to humankind, is five short > words in plain-English: > > * Shape up or die out! > > What I say is if we really want to 'shape up' and survive, then > compassion, democracy, ethics and scientific method are four essential > ingredients without which our modern world will go the way of all those > other civilisations your mentioned. It will go the way of those other civilizations anyway because: a) it's dependent on energy from cheap oil and b) all civilizations rise and fall, none last forever. Brent Meeker Nations and empires flourish and decay, By turns command, and in their turns obey. --- Publius Ovidius Naso --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor wrote: > On Feb 26, 4:33 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the >>> Creator is a person that we can get to know (not totally, but in a >>> process of growth just like any relationship), so that we aren't just >>> cranking out IF/THEN inferences like a machine, but the Holy Spirit >>> (analogous to All Soul in Bruno/Plotinus term) affirms with our spirit >>> that a certain response or initiative in the current situation is in >>> accord with the Creator's personal character. Thus, there is only so >>> much convincing that one can do in a forum like this. The rest >>> requires actually being shown God's love in a tangible way by another >>> person. Then it is still up to each of us to decide how we respond. >> OK, but if we skip the question of how we know that God wants us to act in a >> particular (moral) way, as well as the question of why we should listen to >> him, we still have the Euthyphro dilemma, as raised by >> Brent:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma >> ... >> >>> I insist that I am not going down the ontological argument path. If >>> you want to categorize my argument from meaning, perhaps it is closest >>> to Kant's argument from morality. In a scientific system, perhaps >>> this is branded as "wishful thinking", but I am also insisting that >>> science's basis (anything's basis actually), such as fundamentality, >>> generality, beauty, "introspection" is also mystical wishful thinking, >>> and naturality is circular, and reproducibility is circular in that >>> its pragmatism begs the question of meaning (IF you want to do this, >>> THEN reproducible experiments have shown that you "should" do such and >>> such). >> But you're seeking to break out of this circularity by introducing God, who >> doesn't need a creator, designer, source of meaning or morality, containing >> these qualities in himself necessarily rather than contingently. If you're >> happy to say that God breaks the circularity, why include this extra layer >> of complication instead of stopping at the universe? >> >> Stathis Papaioannou > > Because the universe doesn't break the circularity (and a plenitude of > universes doesn't either for that matter). > > By the way, I'm not using the moral argument as a proof of the > existence of God in the sense of a conclusion inside a closed system > of logic. I'm arguing that the personal God of love is the only > possible truly sufficient source for real morality and ultimate > meaning. A source that has given us the crusades and 9/11 as well as the sister's of mercy. No a very sufficient source if nobody can agree on what it provides. Brent Meeker "Happiness is none the less true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting." --- Bertrand Russell --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Mar 1, 5:26 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/1/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But you're seeking to break out of this circularity by introducing God, > > who > > > doesn't need a creator, designer, source of meaning or morality, > > containing > > > these qualities in himself necessarily rather than contingently. If > > you're > > > happy to say that God breaks the circularity, why include this extra > > layer > > > of complication instead of stopping at the universe? > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > Because the universe doesn't break the circularity (and a plenitude of > > universes doesn't either for that matter). > > Actually, the plenitude does break the circularity, trumping even God. God > could create or destroy his own separate physical universe but the infinite > and infinitely nested universes of the plenitude, at least matching God's > work, would exist regardless. If you don't agree with this statement at > which point do you think the analogue of our present universe in the > plenitude would fall short of its real counterpart: would stars and planets > develop? Life? Zombie humans? Conscious humans but lacking a soul (and if > you could explain what that would mean)? > God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness and bringing order. He basically would be in charge of the evolution of the countless histories of the universes. But this seems superfluous to what is needed for meaning for us in this universe. Thus why bother with multiverses? You haven't shown how multiverses give meaning. > > By the way, I'm not using the moral argument as a proof of the > > existence of God in the sense of a conclusion inside a closed system > > of logic. I'm arguing that the personal God of love is the only > > possible truly sufficient source for real morality and ultimate > > meaning. And if multiverses truly don't give us that, then to heck > > with multiverses. I think I've made my point. > > Well, I think from what you've said you would have to agree that if you can > find a way to prove that ultimate morality and meaning exist, you would also > prove that God exists. Is there a way of proving that these entities exist, > independent of a separate proof of God's existence? > Not proof in the sense of logic in a closed system of course. How can you *prove* something ultimate from something non-ultimate? But as I have said before, I am arguing *from* the fact that meaning and morality are evident to us (my posts on "seeing" and consciousness), and that you can't have meaning without ultimate meaning of the same nature as the meaning. > > Lastly, on Euthyphro, look at the last reference at the end of the > > Wikipedia article on the Euthyphro dilemma, especially the last > > section on "whim". The circular logic of Euthyphro is a problem only > > with self-referencing terms in a closed system of logic. This is the > > problem with the assumption of the uniformity of natural causes in a > > closed system. God's love transcends all closed systems. > > That reference seems to suggest that there is an extra-God criterion for > morality, because as God is all-loving, "God's arbitrary commands can't be > arbitrary in the sense of being based on whim, but must instead concern > behaviour that is in the overall best interests of those involved". > You can't put God's love in a box. Remember that I'm not pushing through to a proof of God's existence. You seem to be assuming that I am. I'm talking about what is evident to us, and the multiverse can't explain. > > > through the dark dry barren sky > > pierced a warm red wet rain > > can you not see this next new life spring flowing from him > > -- "Song of Longinus" > > Who wrote that? > > Stathis Papaioannou I did. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Believing ...
Well, Brent, this was a post that requires multiple replies (marked JM) and a longer reflection (with my apologies). * "...individuals within that "belief system" will have a variety of views. Some will have some views in conflict with the belief system." JM: right. Some are converted to Islam as well. * "...they may simply stop thinking about it and rely on faith ..." JM: my late brother in law did not 'dare' to die because he - catholic and an excellent natural scientist - lived in sin (had a 2nd marriage) and was afraid of Hell. In my wordset an atheist requires a god to deny and agnosticism may be an irrelevant mindset 'who cares'. * About my 'opinion' "Big Bang": I wrote it several times, in varied detail, that Hubble was a genius thinking of the redshift as an optical equivalent to Dopler, marking an expanding universe, but it was not scrutinized before the scientific establishment took it for granted. Lookiong for 'other' explanations was seen as heretic and unscientific. Since 1922(Hubble) - 3 generations of scientists were brainwashed into that, (including you and me) and literally millions of experiments were carried out for *proving* it only. If a result was 'not good' it was rejected (alternate (oppositional) opinion of mine landed a quip in a friendly discussion (1997) without any further word from an MIT cosmologist: "HOAX"). As I said: I owe myself the distinctions of the extenf of a 'belief system'. One may be a western natural scientist and have an unusual 'belief' imbedded in it, what does not make one so 'obtuse'. The applied math is so reassuring. The fact that the regression counted backwards linearly and it was detected that the 'moves' in cosmology go nonlinearly (call it chaotic?) (e.g. many body interactions) - but more importantly: that the physical connotation was recognising in the vastly different (concentrated into a miniaturized?) universe quite similar 'laws' to our present (expanded?) world, leading to hard to swallow paradoxes - is a basis for my disbelief. Then marvellous ideas were invented (assumed?) to solve the controversial math: inflation in the first place, and others, what makes me call the cosmological Big Bang view a scientific narrative. However: mathematically/theoretically proven. Even new theories added and adjusted. The starting point still remains: did the spectra shift to a lower frequency by receding lightsources, or (guessably) by passing magnetic/electric/or else(??) fields that slow down the (observable/registrable) 'frequency' in our model of light? Or by some effects yet to be discovered, not fitting into our conventional (historic) model of the 'physical wiorld'? I consider Hubble of similar importance to the DeCusa-Copernicus duo in their establishing (changing?) a geocentric physical worldview into a heliocentric - for the coming generations - it was also temporary and later on gave place to a wider informatics. That's all, not any denigration for people with a more conventional 'scientific' basis. I even value the practical results of reductionist scientists (I am one of them). Trying to step out from the quantized reductionist model-view and its (beyond model) conclusions makes me a scientific agnostic and renders my 'talk' vague. I feel we are not there (yet) and I try a different path from the UD or comp etc. ways, with less founding, eo ipso struggling in a "scientifically" (=math) not so convincing train of thoughts. The quantized physical edifice of the world (in applied math) is very impressive, results in technology admirable at today's level of our expectations. When it comes to fundamental understanding (elimination of the paradoxes at least to our limited mental capacity), lately, new ideas emerged. One proof is this list. Its present lines don't represent a monopoly. Academic tenure or a Nobel prize do not mean the ultimate 'truth'. Science is not even a democratic vote. And I love the humor of G. Carlin. So what else is new? Have a good day John - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 6:35 PM Subject: Re: Believing ... John M wrote: > Brent, > > as usual, you have hard replies. Just one exception: > I do not mean 'each and individual mindset' as the term 'belief system', > but this is hard to explain. Most scientifically educated westerners - > or many religious faithfuls can argue among themselves. I never tried to > speculate about identifying what constitutes a 'different belief > system', but 'system' must be more than just shades of individual > differentiation in the details. > > John M If you don't mean something individual by "belief system", but rather some general summary of what a group of people think, then individuals within that "belief system" will have a variety of views. Some will have some views in conflict with the be
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
MP: . > That is one thing. Another thing is that no entity or set of entities > could know if their 'simulation' attempt was doing what they wanted in > every detail because to attempt to find this out would interfere > irreversibly with the unfolding of the world. Brent: This assumes that the simulation must be quantum mechanical - but I think that would defeat the whole point of assuming a simulation. If the world can be simulated classically, then it can be monitored without interference. MP: well actually I wasn't thinking about QM at all; I guess most of my thinking is 'classical' although I realise of course that QM principles impose minimum sizes for basic components of all information processing systems. My concern is much more a pronounced sceptical disbelief in the ability of sentient creatures at any order of magnitude to be able to control all the variables in a system they wish to impose. I think the basic condition is always going to be that we and they CANNOT. My usual expression of this, said in the context of working at a low level in a bureaucracy, is that in any given situation there are always more things which can occur than we want to occur, and usually there are more things which can occur than we can possibly know about. This is a long winded way of expressing 'Murphy's Law', but it is also a precise way of stating in plain-English how entropy manifests at the level of our work-a-day lives. The thing is, setting up a simulation or emulation of something requires giving up some degree of control over the process. I mean that's what we have machines for isn't it,to do the work for us? And as far as I can see, despite what Bruno says, the numbers have got to BE somewhere. So the cosmic Boffins have got to have systems which are at least to some degree autonomous. [As I write this it seems to me I am cutting at the root of Bishop Berkeley's concept of being in the mind of God, or some such.] In fact considering the scale of what is being contemplated I would assume that at least some parts of the system would be interacting in recursive self-referential ways that guaranteed unpredictability. And if it is unpredictable then you are not controlling it; it is simply happening, and it is non-QM randomness. I can see I have rambled on here a bit too much, but I have to say I think the issue of testing to see if what you predicted is really happening, must involve some interference in the simulation process itself, either that or the measurement is estimation with significant error margins. I also think there is a strong argument from ethics that we are NOT in a simulation and furthermore that that sort of thing just doesn't happen. My argument is very presumptuous of course but, what the heck, if there IS a conspiracy of ET, pan-dimensional experimenters out there somewhere tweaking their coding to make our world ever more 'realistic', well they NOW have a moral duty to show themselves and give account for what they have done. Why? Because if they are smart enough to do such a thing then they are also smart enough to realise that they are causing avoidable harm and suffering to people here on Earth and this has been going on for a long time. [and it's gotta stop!] If they don't show themselves and give account then they are just a bunch of moral wimps who do not deserve our respect, let alone adoration. This will be true even only if there is only The One.It is the question that has to be directed at all those who wield power: If you are so smart, why aren't you kind? It's like Terry Pratchett says: There is only one sin, and that is to treat another person like a thing. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Brent Meeker wrote: > Mark Peaty wrote: <> > > This is mixing Everett's relative state interpretation with the idea that the > world is a simulation. These are not the same and maybe not even compatible. > The world evolves deterministically in Hilbert space and the "many-worlds" > are projections relative to us. Whether this can be simulated, except in a > quantum computer, is questionable because the Hilbert space is infinite > dimensional. Is some fixed finite resolution sufficient for simulation? > >> MP: I don't think I can accept this. Maybe I sound arrogant in saying >> this, but I think the idea of simulation is used a bit too loosely. I >> know there are those lurking on the Mind & Brain list and JCS-online who >> would say I am 'the pot calling the kettle black', because I am always >> asserting what I call UMSITW [pronounced um-see-two for English >> speakers] - updating the model of self in the world - is the basis of >> consciousness. But they misunderstand me, because I do not say there is >> anyone else doing simulation, merely that we experience being here >> because the universe has evolved self sustaining regions within itself >> which mainta
Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute
No Brent, what I AM saying is that they are GONE! Well and truly gorrnn! We could get side tracked into all sorts of discussions about how each of the civilisations you named, waxed and waned more than once in the face of environmental changes and the inherent instability of feudal societies, but I haven't got the time [fascinating though it would be :-]. My point is that, with all due respect to the late Douglas Adams, and I suppose to whoever it was who wrote the book of Daniel in the Judaeo-Xian Bible, the TRUE "Writing on the Wall" AKA God's last message to humankind, is five short words in plain-English: * Shape up or die out! What I say is if we really want to 'shape up' and survive, then compassion, democracy, ethics and scientific method are four essential ingredients without which our modern world will go the way of all those other civilisations your mentioned. But this time it will be well and truly final because we will have used up all the easily obtainable resources, and blighted enough of the landscape to see Homo sapiens disappear into fossilised oblivion. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Brent Meeker wrote: > Are you saying I just dreamed that Sumer, Ur, Egypt, Babylon, Rome, Sparta, > Cathay, and the Indus Valley where civilization first developed and lasted > for thousands of years (much longer than the U.S. which is the oldest > existing democracy) were not democratic and pre-dated the scientific method? > > Brent Meeker > > Mark Peaty wrote: > >> Dream on Brent ... >> >> >> Regards >> Mark Peaty CDES >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ >> >> >> >> Brent Meeker wrote: >> >>> Klortho wrote: >>> >>> > The other thing I do is check to what extent a person's speech and > writings support and affirm the four fundamental ingredients of > civilisation: > Compassion, democracy, ethics and scientific method. No civilisation can > survive without all four of these. > > > Talk about assertions without any evidence! >>> Actually there's a lot of evidence that civilization developed and survived >>> until recently without democracy or the scientific method. >>> >>> Brent Meeker >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 3/1/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But you're seeking to break out of this circularity by introducing God, > who > > doesn't need a creator, designer, source of meaning or morality, > containing > > these qualities in himself necessarily rather than contingently. If > you're > > happy to say that God breaks the circularity, why include this extra > layer > > of complication instead of stopping at the universe? > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > Because the universe doesn't break the circularity (and a plenitude of > universes doesn't either for that matter). Actually, the plenitude does break the circularity, trumping even God. God could create or destroy his own separate physical universe but the infinite and infinitely nested universes of the plenitude, at least matching God's work, would exist regardless. If you don't agree with this statement at which point do you think the analogue of our present universe in the plenitude would fall short of its real counterpart: would stars and planets develop? Life? Zombie humans? Conscious humans but lacking a soul (and if you could explain what that would mean)? By the way, I'm not using the moral argument as a proof of the > existence of God in the sense of a conclusion inside a closed system > of logic. I'm arguing that the personal God of love is the only > possible truly sufficient source for real morality and ultimate > meaning. And if multiverses truly don't give us that, then to heck > with multiverses. I think I've made my point. Well, I think from what you've said you would have to agree that if you can find a way to prove that ultimate morality and meaning exist, you would also prove that God exists. Is there a way of proving that these entities exist, independent of a separate proof of God's existence? Lastly, on Euthyphro, look at the last reference at the end of the > Wikipedia article on the Euthyphro dilemma, especially the last > section on "whim". The circular logic of Euthyphro is a problem only > with self-referencing terms in a closed system of logic. This is the > problem with the assumption of the uniformity of natural causes in a > closed system. God's love transcends all closed systems. That reference seems to suggest that there is an extra-God criterion for morality, because as God is all-loving, "God's arbitrary commands can't be arbitrary in the sense of being based on whim, but must instead concern behaviour that is in the overall best interests of those involved". through the dark dry barren sky > pierced a warm red wet rain > can you not see this next new life spring flowing from him > -- "Song of Longinus" Who wrote that? Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Feb 26, 4:33 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the > > Creator is a person that we can get to know (not totally, but in a > > process of growth just like any relationship), so that we aren't just > > cranking out IF/THEN inferences like a machine, but the Holy Spirit > > (analogous to All Soul in Bruno/Plotinus term) affirms with our spirit > > that a certain response or initiative in the current situation is in > > accord with the Creator's personal character. Thus, there is only so > > much convincing that one can do in a forum like this. The rest > > requires actually being shown God's love in a tangible way by another > > person. Then it is still up to each of us to decide how we respond. > > OK, but if we skip the question of how we know that God wants us to act in a > particular (moral) way, as well as the question of why we should listen to > him, we still have the Euthyphro dilemma, as raised by > Brent:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma > ... > > > I insist that I am not going down the ontological argument path. If > > you want to categorize my argument from meaning, perhaps it is closest > > to Kant's argument from morality. In a scientific system, perhaps > > this is branded as "wishful thinking", but I am also insisting that > > science's basis (anything's basis actually), such as fundamentality, > > generality, beauty, "introspection" is also mystical wishful thinking, > > and naturality is circular, and reproducibility is circular in that > > its pragmatism begs the question of meaning (IF you want to do this, > > THEN reproducible experiments have shown that you "should" do such and > > such). > > But you're seeking to break out of this circularity by introducing God, who > doesn't need a creator, designer, source of meaning or morality, containing > these qualities in himself necessarily rather than contingently. If you're > happy to say that God breaks the circularity, why include this extra layer > of complication instead of stopping at the universe? > > Stathis Papaioannou Because the universe doesn't break the circularity (and a plenitude of universes doesn't either for that matter). By the way, I'm not using the moral argument as a proof of the existence of God in the sense of a conclusion inside a closed system of logic. I'm arguing that the personal God of love is the only possible truly sufficient source for real morality and ultimate meaning. And if multiverses truly don't give us that, then to heck with multiverses. I think I've made my point. Lastly, on Euthyphro, look at the last reference at the end of the Wikipedia article on the Euthyphro dilemma, especially the last section on "whim". The circular logic of Euthyphro is a problem only with self-referencing terms in a closed system of logic. This is the problem with the assumption of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. God's love transcends all closed systems. Tom through the dark dry barren sky pierced a warm red wet rain can you not see this next new life spring flowing from him -- "Song of Longinus" --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
