Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

                    <<< Note 1164.0 by CNTROL::DGAUTHIER >>>

>    Physicists routinely create and destroy matter 
    
    	What, have they figured out a way to break the law of conservation
    	of matter?

    When a hydrogen bomb goes off, matter is destroyed (converted into
    energy) by the famous formula E=MC^^2.  Conversely, if you pump enough
    energy INTO a system, you can "create" matter.  One might argue that
    matter = energy and you're just converting one into the other, like 
    creating water out of ice and ice out of water by playing around with
    temperature.  But the change here is between energy and matter, a bit
    more profound that a phase change.
    
    -dave

You must realize that the creation theory as described in Genesis 1 and 2 is 
not a factual description of the creation of the world. The book of Genesis 
was not written at the beginning of time as we know it, but was probably 
written during the Babylonian Exile of the Israelite nation. You can see from 
the style in which the first chapter of Genesis was written that is was meant 
as a tribute to God in which the author merits God with the creation of 
everything. It has a very poetic style, with many recurring themes 

Example :

and the day was over and night fell : the first day.

(this is an English translation of the Dutch bible)

The Babylonians worshipped the sun and the moon. The author of the book 
describes how God created them. And so on and so on.

in broad terms for the western world, you can identify three phases in the 
relationship of science and religion.

the antique age - belief in emerging science replaces naive religious belief.
  in the ancient greece, most notably with plato, democrit and particularly 
  with aristotel and the post-aristotelian age, science develops as the 
  alternative to natural/naive religions. with geometry, astronomy, medicine, 
  ethics and metaphysics counting to the dominant disciplines and philosophy 
  being the 'mother' of the sciences, to which the disciplines of the natural 
  sciences are subordinated.

the medieval age - religious doctrine governs science.
  with the demise of the roman empire and the rise to power of christianity,
  science is subordinated to religion. the hitherto flourishing young 
  sciences are streamlined into the theological doctrine or are squelched 
  entirely (most of democrits works are destroyed by the church).

the modern age - science emancipates itself and the human being from religion.
  the copernican turn signifies the birth of sciences emancipation from 
  religion, an with it also the human beings freedom from the yoke of
  the church, which has squelched free thought in europe for over a thousand
  years. in contrast to the antique world, modern science as it now evolves 
  is no longer subortinated to philosophy and to a system of metaphysics.


to the individual a drawback of modern science is its abandonment of the 
search for explanation of the meaning of life (metaphysics) - this area 
remains the realm of religion. unless you look to religion, you are left 
to carry the weight of your freedom and to search for your life's meaning.

also, the emancipation of science from religion has meant a quantum leap 
forward in the evolution of humanity. modern science has brought with it to a 
large degree the emancipation from nature and as we now see, the destruction 
of nature. on this basis you can argue that modern science has steered itself
into a crisis and that we are at the cusp of the post-modern age.

but what roles will science and religion play in post-modernity?





andreas.

> but what roles will science and religion play in post-modernity?



at the extremes, i can envisage two possibilities when i think of the
next millenium.


engineering life - we give nature (and religion) a final death stab,
demistify the secret of life (by cracking genetinc code) and engineer 
new forms of life. this would mean our complete emancipation (estrangement?) 
from nature, the end of humanity as we know it, as the continuation of 
intelligent life would be in (part-)artificially engineered life forms.
with this approach we increase the risk of complete eradication of life 
on earth, as we progress into new and unknown territory.


starting over - this approach means going back to the old greeks and
resuming where they left off. this would mean reintroducing a more inter-
disciplinarian, interconnected and 'whole' approach in the sciences, 
acknowledging the limitations of human endeavours and the importance of 
nature and that which is the 'more' in nature, that which cannot yet be 
reached by science. this could mean the introduction of fringe sciences 
(parapsychology, astrology etc.) into the research process and resumption
of metaphysical themes. with some sort of nature religion possibly evolving,
huh?





andreas.

>>the modern age - science emancipates itself and the human being from
>>religion.

Powerful statement.  But I think it's people, not science that brought
science out from under the control of organized religion.  I view science
as merely a rational study of the physical universe and not a social force.
People may choose to take action based on claims or theories rooted
inscience, but science itself doesn't attempt to force changes in belief
systems.

>>which has squelched free thought in europe for over a thousand years.

Yes, it did squelch free thought.  Maybe it still does.  But the intent might 
have actually been a good one.  You've got to remember that the science of
that day paled in comparison to what we have today.  It was regarded with
much skepticism and probably rightfully so.  When they proposed ideas that
flew in the face of established religious teachings and dogma, the church
would pull back on it's reigns of control and keep it's people focued in
the direction which it truely believed was the route to salvation.  After
all, salvation was all that realy mattered.  

With regard to metaphysics, my dictionary tells me that metaphysics is the 
search for understanding the nature of reality and "first cause" type
phenomenon.  This realm of science is very prone to conflict with religious
dogmas in the realm of creationism and the "fist cause" being a "creator"
which is "God".  But the theoritical astrophysicists will readily state
that they only deal with the physical universe and not spirituality or
issues of morality.  They may believe in the Big Bang theory, but admit
that there can be no physical evidence to explain where it came from. They
may state "this is the way the universe appears to work" but not envelop it
in a sheath of morality.  And because you can't weigh or measure a spirit,
that sort of thing lies outside the consideration of science.

There are distinct boundaries between the two (science and religion) and
some overlap.  .3 stated that the book of Genesis was metaphorical and not
to be taken literally in proposing a creationist theory.  But I know many 
intelligent an rational people who cling to the book og Genesis and believe 
(via faith) that it's true... somehow... and that we have not yet seen (or
may never see) that truth using science.  

We don't need to make a decision on which path to choose when it comes to 
esoteric thoughts on metaphysics and creationism.  You and I can disagree
and we just go about our lives.  But we do have to make decisions in more
practical areas of life where conflict exists.  For example, how does one
manage the population explosion?  A biologist will tell you that we have
limited resources here on planet earth and that if we don't curb population
growth we're in for big problems.  But a religious leader will point to
"go forth and multiply" and the quote from the New Testament which tells
people not to worry because God feeds the birds and clothes the lillies of
the fields.  "Now" we have real conflict when it comes to deciding what to 
do.

-dave

                                      

> With regard to metaphysics, my dictionary tells me that metaphysics is the 
> search for understanding the nature of reality and "first cause" type
> phenomenon.  This realm of science is very prone to conflict with religious
> dogmas in the realm of creationism and the "fist cause" being a "creator"
> which is "God".  

back in the old days in ancient greece there was no religious dogma or
body of doctrine to come into conflict with when speculating on the nature 
of being, truth and knowledge. this was precisely the realm of metaphysics. 
in fact, the influence of greek metaphysics (the platonic and neoplatonic 
influence) can be readily traced in christian theology.


>                  But the theoritical astrophysicists will readily state
> that they only deal with the physical universe and not spirituality or
> issues of morality.  

the fact that ethics and metaphysics, if you like, are no longer central
elements of modern science can be problematic in cases. a case in point
being genetic engineering. we only have perspectives, in science to the 
point that each discipline has its own. lacking a well-rounded definition 
of the meaning of the human being we risk shooting off the edge too quick
as we go about creating artificial humans!


which is why i said perhaps we should think about upgrading the old 
disciplines, ethics and metaphysics (which are today reserved to a large 
extent by religion, to a minor by philosophy) and bring them back closer 
to science.





andreas.

i also think a specifically female, or feminist, point of view is 
direly needed here to add perspective to this discussion as we're 
really looking at 2000 years of male dominated science and religion!




andreas.

    I like to think that science is just the study of the physical
    universe.  When you consider how it's findings are used in the
    practical lives of men (and women... sorry), then you're entering the
    realm of engineering and possibly manufacturing etc... .

    I think metaphysics is very much considered by science as it searchs for
    the origins of the universe and attempts to answer the "hows" and "whys"
    of it's workings.  But I agree that today, ethics is not considered part
    of the study of science.  Perhaps the greeks searched for ethical truths
    by studying nature.  And we search for ethical truths by studying
    religion.  If you consider sociology the scientific study of human
    societies, and can map etical traditions that "work" vs those that do
    not, then maybe you could say that the science of sociology can be used
    to define the ethical norms we choose to accept.  Or maybe you might be
    willing to let "evolution" run it's course with us... we'll evolve in
    strict accordance to natural forces and don;t have to "think" about
    what to do by establishing ethical norms.

    But again, science does not speak to notions which exist outside
    the physical universe.  I'm talking about things like emotions, sense of
    fairness, spirituality and other intangibles which we hold in high regard.
    Religion considers those realms as does philosophy and ethics, science
    (as we understand it today) does not.  If you want to expand the
    definition of science to cover all of these, so be it, but you haven't
    solved anything because the intangibles do not lend themselves vey well
    to the scientific process.

    As for this note "direly needing" a feminist's point of view... I
    welcome one (or more) but don't see why it's needed in the sense you
    seem to suggest.  Why would a woman's point of view on a subject like
    this be that much different than a man's?

    -dave

    
    I thought briefly about it, but then thought better of it.  (;^)
         
    Cindy

>   As for this note "direly needing" a feminist's point of view... I
>   welcome one (or more) but don't see why it's needed in the sense you
>   seem to suggest.  Why would a woman's point of view on a subject like
>   this be that much different than a man's?


when we consider the last 2000 years of science and religion we are
also looking at 2000 years of male rationality as men almost exclusively
occupied both science and religion until recently.

i think things might just be a touch different if it had been the other
way round, ie. religion and science having been made by women instead of 
men. maybe the individual disciplines wouldn't have developed so far apart 
to the point of getting disconnected. just a hunch though. i am assuming 
there are identifiable differences between male and female rationalities.

if this was the case, ie. if there are identifiable differences between 
male and female rationalities then this would suggest that the development
of the last 2000 years was rather one-sided and we direly need to correct 
the direction we're going. which is why i asked for ideas and inspiration 
from a distinctly female point of view.




andreas.

    I was reading an article this noon in "The American SCientist".  It was
    about an emerging branch of science called abiotic chemistry.  These
    scientists build organic molecules from inorganic building blocks and
    are striving to actually create very simple forms of life.  IMO, it's
    just a matter of time before they succeed.  
    
    Should man create life?
    
    As Andreas mentioned earlier, the possible future ramifications in the
    area of genetic engineering are awesome.  Gene therapy can and is
    already being used in the field of medecine today.  TOmorrow we may be
    engineering out undesirable genetic traits like hemophilia.  And the
    day after that we may be engineering people.  
    
    Should man engineer people?
    
    Studies tin the area of phychochemistry and brain physiology have shed
    a great deal of light on how the brain works.  External manipulation of
    how it works can and has been demonstrated with various drugs and
    surgeries.  The knowlege base in this area is increasing.  Not only
    could you engineer people in the physical sense, but it's likely that 
    you could engineer their personality and emotional make-up to some
    extent as well.  It's certainly not unrealistic to think that a drug 
    could turn a murdered into a complacent dolt... or a peaceful 18yr old
    military draftee into a maniacal killing machine.  
    
    Should man manipulate or build the psychological make-up of others?
    
    This is not science fiction.  This stuff is in the pipe and will be
    landing in our laps before you know it.  Rest assured that if we,
    society, don't decide how to use this technology, someone will, and we
    not like what they do with it.  Surpressing it will (IMO) be about as
    successful as surpressing the notion that the earth is round.
    
    For those of you more familiar with the Bible, what does it have to say
    about this sort of thing?
    
    
    -dave
    

re .12

>   For those of you more familiar with the Bible, what does it have to say
>   about this sort of thing?


i suppose engineering life is a bit like playing god. perhaps the
story of that tower which was built by self possessed men to reach 
into the sky could be cited?

but i am not a bible expert and also i haven't heard much principal 
opposition from biblical circles on the subject. see also my attempt
in topic 1056, which wasn't very fruitful.

i also think that gene manipulation is a logical step in evolution,
it is our emancipation from the dictate of nature, as it were and that 
it carries enormous benefits in the fields of medicine and that we
must be sure about our ethics to prevent abuse of genetic engineering.




andreas.

re .10


cindy, for a moment a thought flashed by which suggested that whilst
dave and i work out the plan for the next millenium your planning is
um, a bit more... you're not seriously suggesting, are you... ?


CINDY!


cindy?


andreas. :-)

    
    D*mn - I've been found out!  (;^)
    
    Cindy

.0>                              In the west, it has often been a matter 
.0> of the Bible vs scientific theories.  It seems that eventually, the 
.0> theologians back down in one way or another.  


somehow religion and science are like day and night. they don't readily
mix. several discussion attempts in here would suggest that.

there are christians who try to back up christian doctrine with scientific
evidence, although they often risk ridicule in the scientific community.
likewise a scientist calling for a more whole approach, like reintroducing 
the questions addressed in metaphysics, risks being ridiculed.

we can discuss theology, we can discuss science, but we seem to be reluctant
to discuss both in their relationship to eachother.

in some respects, in the west science is very much the ruling 'religion'.

and as we have learned from the mediterranean world religions, dominance 
over other religions rather than tolerance of other religions is written 
topmost on the banner of our religion.

this is how i explain today's dominance of the scientific world view here
in the west.

a related book on the subject which i can highly recommend is kapra's 
"tao of physics".

eastern philosophies it seems, do not quite suffer the same extent of 
polarisation and division of our western thinking and science and religion 
can be more readily integrated there.




andreas.

>>somehow religion and science are like day and night. they don't readily
>>mix. several discussion attempts in here would suggest that.

I think that's because they have diametrically opposed approaches to
answering questions.  Beyond the obvious "rational/facts" vs "take it 
on faith" approaches, science seems more participatory vs religion's
authoritative. By that I mean if you don't like the answers science comes up 
with, you're more than welcome to propose your own theory and "play" the
science game.  Organized religion seems to  be more authoritative insofar as 
it states the way things are and expects you to believe.  Faith seems to be 
the method of choice in believing the unpalletable.  There's little room for 
counterproposing or questioning.  And the only variability you see comes in 
the form of interpretation of dictated law.

Another thing is that religion seems to posture itself "outside" the realm
of science.  I mean look at the definition of God for example.  God is
defined as existing outside the physical universe, existing before time...
and after time, doesn't need a creator (an effect that doesn't need a
cause), can't be sensed with our senses, etc... .  Then it's claimed that
God plays the universe like a puppet.. from a far and unobservable place. 
For any effect you see here in our universe, you can concoct a story about
which string God pulled to cause that effect, then fold your arms and
smugly dare science to disprove the story given that untouchable definition 
of God.

And how does one "test" the Bible using scientific method?  The Bible seems
to have a story to explain every possible outcome of a hypothetical
experiment designed to test it.  Consider the question of testing the
veracity of the Bible by observing believers vs non-believers and how
things are going for them in their lives.  You have 4 possibilities...

 1) A believer who's enjoying good furtune in life.
 2) A believer who's suffering in this life.
 3) A non-believer who's enjoying good furtune in life.
 4) A non-believer who's suffering in this life.

"1" can be explained by citing stories in the Bible where God rewards
 believers.
"2" can be explained by citing the story of Jobe and how he was "tested" by
 God.
"3" can be explained by stories of how people fall prey to temptation and
 that they will suffer in the afterlife.
"4" can be explained with stories of how God punishes the disbelieving.

How can you test a system like that?   No matter what happens to anyone,
there's an explanatory passage for it in the Bible.  Hell, I can concoct a
religion as good as that in 5 minutes...

The Coffee Religion Bible
 - Good practitioners of the Coffee Religion drink a cup of coffee in the
   morning.
 - If you're a believer, and you drink your cofee, and things are going
   well in your life, then you're being rewarded by the Coffee God.
 - If you're a believer, drink your coffee but things are going lousy,
   you're being tested by the Coffee God.  Keep the faith and keep
   drinking.
 - If you're a disbeliever and things are going well, you're falling prey
   to temptation and you'll be punished in the after-coffee-life.
 - If you're a disbeliever and things are going lousy, you're being
   punished by the Coffee God.

Now, I claim that everything that happens to everyone who ever lived or is
alive can be explained using passages from the coffee religion.

-dave

re .17



<cough>, <cough>, i nearly choked on my coffee, dave!

count me in on the coffee.

:-)

to be fair, we should restrict this discussion to science and
christianity instead of science and religion. buddhism for 
instance is far less 'dictatorial' and endlessly more practical 
and open than christianity.

i'll see if i can dig up some good material after the next week
to shed some light on the closed nature of the judeo-christian
doctrine of god. ie. closed in the sense in which you describe, 
closed to reason.

i think when criticising the closed nature of biblical argumentation 
we're only criticising the doctrinal shell of christianity however. 
i suspect in its center there is something, a basically good message,
with a universal appeal. i also suspect that this is the bit which
christianity has in common with other religions and which is missing 
in a science-only world view.




andreas.

    Re: coffee
    
    also known as Christian crack ;-)

>>to be fair, we should restrict this discussion to science and
>>christianity instead of science and religion. buddhism for
>>instance is far less 'dictatorial' and endlessly more practical
>>and open than christianity.

Less authoritative, yes.  But still, I believe there are many supernatural
aspects of eastern religions that lie outside the realm of the physical.
When reading the TIbetian Book of the Dead, for example, I recall many 
fantastic descriptions of the spiritual realm.  This is as untouchable from
the perspective of science as the angel Gabriel.

>>i'll see if i can dig up some good material after the next week
>>to shed some light on the closed nature of the judeo-christian
>>doctrine of god. ie. closed in the sense in which you describe,
>>closed to reason.

CLosed, but that's not necessarily "bad".  If the religious leaders KNOW
that they are right, then expecting adherance to the dogma is, from the
perspective of the leaders, a good thing.  For example, you know that
playing with matches and gasoline is dangerous but your 7 year old son
can't see why.  Explanations or rationalizations are secondary to strict
enforecment of the principle "DON'T PLAY WITH MATCHES AND GAS".  Many 
churchs may percieve themselves as being responsible for taking the role
of leaders... shepherds leading the flock or whatever.  

>>i think when criticising the closed nature of biblical argumentation
>>we're only criticising the doctrinal shell of christianity however.
>>i suspect in its center there is something, a basically good message,
>>with a universal appeal. i also suspect that this is the bit which
>>christianity has in common with other religions and which is missing
>>in a science-only world view.

I'm really not critisizing christianity in the sense of attacking it. I am
criticizing the hybrid arguments some make at times, mixing reason with
quoting biblical passages.  You either run in the science realm or in the 
faith realm.  If you take pieces of both, you leave youself wide open to 
criticizm from BOTH realms.

I too believe there's a lot of good in christianity.  I mean it couldn't
have endured for 2 millenia without being a strong institution with a lot
to offer.  It's a source of much beautiful philospohy and truths.   And I
try to learn whatever I can from it.  But I'd be less than honest with
myself if I took the bible as anyting more than folklore sprinkled with 
some fact.  I'd be denying my "God Given" reason to accept it "on faith".

-dave

    Here's an interesting comparison of science and the Bible.  You can
    really see the imprint of God now that we know the truth!
    
    Earth is Round
    --------------
    For centuries, people believe the earth was flat.  Obviously these
    people ignored God's Word.
    
    Isaiah 40:22  "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the
    inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens 
    as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"
    
    Earth hangs in Space
    --------------------
    'State-of-the-art' thinking in ancient times seem to agree with the
    myths from the Islamic Koran and Hindu Veda about the earth riding on 
    the back of the turtle. 
    
    Job 26:7  "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth 
    the earth upon nothing."
    
    Stars are Innumerable
    ---------------------
    It wasn't until within the last 20 years or so that astronomers have
    finally realized that the stars are innumerable, and use the volume of
    sand on seashores as a model.  In ancient times, astronomers would catalog 
    stars that they've counted.  For quite some time, they believed there 
    were only 1,200 stars!
    
    Genesis 15:5 "And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward 
    heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said 
    unto him, So shall thy seed be."
    
    Nuclear Fusion
    --------------
    For years, Bible critics used to use this passage as proof that the
    Bible was false.  The reasoning was that nothing of this magnitude
    could destroy the earth this way.  Now we know better.  The Hebrew word
    for "dissolve" ("destroyed" in some versions) literally means to
    "untie."  This is exactly what happens when splitting atoms.  Untying
    them is what causes the great releases of energy.
    
    2 Peter 3:10-12 "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the
    night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and 
    the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works 
    that are therein shall be.  Seeing then that all these things shall be
    dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation 
    and godliness,  Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of
    God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the 
    elements shall melt with fervent heat?"  
    
    Oceans' Floor
    -------------
    For centuries, man believed the floor of the seas were smooth and
    gently sloping.  Now we know otherwise.  The infamous Marianas Trench
    is 7 miles deep.  You could put Mt. Everest inside of it and still have
    over 1 mile of water over it!
    
    Job 38:16 "Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou
    walked in the search of the depth?"
    
    Jonah 2:5-6 "The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth 
    closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head.  I went
    down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me 
    for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my
    God."
    
    Sea Currents
    ------------
    Interesting background on this one.  The man who went on to chart all
    the major shipping lanes in all the oceans, and is the founder of the
    Annapolis Academy, was ministered by this passage.  He was ill at the 
    time and his son was reading Psalm 8 to him.  When the boy read verse 8, 
    the Holy Spirit ministered to Matthew Fontaine Maury.  He jumped up and 
    said, "Well if God's Word says so, they must be there!"  His statue at 
    Annapolis shows him with the navigator's tool in one hand, a Bible in the 
    other.  Also note the Hebrew word for "paths" literally means a 
    well-trodden path or caravan route.  
    
    Psalm 8:8 "The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever
    passeth through the paths of the seas."
    
    Hydrological Cycle
    ------------------
    Amos, a mere fig picker, had the Lord reveal to him the hydrological
    cycle.  Likewise for Isaiah.  'State-of-the-art' thinking in ancient 
    times seem to agree with the myths from the Islamic Koran and Hindu Veda 
    about a giant frog causing rainfall.  You can see how much more advanced 
    the Word of God is.
    
    Amos 9:6 "It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath 
    founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, 
    and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name."
    
    Isaiah 55:10 "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and
    returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth 
    and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:"
    
    Wind Currents
    -------------
    In addition to the hydrological cycle, God reveals the wind currents to
    Solomon.
    
    Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about 
    unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth 
    again according to his circuits.  All the rivers run into the sea; yet 
    the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither 
    they return again."

.20> I'm really not critisizing christianity in the sense of attacking it. 

sure. what value is anything if it's not thoroughly criticised; over
and over.



speaking for mind driven persons that is! :-)



check you in a week,


andreas.

re .21 


thanks for the contribution, mike. as for the contents, i don't get it, 
but i appreciate your willingness to get into the topic.


it's a good start at any rate.


andreas.

    
    Re.21
    
    Correction - it's 'Vedas', as in plural, and not 'Hindu Veda'.
    
    Cindy

Re .21

I was in the process of writting a huge rebuttle for all the items in your 
note (.21).  I'll post it if you're interested, but I didn't because I felt 
that it was too long and wouldn't be read.  In a nutshell, I felt that most 
of the "belief of the day" preambles were generalizations, gross in some
cases, inaccurate in others.  And I felt that the passages from the Bible
were vague and required stretching one's interpratation of the passage
to bring it in line with current scientific thought.  There appeared to be
what might be inspired insight in what remained.  But not really anymore
than what you might find in a Jules Verne novel or a study of Leonardo's
works. (sorry)

I think one has to be very careful when interpreting the Biblical
translations while knowing well what the desired "end result" is.  For
example, it's easy to mentally translate a passage describing the earth 
being circular to the idea of the earth being a sphere knowing beforehand
that the earth is roughly spherical.   I'm sure the notion of a sphere was
common when the passage was  written, and that there was a word for it. 
Yet the use of the word "circle" was chosen in favor of "sphere" for some
reason.  My interpretation  would be that the earth was being thought of as
a flat circular disk (a circle).  The  author saw profound wisdom in the
ancient passage while I saw it as simply being incorrect (but
understandable given when it was written).  And somehow I feel that if the
passage was found in the Koran instead of the Bibe, Christians would be the
first to point out the difference between a circle and a sphere.  

I was a bit annoyed with some of the "belief of the day" preambles. Not
one of them portrayed a statement derived from "good science" as we think
of it today.  Some of them were outright comical (the one about the turtle)
and were more myth than science.  More than once the author leveraged off 
"guesses" made by some scientists of the past and portrayed tham as the
"beliefs" of science.  For example, the one about the floor of the ocean
being flat.  

Remember, science completely discounts no theory.  The ones that are
supported by the most physical evidence get the most support from the 
scientific community.  Heck, there's even a "God Theory" which science, by
it's very nature, cannot and does not dismiss as being wrong.  

-dave

    Dave, when I'm confused my a Biblical passage, I usually check out the
    words in the original languages (Hebrew/Greek dictionary).  I did so in
    those passages once upon a time and it confirms what I've said.
    
    Mike

    
    Re .26
    
    What did you find for the case of circle vs sphere?  You see the
    difference between the two makes a great deal of difference to me.  
    One describes the earth in traditional 2-D terms (traditional for the
    time) and is not noteworthy.  The other is a rare finding worth noting.  
    I say rare because the ancient greeks of the time, perhaps very close 
    to the time the Bible was written actually, determined that the earth 
    was spherical and even estimated it's diameter.  They got quite
    close actually, off by less than a factor of 2 which is remarkable 
    given that they were measuring shadows from sticks, that sort of thing.
    So the preamble to that one which stated that everyone of the time 
    believed the earth to be flat wasn't quite correct.
    
    -dave

    The KJV uses "circle" translated from the Hebrew word "chuwg." 
    Strong's translates it as a "circle, circuit, or compass."  Isaiah
    the prophet wrote this around 750 B.C.  Job 22:14 uses the same word,
    which is the oldest book in the Bible.  The NIV also uses circle.  The NAS 
    says "vault" instead of circle.  Interesting choice of words when you look 
    up the noun vault in a dictionary.  It's more 3-D than 2-D, but I don't
    think that's much of a concern here since it was an obvious departure
    from common thought back then.  This is the significance to me since it
    couldn't be verified (i.e., speaks of divine inspiration to me).  It's also 
    interesting to note that "sitteth upon" can also be translated "sitteth 
    above."  The NAS translates it this way.
    
    Isaiah 40:22  "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the
    inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens 
    as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"

    What was the ancient Hebrew word for "sphere"?  Was there one?
    You see, if the passage was divinely inspired and it was mentioning
    the spahe of the earth, then the use of the word "sphere" would 
    lend credence to the divine inspiration.  The 2-D reference suggests a
    human origin.
    
    My dictionary tells me that the word "compass" suggests a meaning of
    encirclement or bounding.  The words used suggest 2-D thought only.  
    
    >>This is the significance to me since it couldn't be verified (i.e., 
    >>speaks of divine inspiration to me). 
    
    Nopt sure what you mean here.  Are you saying that since the meaning of
    this passage could not be verified or remains vague, it suggests divine
    inspiration?
    
    >>It's also interesting to note that "sitteth upon" can also be translated
    >>"sitteth above."  The NAS translates it this way.
    
    I'm afraid that "sitteth upon" would make more sense than "sitteth
    above".  I mean one can sit "upon" an object (2-D or 3-D) but sitting
    "above" suggests some sort of physical suspension.
    
    
    -dave

>    What was the ancient Hebrew word for "sphere"?  Was there one?
    
    I'll have to check.
    
>    lend credence to the divine inspiration.  The 2-D reference suggests a
>    human origin.
>    
>    Nopt sure what you mean here.  Are you saying that since the meaning of
>    this passage could not be verified or remains vague, it suggests divine
>    inspiration?
    
    I think you're missing the point.  The mere notion of a circular world
    not only went against popular thinking, but couldn't be verified by
    whatever tools they had at this time.  The concept had to be divinely
    inspired.  And shame on the dominant church of that day to deny this
    verse as late as Columbus' era.
    
>    I'm afraid that "sitteth upon" would make more sense than "sitteth
>    above".  I mean one can sit "upon" an object (2-D or 3-D) but sitting
>    "above" suggests some sort of physical suspension.
    
    It is "He" who sitteth above the earth, not the earth.  This phrase is
    talking about God.
    
    Mike

Also see topic 802, "The cosmology of the Old Testament"

Shalom,
Richard

    
    > The mere notion of a circular world not only went against popular
    > thinking, but couldn't be verified by whatever tools they had at this
    > time.  The concept had to be divinely inspired.

    I'll have to check this, but I'm pretty sure the Earth as a disc concept
    is an ancient one. And as far as *having* to be divinely inspired, I
    don't agree with that either. Last Friday I went hiking with my son up
    Mount Monadnock. From the summit the Earth certainly appears circular;
    one curving line of horizon.
    
    Eric
    

>>The mere notion of a circular world
>>    not only went against popular thinking, but couldn't be verified by
>>    whatever tools they had at this time.  

Well, maybe not.  The vast majority believed that the world was flat.  But
what kind of flat?  A flat square, triangular, or... circle?  You see what I
mean?  Also, one of the words you found which defined the word for "circle"
was "compass" which implies encirclment as opposed to the geometric shape
"circle".  

Also, the ancients 'could' and 'did' determine that the earth was roughly
spherical.  I forget the name of the ancient greek who did it (one of those
that began with an 'A' and ended with an 'ese') but he and a companion 
figured it out using stick and measuring shadows. An absolutely remarkable
achievement.  Almost all of his work was lost in the great fire that
destroyed the library of Alexandria.  Many very great works of theology,
including many from Judea, were lost in the flame.  What a pity. 

Regardless, the work was done and published (as well it cound be at the
time) but ignored and mostly forgotten.  As you mentioned, the early church
played a big role in supressing ideas which the church leaders found to
conflict with their doctrines.  Another shame.


-dave

And what about the quantum world?  In the 30's (thereabout) physicists
observed that elementary particles (called quantum particles) do not behave
in accordance to classical physical mainstays.  Particles seem to wink in
and then out of existence, they ignore Newton's gravitational laws at
times, they behave like waves at times, then like particles other times,
and they change in nature for no apparent reason in random fashion.  Einstein 
flatly denied that this was possible and spent the rest of his life trying
to disprove quantum theory.  He never succeeded.  But even the best of the
quantum theorists failed and continue to fail to find a good explanation
for what's going on.  The most widely accepted interpratation of quantum
effects (the Coopenhagen interpretation) suggests that the act of observing 
a particle changes it's nature from a "non-existent" probability wave to
an actual physical particle.  In other words, the observer causes the
creation of matter.  Bizzare you say?  Well, the next most popular theory
explains the observations by suggesting that there exists an infinite number 
of universes and realities.

The classical physics you learned in college (F=MA, F=G(m1*m2)/r^2, etc...)
is used for 99.9999% of the everyday modeling we need to do, but it's known
to be grossly inaccurate in the quantum world and is valid in our macro
world by virtue of statistics.   The world is apparently a place where
matter (and antimatter) seems to randomly pop in and out  of existence,
where particles pop into existence only after havine been  observed, where
matter can pass through solid walls by blinking out of existence, then back
in on the other side, and where no random chance seems to rule behavior. 
In a nutshell, modern physics can model what's going on, and indeed use it
in engineering, but can't explain why things are the way they are.

The truth is that classical physics is wrong.   Observations of the quantum
world leave physicists baffled, resorting to  exotic theories which make no
intuitive sense at all.  Some even suggest that human reason is an
inadaquet tool for solving quantum reality questions.  Enter theology.

"We told you that reasoning things out wouldn't work.  The matter creation
and destruction you see is God at work"

"There's nothing random about the behavior of these particles. God's pulling 
the strings in those experiments.  We told you so"

"And if a mere human observer can 'create' matter, imagine what God could
do!"


Maybe they're right.  But of course there's no scrap of evidence of a God
at play here to support the claims.

-dave

>Also, the ancients 'could' and 'did' determine that the earth was roughly
>spherical.  I forget the name of the ancient greek who did it (one of those
>that began with an 'A' and ended with an 'ese') but he and a companion 
>figured it out using stick and measuring shadows. An absolutely remarkable
>achievement.  Almost all of his work was lost in the great fire that
>destroyed the library of Alexandria.  Many very great works of theology,
>including many from Judea, were lost in the flame.  What a pity. 
    
    Isaiah      - 750 B.C.
    Aristarchus - 280 B.C.
    Eratosthenes - 200 B.C.
    
>Regardless, the work was done and published (as well it cound be at the
>time) but ignored and mostly forgotten.  As you mentioned, the early church
>played a big role in supressing ideas which the church leaders found to
>conflict with their doctrines.  Another shame.
    
    I don't believe there is evidence that suggests that Christians
    supported the same supression that the Catholic church did.
    
    Mike

    Re .35
    
    >>    Isaiah      - 750 B.C.
    
    Sorry Mike, the quote from Isaiah is still not a statement about the
    spherical shape of the earth.  From your own translation, the best 
    which can be said about it has to do with either a 2-D disc or an
    "encircled" entity (compass).  I saw no mention of a 3-D shape (outside
    of "vault") mentioned or inferred.  And it certainly offers no proof or
    method of reasoning that the earth's a sphere.
    
    I'll try to find out about the ancient greek gentleman I was talking
    about.  Regardless, it was doubtful that he (whoever he was) was made
    aware of Isaiah when his experiments were conducted and conclusions 
    derived.  Reasoning that the earth is round like a ball is really as
    evident as watching a ship incrementally dissapear over the horizon, or, 
    actually "seeing" the slight curvature from the top of Mt Manadnock. 
    No divine intervention needed.
    
    >>I don't believe there is evidence that suggests that Christians
    >>    supported the same supression that the Catholic church did.
      
    Wait a minute, aren't catholics christians?  Or, was not the catholic
    church made up of catholics, which were christians?  It's clear that 
    the catholics supressed knowlege.  But u[ until the time of Martin
    Luther, there were no non-catholic christians, right?
    
    -dave   
    
    

I've been sort of waiting for the current discussion to wane a bit before
bring this up, but something I'd like to eventually know is how the
Bible-as-literal-fact contingent explains kangaroos and all sorts of other
critters found only in Australia.  I mean, did Noah make a second deposit
not recorded in Genesis?  And what of fresh water fish?  How did they
survive the flood?  Or if the flood was of fresh water, how did salt water
creatures survive?

Richard

>I've been sort of waiting for the current discussion to wane a bit before
>bring this up, but something I'd like to eventually know is how the
>Bible-as-literal-fact contingent explains kangaroos and all sorts of other
>critters found only in Australia.  I mean, did Noah make a second deposit
>not recorded in Genesis?  And what of fresh water fish?  How did they
>survive the flood?  Or if the flood was of fresh water, how did salt water
>creatures survive?
    
    Richard, call (800) 778-3390 for a free catalog.  I'm sure they'll have 
    lots of resources to answer your questions.
    
    Mike

>    I'll try to find out about the ancient greek gentleman I was talking
>    about.  Regardless, it was doubtful that he (whoever he was) was made
    
    I gave you their names in my last reply.
    
>    Wait a minute, aren't catholics christians?  Or, was not the catholic
>    church made up of catholics, which were christians?  It's clear that 
    
    That's a tough call.  Some are, some aren't.  The basic fundamental 
    doctrines (i.e., salvation, authority of the Bible, Maryology, etc.) differ 
    drastically enough to hinder neatly lumping them under one umbrella.  The
    Reformation happened for a reason.
    
    Mike

re Note 1164.40 by OUTSRC::HEISER:

> >    Wait a minute, aren't catholics christians?  Or, was not the catholic
> >    church made up of catholics, which were christians?  It's clear that 
>     
>     That's a tough call.  Some are, some aren't.  The basic fundamental 
>     doctrines (i.e., salvation, authority of the Bible, Maryology, etc.) differ 
>     drastically enough to hinder neatly lumping them under one umbrella.  The
>     Reformation happened for a reason.
  
        Yes, the Reformation happened for a reason, but the people
        who led the Reformation started from the same approach that
        it was doctrine that determined who was and was not a
        Christian -- they merely differed on what that doctrine was.

        Bob

.39

>    Richard, call (800) 778-3390 for a free catalog.  I'm sure they'll have 
>    lots of resources to answer your questions.

Thanks.  I'm really not looking for a catalogue or to be put on yet another
mailing list, however.

I guess that says it's not all that important to me to get the answers to
.37, eh?

Shalom,
Richard

    With regard to the question about kangaroos and fish...
    
    I'm beginning to learn that the stanuch believers are unshakable in
    their faith and that they believe the Bible regardless.  Why kangaroos 
    are in Australia and why fresh water fish survived the flood
    are interesting questions but whatever the reasons are, they cannot
    detract from the unshakable fact that all the land was underwater for
    40 days and nights.  You can prove that there isn't enough water on
    earth to cover all the land and that won't make a difference.  "IT RAINED
    FOR 40 DAYS/NIGHTS, THE EARTH WAS FLOODED, NOAH PUT 2 OF EVERY ANIMAL 
    ON A BOAT MADE OF STICKS, AND THAT'S THAT".  The Bible is what they
    begin with as hard truth and everything must be built on top of that.
    Theories that stem from the premise that the Bible was inaccurate or
    wrong are catagorically regarded as false.  Period!
    
    In many dialogues and debates, one side can try to sway the other using 
    arguments that appeal to reason or emotion or whatever.  This does not
    work with the staunch believers.  No matter what you say or do, they
    will continue to believe.   If you prove beyond a shodow of a doubt that 
    the Bible was written a mere 300 years ago by an English author, they'd 
    deny your evidence and still believe.  No matter what evidence or rational
    appeals you make, they won't move.
    
    Personaly, I don't care.  I have no problem at all with respecting the
    beliefe systems of others.  But I am in search of the truth and
    simetimes question the staunch believers in search of it.  I rarely
    find anything of value because I filter proposed truth using reason and 
    very little makes it through the filter.
    
    -dave

.43

>    If you prove beyond a shodow of a doubt that 
>    the Bible was written a mere 300 years ago by an English author, they'd 
>    deny your evidence and still believe.  No matter what evidence or rational
>    appeals you make, they won't move.

Dave,

	Did you not mean to say "the Bible was translated into English a mere
300 years ago"?  If referring to the KJV, it would be historically more
accurate.

Shalom,
Richard

    	re .43
    
    	With God all things are possible.

re .-1

But not equally probable.

    re .44
    
    Nope, I mean that if you could prove that the Bible was an artificial
    fabrication that had nothing at all to do with a true message from God,
    nothing would change.  Assuming that reason and hard evidence were used 
    to come to this conclusion, then the staunch believers will state that
    the only thing proven is that the evidence and human reason are
    obviously flawed because God and the Bible are true.   If your results 
    do not equal God/Bible = Truth, then your method and/or data must be
    flawed.
    
    re .44
    
    >>With God all things are possible.
    
    Including the notion that the Bible had human authors who were not
    divinely inspired?
    
    -dave             

    
    First off, no one can prove that the Bible is an artificial
    fabrication.  Indeed the opposite is true.  The Bible exceeds all other
    ancient books in terms of its accuracy, according to the science of
    textual criticism.  Historically, it meets the exacting requirements of 
    a strict historical criticism.
    
    But really, the argument, "science vs. religion" can never be won
    at the level it is usually argued among laymen and that is the
    evidential level.  This is true for two important reasons.  The first
    reason is that science and religion use their own presuppositions to prove
    their points, a common fallacy in reasoning.  For example, science's
    own arbitrary presupposition that naturalism is the only acceptable 
    explanation for the universe is the same reason that science disallows
    supernaturalism as an explanation.  So, since there are no such things
    as miracles then even if Jesus was resurrected from the dead, according
    to the scientist, then it is simply an anomoly with no known cause.
    
    Similarly, orthodox Christianity's presupposition that God exists is
    used to prove that the evidence contained in the Bible is true.  So,
    for example, Jesus was indeed resurrected because God is omnipotent.
    
    The second reason arguments at the evidential level are inconclusive is
    a very simple reason.  Facts, the basis for evidential arguments, have
    no meaning outside of an interpretive context.  Facticity is
    meaningless.  No fact has meaning until it is given meaning by the
    interpreter and a context.  Take any fact you can think of and see how
    quickly you begin to place the fact in context and interpret it within
    your worldview.
    
    You might ask then, "How or where does one resolve such arguments?" 
    You resolve such arguments at the level of Philosophy, the study of
    what is true.  Through the use of logic and reasoning the existence of
    God must be proven or disproven.  If God's existence is proven, for
    example,  then the context for interpreting facts must be supernatural.  
    And more importantly, the contradictory view must be *discarded*. 
    Unfortunately the world has largely abandoned truth and philosophy and
    therefore is unable to reason to reality.
    
    jeff 

>>    First off, no one can prove that the Bible is an artificial

I never said that it was.  I merely said that even if overwhelming evidence
did exist (again, not saying that it does), it wouldn't matter.

But in a larger sense, do you believe that "anything" can be proven or
disproven?  I guess we're talking about a definition of the word "proof".

>reason is that science and religion use their own presuppositions to prove
>their points, a common fallacy in reasoning.  For example, science's
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I interpret this to mean that there are two "different" definitions for
"reason".  The scientific definition builds on the supposition that physical 
evidence is a reflection of universal truth and then builds on this evidence 
to derive more general truths using logic as a method.  However, I disagree 
with your statement "naturalism is the only acceptable explanation for the 
universe" and would counter with "the universe explains itself with the 
evidence provided in nature".  I must also state that my definition of
"natural evidence" includes everything that can be sensed and that would 
including unexplained phenomena like people rising from the dead.  Just
because it's unexplained doesn't put it outside the realm of science.

If I interpret what you said correctly, the theological definition of 
"reaason" builds on the supposition that God exists. From there, the 
definition of God along with logic can be used to exaplain all things.  
The definition of God varies from religion to religion and less radically 
from denomination to denomination.  The explanations vary in accordance to
the definition of God.  For example, if part of the definition of God is
the author of the Bible, and the question of speciation arises, the reason
can logically be gleaned from the story of Noah, which is in the Bible,
which came from God.  (right?)

I agree that facts have no meaning outside an interpretive context.  But
changing the way facts are interpreted is no new phenomena in science.  For
example, when the pregression of time was viewed as being a static
constant (as in Newtonian physics), the world was interpreted in a way
which observation indicated was flawed.  Enter Einstein, make time a 
variable, formalize the new thought process as the theory of relativity and 
the whole way science views the observed evidence changed.  Science is at
the threshold of another need to change the way it looks at the evidence of
nature with the perplexing problems it finds when considering quantum 
observations.

>>Through the use of logic and reasoning the existence of
>>God must be proven or disproven.  If God's existence is proven, for
>>example,  then the context for interpreting facts must be supernatural.
>>And more importantly, the contradictory view must be *discarded*.

Absolutely.  And if it can be proven that God does not exist, then God
must be discarded.  But as I said much earlier, the definition of God puts
him outside the realm of observation making him very difficult to disprove.
Can the existence of God be reasoned out?

The arts of logic and reasoning are formed from noting patterns in
observed phenomenon in nature.  For example, it's logical to assume that 
"for every observed effect there is a cause" because we see it all the 
time in nature.  So when we apply this axiom in science, we look for causes
whenever we see effects and we assume the causes exist.  But if logic and
reasoning are rooted in observing nature, then in not their validity also
in question?  Can you use logic and reason to search for God outside the
realm of the natural?

>>Unfortunately the world has largely abandoned truth and philosophy and
>>therefore is unable to reason to reality.
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

By this are you claiming that reality can be found via reason only?

-dave

Re.0
>> Physicists routinely create and destroy matter (in a sense)
>> in high energy physics experiments.  How does that jive with 
>> the notion that God is the sole being who can create?

Physicists routinely CONVERT matter to energy and back, not at all the
same as creation and destruction.  The "in a sense" is crucial.

Re.2
>> Conversely, if you pump enough
>> energy INTO a system, you can "create" matter.  One might argue that
>> matter = energy and you're just converting one into the other, like 
>> creating water out of ice and ice out of water by playing around with
>> temperature.  But the change here is between energy and matter, a bit
>> more profound that a phase change.

But this is STILL a conversion not a creation.  The notion of 
conservation of matter is a classical, "Newtonian", physical concept.  
Energy is still always conserved, never created or destroyed.

Re.6
>> The most widely accepted interpratation of quantum effects
>> (the Coopenhagen interpretation) suggests that the act of observing 
>> a particle changes it's nature from a "non-existent" probability wave
>> to an actual physical particle.  In other words, the observer causes
>> the creation of matter.

The term "non-existent" is misleading.  The energy of the particle is 
never truly "non-existent" but the exact state of the particle is not
determined until the collapse of the wave function.  Observation of the
particle does not CREATE matter.

I realize this is something of a nit but there seemed to be a common
misleading thread here.

The notion that God is "the sole being who can create" is still safe 
in the context of truly creating something from nothing.

- Michael

Re.21
>> Isaiah 40:22  "It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the
>> inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens 
>> as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"

Another interesting feature of this passage is found in the second half.
The description of stretching and spreading the heavens is consistent 
with the expanding universe observed by astrophysicists.  Note also that 
the curtain and tent analogies suggest a cloth like, "foldable", quality 
to that which is being described...the heavens.  This is consistent 
with the space-time folding of general relativity.

I am not, however, suggesting that Isaiah knew anything of this or that 
the ultimate Author was necessarily hiding this meaning here.  Maybe, 
Maybe not.  However, one thing about this passage and the others in 21 
indicate about the Bible is that where it touches on science and history 
it is consistent with observable evidence.  Notice what passage does not
say - that the earth is shaped like a cube, or is flat, or is sitting on 
the back of a turtle.  

The conflicts between science and Christianity have arisen from (and 
still do) misunderstandings in what science is telling us or what God 
has told us in the Bible.  There have been misunderstandings on both 
sides.

- Michael

1164.49

I see the relationship between science and religion not unlike that
between facts and truth (topic 1167).

Science seems more concerned with external examination.  Religion,
Christianity, seems more concerned with the life's so-called bigger
questions:

	What is the meaning of life?

	What is our relationship with others?

	Is a better world possible?

	What is our responsibility?

	Is there One who supremely cares?

	How might I know this One?  And so on.

Shalom,
Richard

Re .50

>> Physicists routinely CONVERT matter to energy and back, not at all the etc..

Depends on how you look at things.  If you interpret matter as being different
than energy (classic Newtonian sense), then the use of "create" and "destroy" 
area fine.  If you look at them as being the same (as in  E=MC^2), then 
they're not and "convert" is the better term (as you sugested).  What happens 
doesn't change, the verbage we use to describe it does.

>>The term "non-existent" is misleading.  The energy of the particle is

Same thing.  Before the probability wave collapses, the "particle" (if you want
to call it that) could be anywhere.  In that sense... common layman sense....
the particle doesn't exist because it's not a billiard ball type thing that
exists at some point in space.  But, if you choose to view the probability wave
as equalling the quantum particle, then it exists (even though you can't point
at it in space).  Again, semantics.

And, as you probably know, a lot of this is "up in the air". The study of
quantu physics is still young and the ground we're walking on when describing
it at this point is very very tenuous.  I intentionally used the more dramatic
"destruction/creation" of matter to spark converstaion.  IU intentionally
pointed out the Coopenhagen interpretation of quantum effects (observation
creates matter... again in the classical sense) to spark more interest and
get people thinking about the possibilities.  IMO, the Coopenhagen
interpretation doesn't seem likely to be the truth.  The fact that it's the
most accepted is just testimony to whe "I dunno" space science is in with this
stuff at this time.


>>The notion that God is "the sole being who can create" is still safe
>>in the context of truly creating something from nothing.

If God can create something from nothing, why cannot the universe have this
same attribute?  Who created God?  If God wasn't created, why can't the
universe exist without a creator too?  Etc...  


Re .51

When I read, and reread, and reread the passage, I feel that I have to take it
as a whole.  At one point it's talking about God sitting on the earth... as if
he were a physical being sitting on something.  So, in that sense the passage
is metaphorical.  Then it mentions the "circle of the earth" (again, circle,
which is not a sphere) and I wonder if we're still talking metaphorically or
has the context of the sentance changed gear mid sentance to the physical. 
Mike mentioned earlier that one of the definitions of the ancient Hebrew word
which translated to "circle" was "compass" which canotes a sense of "inclusion"
as in a "circle of friends".  To me, the passage makes more sense if you think
of it in themetahorical context of God having dominion over the earth and
everything inside it.

As far as the stretching out of the heavens, etc... , I can't see anything in
the passage that indicates the the stretching is an ongoing process.  This
passage is obvioosul metaphorical (..."as a" curtain ..."as a" tent).  A
curtain and a tent is something that one does not think of as expanding, rather
they're static in size.  They can be folded, as Einstein suggested space could
be folded, but I think that's "stretching" the analogy much too far!


Re .52

Couldn't disagree more with the notion that science is uninterested in the
metaphysical.  Perhaps the greatest scientist of the day, Stephen Hawking,
has said that he strives to "know the mind of God".  Science examines the
external, and the internal, and whatever else it can sense in an effort to 
learn the truth.  As was being dabbled with in .48/.49, the approaches are
different.  Science sees physical evidence as a reflection of the truth and
therefor a means to get at the truth.  Theology sees God as the truth and
physical evidence can then be explained "given" God.  In my mind, science
"starts with nothing" abd builds up from that with physical evidence, logic
and reason.  Theology "starts with God" and works it's way down to us.


-dave

    Re: Michael Crews
    
    I haven't seen you in here before so welcome!  I found your previous
    replies refreshing!
    
    Re: Stephen Hawking
    
    It is my understanding that astrophysicists often use God in figures of
    speech, but that isn't necessarily evidence of some belief system.  I
    think they like to use these figures of speech to relay the importance
    of an experiment/observation to lay people.  Isn't Hawking an atheist or 
    agnostic?
    
    Mike

    >> Isn't Hawking an atheist or agnostic?
    
    Perhaps, by your definition, an agnostic.  I doubt he's so narrow
    minded as to think of himself as an atheist.  I suppose one would have
    to establish definitions for "God" and "belief" with him personally
    before  even attempting to pigeonhole the man.   He also once said 
    "God is Order".  The man, a scientist, is awestruck with the "way" in
    which the universe fits together... the "order", and can't resolve it
    with random chance.  Perhaps to him, the "order" is God.  Couldn't say 
    for certain but he's written several books if you're interested.
                                                  
    -dave 

Re .53

We are in agreement then about the matter creation issue.  I understand your
usage of the terms "destruction/creation" in order to spark debate.  It did
work after all.

>>>>The notion that God is "the sole being who can create" is still safe
>>>>in the context of truly creating something from nothing.

>>If God can create something from nothing, why cannot the universe have this
>>same attribute?  Who created God?  If God wasn't created, why can't the
>>universe exist without a creator too?  Etc...

The reason that the notion that God is "the sole being who can create" is
still safe with respect to the creation of matter/energy, is that the
universe has never been observed to have this attribute.

The hypothesis that the universe can exist without a creator is valid enough
but is it the best fit for the evidence?  First, we have a universe that has
an apparent boundry, at one end, with the Big Bang and either no end to the
expansion or a Big Crush with an entropy so high that it stands about as much
chance of bouncing as a wet paper towel, at the other.  This is suggests a
a "one shot" universe consistent with one described in the Bible.  Second,
the entropy state of the initial universe was astoundingly low to an
inconceivable degree.  Roger Penrose estimated that of the possible initial
states, our universe is organized to a degree that is 10^^(10^^123) against.

If there is something outside the universe, from which it sprang or was
created, this something would, of mathematical neccessity, be more organized
(lower entropy) than the universe itself.  Since the entropy level of this
universe is enough for intelligence to exist then so must what the universe
came from.

The point here is that the Biblical God-universe relationship does fit the
evidence even if it is not, from this, provable beyond ALL doubt.

- Michael

>>We are in agreement then about the matter creation issue.  I understand your
>>usage of the terms "destruction/creation" in order to spark debate.  It did
>>work after all.

It was meant to raise a few eyebrows in the group of readers who were not
aware of some of this modern physics we're talking about.  The point I was
trying to make is that the scientific description of the physical universe 
is far from complete, absolute or correct.  That's a self admitted thing
from the point of science.  It should never be considered a complete and
accurate accounting of metaphysics.  It has never claimed to have a compete
answer.  It probably never will.

>>The reason that the notion that God is "the sole being who can create" is
>>still safe with respect to the creation of matter/energy, is that the
>>universe has never been observed to have this attribute.

Yay, I guess.  But there's some pretty weird stuff going on when you have huge
volumes of matter being sucked into a black hole with no apparent release of 
the energy you'd expect from E=MC^2.  Where's it all going?  What the hell's
going on inside the event horizon?  And what about these super massive black
holes Hubble (the telescope, not the man :-) ) discovered?  Is it being 
"destroyed" (whatever that means).  Maybe space folding's coming into play and
the energy = what we see pouring out of quasars?  Maybe?  (maybe not).

But hypothesizing that the universe has the "ability" to create/destroy itself
and/or it's components is as valid as hypothesizing that God can.  At least
you can sense the universe (sight, hearing, etc...) and therefor conclude that
it exists.  Assigning it attributes like these seems a little more plausible 
(to me anyway) than assigning them to God where his "existence" is more 
questionable (from the standpoint of the matter/energy/space/time that's 
being created and destroyed).

The "safety" issue isn't really an issue because the definition of God as
creator can change, as needed, with the scientific discoveries of the time.  
If, for example, some "matter creation" mechanism was discovered in the 
universe (I won't attempt to hypothesize what that might be), the definition 
of God would change to include "the creator of the creation mechanism".  The 
notion of God as absolute creator will always be safe for that reason.

The laws of physics tend to come into question when you approach T=0 (Big Bang
or Crunch).  The math explodes to a point where you really have to question
your methods.  You mentioned that Penrose estimated extreme order at near T=0
as a figure 10^^(10^^123) against (BTW, "against" what?).   But what does that
mean?  And what's the density of the universe at T=0?  Some number over 0. 
Math can fail as a model and one should always be cautious of it.  

The bounded universe you mentioned (bounded by the Bang and the hypothetical
Crunch) is bounded in time.  And what's time?  We seem to sense time in the
expanding universe but have no idea what'll happen if/when it's contracting.
And what was time like at T=0? And before? (that question doesn't even make
sense!)  If/when the universe is about to "reverse" in the direction of the
Crunch, what laws of physics will apply in a collapsing universe?  What laws
of physics applied at T=0?  I dunno, but we get some pretty weird results when
we try to apply our laws.  Wierd results like the weird results physicists
were playing with after Michealson's experiment indicated that the speed of
light was a constant.  Enter A.Einstein with a new way of looking at the
evidence resulting in a shift in our understanding of the supposed "static"
laws of physics.  I think we need a few dozen more Einsteins before we can 
get better thought models of what happens at these boundary conditions.  And 
I've very skeptical of the wild theories that try to explain them, especially 
when they're complicated.

>>If there is something outside the universe, from which it sprang or was
>>created, this something would, of mathematical neccessity, be more organized
>>(lower entropy) than the universe itself.  Since the entropy level of this
>>universe is enough for intelligence to exist then so must what the universe
>>came from.

UUmmmmmmmm..... becareful about using math.  I use it with caution here, in
this expanding universe, on planet earth, in the 20th centurey with some
trust but I don't know what validity it might have at times < T=0, or outside
the universe (the realm of a hypothetical creator).  I'll be the first to 
admit that we have no scientific models or even methods of looking outside 
our universe/time.

You're assuming the "need" for a cause->effect relationship with the universe
being an effect and a God the cause.  If it can be proven that the universe
"needs" a creator, I'll be the next one to jump on board of the good ship of
believers.  But alas, the notion of a creator only gives rise to a question 
about the creator's creator, his entropy, etc... .  It's a less than
satisfactory explanation.

>>The point here is that the Biblical God-universe relationship does fit the
>>evidence even if it is not, from this, provable beyond ALL doubt.

Yes, it fits perfectly.  But the problem with it is that it might well be an 
artifact which was DESIGNED to fit the evidence.   Science does that sort of
thing all the time when theories are developed.  The proposed "truth" (the
theory) is designed to fit the evidence.  The difference is that the
scientific theories can be tested and weighed against physical evidence and the
interpreted results of repeatable experiments.  God cannot be tested.  He was
designed to be untestable and therefor could never be disproved.  I mean
I can come up with an untouchable theory which explains some effect in quantum
physics, place the "cause" outside the realm of experiment or the ability to
sense it in any way, and then dare someone to disprove it.  The won't.  They 
can't. I designed the theory that way.  The flip side of the coin is that I
have an equally small chance of "proving" my theory.  

So where did the notion of God come from?  Does it have an artificial origin?
Was the notion "placed" within us, or "given" to us as a real, existing 
"thing" from a true God?  The can of worms I'd be willing to open with this
is the possibility of ideas being as "real" as hydrogen atoms.  (Plato would
be proud to hear that).                                      

-dave

    Re: -1
    
    I thought the notion of an expanding universe was just 1 of 3
    *theories* on its current state.
    
    Mike

I haven't read all this string, but I note from .0 that the starting point 
is the *conflict* between science and religion in western thought.  I'd like to 
suggest a different line of thinking -- namely, that the Judeo-Christian 
tradition, in removing the realm of the sacred from nature, in effect set 
the stage for the scientific revolution of the 17th century.  It's a lot 
easier to be an 'objective' observer and experimenter if you perceive God as 
outside the world, and the world itself as created by God but basically a 
machine made up of atoms of dead matter.  This contrasts with the old magical 
animistic view in which everything in the natural world was alive and had a 
soul, and there was not the deep split between the sacred and the profane 
characteristic of later thinking. 

Not that this 'desacralization' of nature led directly to the rise of 
science.  For centuries in the west, knowledge about *anything* was seen as 
the province of God, so that to attempt to elicit nature's secrets could 
be taken as heresy.  It remained for such fathers of the scientific revolution 
as Francis Bacon to insist on man's godlike role in interrogating and control
-ling nature -- at times using language, incidentally, that was strikingly 
reminiscent of the Inquisition.

One book that covers some of this area of philosophical/spiritual outlooks 
on nature is Peter Marshall's recent book, *Nature's Web*. Carolyn 
Merchant's *The Death of Nature* also deals with some of these issues.

Dorian

    re .58 (expanding universe...)
    
    I believe the theory of the universe as expanding is far and away the
    most popular.  Observations of everything moving away from everything
    else (red shift detection) is good supporting evidence of the theory.  
    Big Bang background radiation sort of put the steady state theory in 
    a hole.  Expanding, Steady-State, .... what was the third one you had
    in mind?
    
    BTW Mike, have you ever read "God and the New Physics" by Paul Davies?
    It talks a great deal about all of this stuff on a layman's level (I
    hate reading math unless it's absolutely necessary :-) ).  Having been
    written in the 80's, the books a tad bit dated when it comes to the 
    "most recent" developments in physics.  But most of it delves into
    philosophy and religion and the thinking processes therof.  I highly
    recommend it.
    
    
    re .59 (God = Nature)
    
    If I have to be pigeonholed, the Nature = God hole is where I'll sit.
    I think of "The Universe" as it's defined... "Everything".  And if God
    exists, then he's part (or all) of the universe.  Zen Buddhism seems
    to claim that God = Everything (nature?) and that we, people, are part
    of God... like a single cell of a person's body is part of the body.  
    The distinction between a body and it's cells is not physical, rather
    body vs cells are just two different "ways" of thinking about the very
    same thing.  It's a thought game that we play with nature.  We think of
    ourselves as separate and different from everything else where the
    reality of it is that we're not.  If/when we see that we're only
    fooling ourselves in thinking this way, and if/when we dissolve the
    notion of "self" away, we join with God (the universe) and achieve
    nirvana.  Discovering "external" causes of the universe is a moot
    endevour because whatever they may be, they're just part of the real
    universe (in the Zen sense).  Nothing at all is external to this notion
    of universe, even "Nothingness" is part of it (if that makes sense).
    
    I like that philosophy because it's self contained (relies on nothing
    external to it because there is nothing external to it).  I also like
    it because it puts everything on equal standing.  There is no
    artificial heiarchy.. God->man->animals->plants->water->stones->..etc.
    And it requires no leaps of faith.  
    
    ANyway, I'm wandering from the point.  There are other religions in which 
    nature plays a strong role.  One very beautiful one that quickly comes
    to mind is the essense of the beliefs of the Native Americans. 
    Everything was alive, had a soul and was equal.  Everything was part of
    the Great Spirit.  The people had spirit, the animals, the trees, the
    mountains and valleys, the waters, everything.  Again, it was simple
    and beautiful. 
    
    And I believe that if you can see truth in the Nature=God idea if you
    interpret the "heart" of the New Testement with this in mind.  
    
    -dave

>    BTW Mike, have you ever read "God and the New Physics" by Paul Davies?
>    It talks a great deal about all of this stuff on a layman's level (I
>    hate reading math unless it's absolutely necessary :-) ).  Having been
>    written in the 80's, the books a tad bit dated when it comes to the 
>    "most recent" developments in physics.  But most of it delves into
>    philosophy and religion and the thinking processes therof.  I highly
>    recommend it.
    
    Likewise, I'd like to recommend to you "Genesis & The Big Bang" by Dr.
    Gerald Schroeder on Bantam Books (ISBN 0-553-35413-2).  It was
    published in 1990 and is a very good read for our level ;-)  Note also
    it's published by a secular book company.
    
>    I believe the theory of the universe as expanding is far and away the
>    most popular.  Observations of everything moving away from everything
>    else (red shift detection) is good supporting evidence of the theory.  
>    Big Bang background radiation sort of put the steady state theory in 
>    a hole.  Expanding, Steady-State, .... what was the third one you had
>    in mind?
    
    These are the 3 theories:  1.) The Standard Model (i.e., Big Bang with
    expansion); 2.) Steady State 3.) Oscillating Universe (a modification
    of the Big Bang with expansion up to a point and then contraction
    begins).
    
    Mike

    re .61
                                                                      
    yay, the oscillating (Bang->Crunch->Bang->Crunch...).  All depends on 
    how much matter there is in the universe (or so I've read).  If you
    have enough matter, then you have enough gravity for the Crunch.  Last
    I heard, they're still short but looking for more matter in the form of
    dark matter and the like.  I believe the crutial amount of matter is
    called the "Cosmilogical Constant" (right?)
    
    "Genesis & The Big Bang".  I scribbled it down on a card in my wallet
    and will look for it the next time I'm in Harvard Square.  Thanks!
    
    -dave

>> ...there's some pretty weird stuff going on when you have huge
>> volumes of matter being sucked into a black hole with no apparent
>> release of the energy you'd expect from E=MC^2.  Where's it all
>> going?

Some of the energy is released as electromagnetic, "Hawking", radiation, 
though this amount is rather small for a black hole of any size.  Some 
is in the kinetic spin energy from the original collapsing star.  Much 
is in the gravitational potential energy, mass.  The vast majority, 
however, is in the increased entropy.  The entropy of a black hole is
given by the Bekenstein-Hawking formula: 

S = (A/4) X ((kc^3)/(Gh) )

where A is the surface area, k is Boltzman's constant, c is the speed of 
light, G is the gravitational constant, and h is Plank's constant over 2 
pi.

>> What the hell's going on inside the event horizon?

From the standpoint of the effects of the black hole on the rest of the 
universe it doesn't really matter what goes on inside.  The energy 
content, and its effects, are still identical to the mass/energy that 
goes in.  We don't know what goes on inside. We can only speculate 
aboutly likely conditions.

>> And what about these super massive black holes...?

Large black holes are simply bigger.  The energy content of two or more 
combining is cumulative.

>> Math can fail as a model and one should always be cautious of it.

Depends on what you mean by this.  Mathematical models can fail but not 
mathethematics.  I'm not aware of any physicists that believe that under 
conditions where the laws of physics break down, the laws of mathematics 
do also.  It is certainly resonable to assume that 1+1 is still 2 and that
statistical methods, from which information theory and entropy are derived,
still apply.

Anyway it is still possible to model conditions as T approaches 0.  We 
find that as we approach time=0 the entropy level also approaches zero.  
Again, this corresponds to an inconceivably "ordered" (high information 
content) state.

I appologize for the incompleteness of my Penrose example from .55 I was 
trying to be too brief.  I'll try again.  Penrose calculated the maximum 
entropy of the Big Bang working backwards from the entropy of the 2.7K 
background radiation and the Big Crunch model of one big black hole.  
Given the formula listed above, it is possible to calculate the entropy 
of the universe if all known matter were to fall into one big black 
hole -> 10^123 in natural units. From this, it can be determined which
initial entropy states out of all possible states are capable of producing
a universe even close to what we observe.  It turns out that the odds against
out universe having the entropy state it does to be AT LEAST (these estimates
were conservitive) one to 10^(10^123).  This is a one followed by 10^123
zeros.  You can even write a number that big down using every particle in the
kwown universe.  (Re:  The Emperor's New Mind, Roger Penrose, pp 340-344)

-----------

The shifts in our understanding of the law of physics have been more along
the lines of refinement rather than replacement.  Gravity is still gravity
even though our understanding of it changed greatly with the advent of
general relitivity.  The planetary orbital caclulations were refined not
thrown out altogether.

As far as boundary conditions go and our ability to predict conditions at
them, just because there are many unknowns at boundry conditions and just
because we have no mathematical models to explain everything going on,
doesn't mean that nothing can be determined about boundry conditions.  There
are many things that can be determined based on well kwown principles.  There
have also been several discoveries by the Hubble telescope (:-)) in the
1990's which all but confirm our understanding of the initial Big Bang
conditions at T very close to 0.

To claim that what science seems to tell us about the origins of the universe
is suspect simply because we MIGHT have a large "paradigm" shift in our
understanding sounds like hedging because of undesirable conclusions.

It's ironic, now that scientific theory about the origin of the universe
strongly suggests the possiblity of design, that skeptics are the one's who
claim that we can't trust science.  Isn't this what Christian's are often
accused of?

> You're assuming the "need" for a cause->effect relationship with the
> universe being an effect and a God the cause.

The assumtion is that there is anything at all beyond the universe itself.
To reiterate: If there is anything outside the universe, of which the
universe would by neccessity be a subset, then that something would, of
mathematical neccessity, have an informational content at least equal to that
of the universe itself.  Since the informational content of this universe is
enough for intelligence to exist then so must what the universe came from.
I beleive this is a corrallary to Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem which,
by the way, does not rely on any of the laws of physics.

> But alas, the notion of a creator only gives rise to a question about the
> creator's creator, his entropy, etc...

Actually this is a common fallacy that finite creatures such as ourselves have
difficulty understanding.  Given a time frame outside of our finite one the
concept of "always existed" is not a problem.  The concept of infinity is
real enough even if we've never experienced it or can truly concieve it.
Either way, you either have a creator's creator out to infinity or you have
one creator that always existed.

------

It appears that either the universe was created or it is an inconceivable
fluke.  I could site more than 2 dozen evidence for design "coincidences",
with repect to the universe and another 30+ for the fine tuning of conditions
for life on earth.  Reference the book "Creator and the Cosmos", by Hugh Ross,
Phd. - Astrophysics

If the universe was created, the creator took extra special interest in the
design.  It is reasonable to assume that such a creator would attempt to
communicate.  Such a communication would be expected to be unique.  Probably
written down so that we could have access to it throughout history. 

The Bible is only ancient religeous text that even comes close.  It
claims over and over to be the word of God, the creator of the universe. It
is completely accurate to any provable degree in all of its references to
science, geography, and history.  The supposed inaccuracies and
contradictions have evaporated over the past six decades.  There are many
other characteristics of it which suggest divine origin that I truly don't
have time to go into right now.  There are undoubtedly topics on this subject
elsewhere in this conference but I'm new and unfamiliar with it.
Try: http://www.webcom.com/~ctt/Nextseat.html

More to follow when time permits...

- Michael

Sorry.  My previous reply, 63, is inresponse to note 57.  And my Penrose example
reference was in 56 not 55.

Re. 60

> "God and the New Physics" by Paul Davies [, 1983]

Speaking of Paul Davies.  It is worth noting that his position in this book is
basically "no creator required".  Many of the arguments have since been
discredited, including the one that the universe popped into being as a
quantum tunneling effect.

Davies went on later in "Superforce", 1984, to concede that "the laws [of
physics]... seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design."

He further stated in "The Cosmic Blueprint",1988 and an artical entitled "The
Anthropic Principle" in Science Digest:

  [There] is for me powerful evidence for that there is somthing going on
  behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fined tuned nature's
  numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming.


- Michael

Standard Model
--------------
It can be proved by analyzing the Standard Model's development.  Had the
hydrogen been able to fuse into helium in the high-temperature (and,
therefore, high-energy) conditions of the very early universe, our universe
would be a different place than it is today.
    
"Nuclear stability occurred at a temperature just under 10^9�K.  The
composition of the universe at that time was 75% hydrogen and 25% helium.
Except for the heavier elements formed by fusion in the cores of later stars,
the composition remains as such today.
    
Suppose that instead of this binding being stable at 10^9�K, the temperature
of stability was 10^10�K or 10^8�K.  Our universe would be a very different
place.  Instead of changing the temperature of nuclear stability, we might
equally as well have theorized that the starting temperature at the creation
was different than it was and so the universe would have cooled to the 10^9�K
temperature earlier or later.  This would avoid arguments against changing
values for one of the inherent forces of matter.
    
If 10^10�K was the temperature of stability, then stability would have been
reached at approximately 1 second after the Big Bang.  The composition of the
universe at that time was approximately 25% neutrons and 75% protons and the
particle plus energy density of the universe was some 400,000 times that of
water.  This high density would have caused rapid fusion among particles and
therefore rapid building of heavier nuclei.  
    
How would this affect us?  First of all, we probably would not be here.
Immediately, the composition of the universe would have shifted from its
present 75% hydrogen and 25% helium to a 50-50 ratio as the abundant free
neutrons joined with protons to form helium.  The high particle density would
have changed more, perhaps all, of the hydrogen into nuclei of heavier
elements.  Little or no hydrogen would have remained.  No hydrogen means no
significant solar radiation.  The hot spots of the universe, which we call
stars, would not be there to provide life-giving energy.
    
Had nuclear stability been delayed until the universe temperature cooled to
10^8�K, then instead of having an abundance of heavier elements and a dearth
of hydrogen, as we saw in the previous scenario, there would be hydrogen and
not much else in the universe.  Approximately 300 minutes had elapsed before
the expansion of the universe had lowered the temperature to 10^8�K.  Although
neutrons bound in a nucleus are stable and do not decay radioactively, free
neutrons aree radioactive.  They decay with a 15-minute half-period.  The 300
minutes that elapsed before reaching 10^8�K would have allowed almost complete
decay of all free neutrons.  Nuclear synthesis requires neutrons.  A universe
with no neutrons means a universe composed of hydrogen and no other elements.
There is no place for life in such a universe...
    
Life is based on carbon and water.  Without carbon and water, you and I and
all the biosphere would not exist.  All living organisms are approximately 80%
water.  If we remove the water from our bodies, half of the remaining dry
weight is carbon.  There is good reason for this.  Water, in its liquid state,
serves as a universal mediator in both simple and complex chemical reactions.
Carbon is the elemental jack-of-all-trades...
    
The T-Tauri phase of the Sun produced a solar wind so fierce that it literally
blew all residual interplanetary gases into outer space.  But the devastation
touched more than just the interplanetary matter.  Atmospheres of the planets
were whisked away as well.  Yet here we are breathing a life-supporting
mixture of 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen...
    
Had the Earth's meltdown phase occurred before the Sun's T-Tauri phase, the
Earth's volatiles would have been exposed on the surface of the Earth.  The
devastating force of this wind would have swept the water and gases of the
biosphere out ot space.  If this had happened, our planet would look much like
Mars, probably a lifeless landscape with small amounts of water and only
traces of water vapor in an atmosphere so thin that its surface pressure is a
mere 1% of Earth's...
    
The annual variation in distance from the Earth to the Sun is only 4.5 million
kilometers, that is, only 3% of the total distance.  We are the 3% closer in
January.  This small annual variation means that the Earth's orbit is almost
circular.  The orbit of Mars, the planet just next door, is quite elliptical,
causing a variance in the distance to the Sun of 50 million kilometers during
the year.  If the Earth had this variance, our crust would deep-fry each
January.  In fact, if our distance from the Sun were only 10 million
kilometers less, that is, a change of less than 7%, calculations indicate that
the increased solar heat would prevent water vapor from condensing.  There
would be neither rain nor oceans.  We may all complain about the weather, but
in reality we have much to be thankful for.  For life as we know it, water in
its liquid state is essential.  On the Earth's surface, water is a liquid
between 0�C (32�F) and 100�C (212�F).  That temperature span, although it
represents the range of human sensations from bone-chilling cold to scorching
heat, is less than 2% of the total temperature range measured in our solar
system."
    
There's more about the Earth's magnetic field and the Earth's core, but you
should get the idea by now.  Bottomline: it took much more than random chance
to fit all this together.  This was designed.  It takes very special
conditions to keep life going.  The location, size, and composition of the
Earth are ideal for this task.

>>Speaking of Paul Davies.  It is worth noting that his position in this book
>>is basically "no creator required".

The word "creation" implies time.  The word connotes that the thing
being "created" did not exist at one point in time, then did exist at a
later time.  The point in time where the transition occured is "when" we
say the thing was "created".  If time itself does not exist, the
existence of the universe (which includes time as a subset) need
not have a creator (someone or something operating in time).  The entire
need for cause/effect relationships could go away and thus the need for a
"creator" as well.

>>  [There] is for me powerful evidence for that there is somthing going on
>>  behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fined tuned nature's
>>  numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming.

>>...It seems as though...

"Seeming" is believing?

Another, equally valid but less obvious way to look at it is to state that
it would be "impossible" that a completely unordered universe could exist
without having some order in it.  Think of it this way, for everything
that exists, it's opposite necessarily has to exist.  The attribute COLD
cannot exist without HOT, UP/DOWN, GOOD/EVIL, ELECTRON/POSITRON,
VACUUM/OCCUPIED SPACE, and... CHAOS/ORDER.  Everything we sense is in
reference to it's opposite.  (BTW, this is the Zen notion of the Ying and 
the Yang).  Randomness exists in the universe and therefor order MUST
also exist.   Where do these dualities come from?  Remember, the words
"come from" are temporal, and if time exists, then an existence without
time must also be valid, an existence (if you will) where "come from",
"cause/effect" and "creator/creation" is moot.  (I'm not professing that 
this is the way "it is", just attempting to demystify the apparently
awesome origin of "order" by proposing a different way of looking at things).



As you suggested, Davies jumps around from one philosophy to the next.  He's
searching for the truth using his inately flawed senses and ability to
reason.  I actually have respect for someone who can admit that he's wrong,
change his views to be more in keeping with the facts, and then continue
the search.  It took physicists years, and even decades to work through
their prode and accept relativity.  Davies has been writting for years.  
I wouldn;t doubt it a bit that he would refute his earlier positions on
things.  


-dave

    Hi Dave,
    
jb>>    First off, no one can prove that the Bible is an artificial

DG>I never said that it was.  I merely said that even if overwhelming evidence
DG>did exist (again, not saying that it does), it wouldn't matter.


Below is what you actually said which shows your false presupposition.
    
>>    Nope, I mean that if you could prove that the Bible was an artificial
>>    fabrication that had nothing at all to do with a true message from God,
>>    nothing would change.  

It is absolutely false that proving the Bible to be an artificial fabrication
having nothing to do with a true message from God, would not change anything.
It would change everything.  Orthodox Christianity lives or dies based upon 
the status of the Bible.


>>But in a larger sense, do you believe that "anything" can be proven or
>>disproven?  I guess we're talking about a definition of the word "proof".

Yes, lots of things can be proven by the use of formal logic and argumentation.

>reason is that science and religion use their own presuppositions to prove
>their points, a common fallacy in reasoning.  For example, science's
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>I interpret this to mean that there are two "different" definitions for
>>"reason".  The scientific definition builds on the supposition that physical 
>>evidence is a reflection of universal truth and then builds on this evidence 
>>to derive more general truths using logic as a method.  

No.  Not at all.  "Reason" equals valid, logical argumentation.  Rationalism,
a form of logical reasoning, starts with its presuppositions.  Evidential
arguments such as the ones we so often see between evolutionists and
creationists, for example,  use their presuppositions as proof for their
conclusions. This is not allowed in valid, logical argumentation.

>>However, I disagree 
>>with your statement "naturalism is the only acceptable explanation for the 
>>universe"

Then you are at odds with Science, Dave.  Today's scientific philosophy 
includes only naturalism as valid explanations for the universe.
 
>If I interpret what you said correctly, the theological definition of 
>"reaason" builds on the supposition that God exists. 

No. Not at all, as described above.  Reason is valid, logical argumentation.
Those arguing in favor of Orthodox Christianity's explanations for the universe
presuppose that God exists to prove their conclusions.  The same fallacy
employed by the scientist.


>Through the use of logic and reasoning the existence of
>God must be proven or disproven.  If God's existence is proven, for
>example,  then the context for interpreting facts must be supernatural.
>And more importantly, the contradictory view must be *discarded*.

>>Absolutely.  And if it can be proven that God does not exist, then God
>>must be discarded.  But as I said much earlier, the definition of God puts
>>him outside the realm of observation making him very difficult to disprove.
>>Can the existence of God be reasoned out?

The existence of God has been proven via formal, valid logical argumentation.
Somewhere in here you will find a topic, "Argument for Theism".  

>>The arts of logic and reasoning are formed from noting patterns in
>>observed phenomenon in nature.  For example, it's logical to assume that 
>>"for every observed effect there is a cause" because we see it all the 
>>time in nature.  So when we apply this axiom in science, we look for causes
>>whenever we see effects and we assume the causes exist.  But if logic and
>>reasoning are rooted in observing nature, then in not their validity also
>>in question?  Can you use logic and reason to search for God outside the
>>realm of the natural?

Actually, formal logic is a mathematical discipline proceeding from thought, 
    not one based upon observation only.  However, a fundamental 
    presupposition of formal logic is the certainty of the cause and effect
    relationship.

Logic is the best tool we have for discerning truth from error.  At a minimum
the law of noncontradiction must be at least a true negative test for truth
or we have no hope of knowing truth/reality at all.  It certainly is as
reliable as the law of gravity, for example, probably more so actually, since 
    we can affect the law of gravity in special circumstances but cannot
    validly argue wrongly.

God has given us the gift of reasoning, or logic.  It is what distinguishes us
from all other life in the universe.  We reason constantly in every thought and
act.  Reality governs thought, not the other way around. 

>Unfortunately the world has largely abandoned truth and philosophy and
>therefore is unable to reason to reality.
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>By this are you claiming that reality can be found via reason only?

>>-dave

Not exactly.  Most of us live in truth to a large degree.  We wake up, for
example, and see the sun shining on a sunny day and don't have to reason too
much, if any, that it is sunny.  This is reality and it has been "found".
However, more complex things, particularly the "why" things, are most
conclusively understood via reasoning.  And the knowledge and use of formal 
logic and valid argument has disappeared in the masses today and therefore
folks can't and won't understand that reality is at odds with the many
fanciful ideas masquerading as reality.

jeff

    
    "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science
     becomes convinced that a Spirit is manifest in the Law of the
     Universe."
    				- Albert Einstein

RE .68

Jeff....


> jb>>    First off, no one can prove that the Bible is an artificial
>
> DG>I never said that it was.  I merely said that even if overwhelming evidence
> DG>did exist (again, not saying that it does), it wouldn't matter.
> 
> >Below is what you actually said which shows your false presupposition.

> >>    Nope, I mean that if you could prove that the Bible was an artificial
> >>    fabrication that had nothing at all to do with a true message from God,
> >>    nothing would change.

The 5th word in what I originally said... "if".  Perhaps I'm not understanding
what you're trying to say.


>>It is absolutely false that proving the Bible to be an artificial fabrication
>>having nothing to do with a true message from God, would not change anything.
>>It would change everything.  Orthodox Christianity lives or dies based upon
>>the status of the Bible.

I meant that the proof ("IF" it existed) would be denied.  The proof would be
based on so called facts "learned" by virtue of human senses and reason which
are known to be imperfect, leaving room for doubting the proof, thereby 
justifying it's denial.


>>Evidential
>arguments such as the ones we so often see between evolutionists and
>creationists, for example,  use their presuppositions as proof for their
>conclusions. 

That makes no sense. It's like claiming A=B based on the supposition that A=B.
Please speak on this matter more.  I'm clearly not understanding what you're
trying to say here. Use the evolution/creation argument if you want.

>This is not allowed in valid, logical argumentation.

>> >>However, I disagree
>> >>with your statement "naturalism is the only acceptable explanation for the
>> >universe"

>>Then you are at odds with Science, Dave.  Today's scientific philosophy
>>includes only naturalism as valid explanations for the universe.

I found the use of the words "only acceptable" very distasteful and (IMO)
inaccurate.   A true scientist will not 'completely' discard any theory, even
theological ones.  Many times I've heard scientists refer to creationism (for
example) as "The God Theory".  It's not a mockery, it's just their way of
looking at proposed explanations. Many scientists delve into the study of the
paranormal (unnatural) because they want to understand the reasons for these so
called paranormal events.  Let me state that "MY" definition for the word
"nature" extends to  everything that exists in our universe, including those
things which we cannot sense.  For example, Einstein proposed the existence a
"natural" 4th spacial  dimension to explain some gravitational phenomena. 
I think the search for the 4th dimension is a valid scientific endevour, even
though it exists outside our experience of nature. Maybe we're not agreeing 
on a definition of "natural".

With regard to logic, I can't help but believe that it's rooted in human
experience.  I took the course in college and remember all the symbolic
mathematical lingo.  Waste of tie if you ask me because it was all common
sense.  I agree that it has value when you're doing formal proofs, but, as 
you said, it's based on presuppositions.  The cause/effect presupposition you 
mentioned is a beauty!  It's all we've ever experienced so we believe it to 
be the truth everywhere and for all time.  Says who?  Many many times, science
has had to step back and discard or revise presuppositions because they were
wrong.  Taking the "it must be therefor it is" approach is always dangerous, 
even for cause/effect.   Cause/Effect only has meaning in realms which exist
in/with time AND only in time as we understand it.

>>Logic is the best tool we have for discerning truth from error. 
I agree.  the best we have but not necessarily unflawed.

>>At a minimum
>>the law of noncontradiction must be at least a true negative test for truth
>>or we have no hope of knowing truth/reality at all.  

The realm of logic is a mental artifact and we can impose conditions like
noncontradiction.  After all, we "made" the realm of logic and all of it's
rules.  But when you go to apply logic to the "real world" you see apparent
contradictions everywhere. This is only testimony that the presuppositions or
observations are flawed. But without the "real world" to work with, would logic
have even been developed?  Would it have any meaning?  All of it's laws seem 
to be based in "common sense" AS WE PERCIEVE IT (emphasis on "Percieve").  

>It is what distinguishes us
>from all other life in the universe.

If you have not seen the rest of the universe, in all of space and in all of 
time, how can you make a statement like that?  Even here on earth, many animals
(perhaps all of them) appear to "reason" things out all the time.  You may
discount their behavoirs as reflexive or instinctual or something less than
rational, but  until and unless you know differently, you have to attribute
their actions as  being reason.  I see and feel and hear a forest fire, I 
run away.  A deer sees and feels and hears a forest fire, it runs away.  You 
atribute my action to reason but the deers as instinct?  Why?  What's the
difference?  How can you get into the mind of that deer to be able to say that
it's anything other than reason?

>>Reality governs thought, not the other way around.

Thought may not "govern" reality but it certainly plays a major role in the
way we perceive it.  And out perception of reality is in a sense "real" (if not
"true").  

>We wake up, for
>example, and see the sun shining on a sunny day and don't have to reason too
>much, if any, that it is sunny.  This is reality and it has been "found".

In other words, we define "sunny" as "seeing the sun"... we "see the sun",
therefor it's "sunny" ???  (logical, pure ans simple)  But does following that
path of logic get to the truth about "sunny"?  If someone was playing an
eloborate proactical joke on you with projector screen and a heat lamp, maybe
it was not a sunny day after all.

>>However, more complex things, particularly the "why" things, are most

It's the notion of these extrapolations as absolutes that I hold in doubt.   If
all I consider is my everyday life, then logic is built on a foundation  of
truth because "it works".  But "my everyday life" is not everything.  "The sun
and the stars and the planets and the moon all appear to revolve around the
earth, therefor it's logical to assume that they revolve around the earth".  Of
course the presuppositions are all wrong (earth is motionless, centered,
etc...) but, for the day, that extrapolation of logic worked!  And it was
wrong.  Cause/Effect "works" but is it true?  If everything has a cause, what's
the earth's cause?  (God).  What's God's cause? (doesn't have one) But I
thought everything needs a cause?  (You've heard the argument before.)

It's odd that we're talking about this stuff now (meaning the later part of the 
20th century) because some theorists are proposing developing different logic
schemes to explain yet unexplained quantum phenomenon.  Cause/Effect doesn't 
"appear" to apply in that realm and logic as we know it is falling into
disfavor as a tool for understanding that realm of existence.

Greeat discussion Jeff.  I really appreciate it.  

-dave

Re .69

And do "spirits" exist outside the universe?

-dave

Re .67

> Another, equally valid but less obvious way to look at it is to state that
> it would be "impossible" that a completely unordered universe could exist
> without having some order in it.

A completely unordered universe might be possible, but, not one with
intelligent life (;-)).

Physicists are finding more than just SOME order.  There are orders of
magnitude difference beween order and design.  There is more than enough
"evidence for design" to make it a reasonable possibility.  Considering the
implications, if true, it is worth checking out.

It is only relatively recently that the amount of design "coincedences" have
been discovered.  It is quite understandable that Davies would revise his
position on this.  I also respect him for this.  I was simply pointing out
that the new evidence is such that it is worth reading some more recent
material, including that of Davies.

-Michael

RE .68

Jeff...
   
   Excellent reply!  I, for one, understand and appreciate it.

RE .70
Dave...

> ... theorists are proposing developing different logic
> schemes to explain yet unexplained quantum phenomenon.  Cause/Effect doesn't 
> "appear" to apply in that realm and logic as we know it is falling into
> disfavor as a tool for understanding that realm of existence.

I'm curious what you mean by this.  As a follower of developments in this 
field, I'm not sure I'm aware of this one.  At least not in the sense of
invalidating traditional logic.  There are effects that are quasi-paradoxical
because we don't have a mathematical model to explain them but this is hardly
the same thing.

    
    Re.71
    
    You'll have to ask Uncle Al about that one.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    
    
    
    Dave,
    
JB>>It is absolutely false that proving the Bible to be an artificial fabrication
JB>>having nothing to do with a true message from God, would not change anything.
JB>>It would change everything.  Orthodox Christianity lives or dies based upon
JB>>the status of the Bible.

DG>I meant that the proof ("IF" it existed) would be denied.  The proof would be
DG>based on so called facts "learned" by virtue of human senses and reason which
DG>are known to be imperfect, leaving room for doubting the proof, thereby 
DG>justifying it's denial.

    Let's get this clear, Dave.  The "proof", *IF* it existed, would NOT be
    denied!

>>Evidential
>>arguments such as the ones we so often see between evolutionists and
>>creationists, for example,  use their presuppositions as proof for their
>>conclusions. 

>That makes no sense. It's like claiming A=B based on the supposition that A=B.
>Please speak on this matter more.  I'm clearly not understanding what you're
>trying to say here. Use the evolution/creation argument if you want.
    
    Okay.  The evolutionist explanation for the universe presupposes that
    1. there is no God, and 2., only a natural explanation of the universe
    is a valid scientific explanation.  So, if you ask an evolutionist why
    a fossil indicates evolution, for example, he'll say that evolution is
    the only natural explanation for why one fossil resembles another.  The
    presupposition that all scientific inquiry must be explained via
    naturalism is the only reason two fossils resembling each other are
    said to be the product of random evolution.
    
    The creationist explanation for the universe presupposes that God
    exists.  So, if you ask a creationist why a fossil indicates creation,
    for example, he'll say that creation is the only valid explanation for
    the superb design indicated in fossils and he might even point you to
    the Scriptures which describe the God's creation of all types of creatures.
    
    In both cases you have a tautology, a circular argument in which the
    presupposition is the proof for the premise.  This is not allowed in
    valid argument.
      

>> >>However, I disagree
>> >>with your statement "naturalism is the only acceptable explanation for the
>> >universe"

>>Then you are at odds with Science, Dave.  Today's scientific philosophy
>>includes only naturalism as valid explanations for the universe.

>I found the use of the words "only acceptable" very distasteful and (IMO)
>inaccurate.   A true scientist will not 'completely' discard any theory, even
>theological ones.  
    
    I think that there's a difference in what we call a scientist.  Science
    is not a monolith and is more fractured today than ever.  However, my
    statement is still true, at least in the official sense.
    
    >Many times I've heard scientists refer to creationism (for
>example) as "The God Theory".  It's not a mockery, it's just their way of
>looking at proposed explanations. 
    
    Well, that's nice.
    
    >Many scientists delve into the study of the
>paranormal (unnatural) because they want to understand the reasons for these so
>called paranormal events.  
    
    I think you will find mostly scorn from the larger, official scientific
    community concerning the paranormal and the folks that research it.  It
    is largely considered psuedoscience, like psychology and psychiatry.
    And "many" is a relative term.  I'd say that relatively only a handful
    of folks are studying the paranormal.
    
    >Let me state that "MY" definition for the word
>"nature" extends to  everything that exists in our universe, including those
>things which we cannot sense.  For example, Einstein proposed the existence a
>"natural" 4th spacial  dimension to explain some gravitational phenomena. 
>I think the search for the 4th dimension is a valid scientific endevour, even
>though it exists outside our experience of nature. Maybe we're not agreeing 
>on a definition of "natural".

    A natural explanation disallows a supernatural explanation.

>>Logic is the best tool we have for discerning truth from error. 
>I agree.  the best we have but not necessarily unflawed.

>>At a minimum
>>the law of noncontradiction must be at least a true negative test for truth
>>or we have no hope of knowing truth/reality at all.  

>The realm of logic is a mental artifact and we can impose conditions like
>noncontradiction. 
    
    No.  The realm of logic is reality.  Reality governs thought.  Thought
    does not govern reality.  Logic is a tool for discerning reality.
    
    > After all, we "made" the realm of logic and all of it's
>rules. 
    
    No.  Reality demonstrates the rule of logic.
    
    > But when you go to apply logic to the "real world" you see apparent
>contradictions everywhere. This is only testimony that the presuppositions or
>observations are flawed. But without the "real world" to work with, would logic
>have even been developed?  Would it have any meaning?  All of it's laws seem 
>to be based in "common sense" AS WE PERCIEVE IT (emphasis on "Percieve").  

    I do not see a contradiction when applying logic to the real world.
    Some statements when tested logically do certainly prove to be
    contradictory and are therefore false.
    
    Reality governs thought.
    
>It is what distinguishes us
>from all other life in the universe.

>>If you have not seen the rest of the universe, in all of space and in all of 
>>time, how can you make a statement like that?  
    
    Well, I have no reason to assume or presuppose that there is life anywhere 
    else in the universe.  Do you?
    
    >>Even here on earth, many animals
>>(perhaps all of them) appear to "reason" things out all the time.  You may
>>discount their behavoirs as reflexive or instinctual or something less than
>>rational, but  until and unless you know differently, you have to attribute
>>their actions as  being reason.  I see and feel and hear a forest fire, I 
>>run away.  A deer sees and feels and hears a forest fire, it runs away.  You 
>>atribute my action to reason but the deers as instinct?  Why?  What's the
>>difference?  How can you get into the mind of that deer to be able to say that
>>it's anything other than reason?

    Don't equivocate on the definition of "reason".  I've used it and
    defined it repeatedly as formal, valid argumentation.
    
>>Reality governs thought, not the other way around.

>Thought may not "govern" reality but it certainly plays a major role in the
>way we perceive it.  And out perception of reality is in a sense "real" (if not
>"true").  

    Thought does not govern reality.  Perception of reality and reality are
    two different things, of course.
    
>We wake up, for
>example, and see the sun shining on a sunny day and don't have to reason too
>much, if any, that it is sunny.  This is reality and it has been "found".

>>In other words, we define "sunny" as "seeing the sun"... we "see the sun",
>>therefor it's "sunny" ???  (logical, pure ans simple)  But does following that
>>path of logic get to the truth about "sunny"?  If someone was playing an
>>eloborate proactical joke on you with projector screen and a heat lamp, maybe
>>it was not a sunny day after all.

    It would be impossible to mistake the sun for a heat lamp and a
    projector screen.
    
>>However, more complex things, particularly the "why" things, are most

It's the notion of these extrapolations as absolutes that I hold in doubt.   If
all I consider is my everyday life, then logic is built on a foundation  of
truth because "it works".  But "my everyday life" is not everything.  "The sun
and the stars and the planets and the moon all appear to revolve around the
earth, therefor it's logical to assume that they revolve around the earth".  Of
course the presuppositions are all wrong (earth is motionless, centered,
etc...) but, for the day, that extrapolation of logic worked!  And it was
wrong.  
    
    >>Cause/Effect "works" but is it true?  If everything has a cause, what's
>>the earth's cause?  (God).  What's God's cause? (doesn't have one) But I
>>thought everything needs a cause?  (You've heard the argument before.)

    God is the uncaused cause of the universe.  Cause is what produces an
    effect. The idea that everything needs a cause leads to an infinite 
    regression of causes...that is, to nowhere.
    

    jeff

.68 Jeff Benson

>The existence of God has been proven via formal, valid logical 
>argumentation. Somewhere in here you will find a topic, "Argument for 
>Theism".  

Jeff, 

That is note 1094. If you look you'll see several challenges to your chain 
of reasoning pointing out breaks in the chain and a multitude of 
unsupported assertions. I've always kind of wondered why you let that topic 
drop...

.75 

    Okay.  The evolutionist explanation for the universe presupposes that
    1. there is no God, and 2., only a natural explanation of the universe
    is a valid scientific explanation.  

Jeff,

The theory of evolution says *NOTHING* whatsoever about a God. You could 
argue in favor of evolution and say that God set it up, it wouldn't 
discredit the original argument one bit. It also says nothing whatsoever 
around any explanation of the universe. All it does is propose a theoy that 
accounts for certain observed facts. Scientists will tend to look for 
natural explanations before supernatural ones, but if you could provide 
evidence for a supernatural explanation it too would be examined against 
whatever facts are known about the case. 

    In both cases you have a tautology, a circular argument in which the
    presupposition is the proof for the premise.  This is not allowed in
    valid argument.

The presupposition in this case is the theory itself. You suppose that the 
theory is true and then test it by applying it to known facts, by *trying* 
to disprove it. Rest assured that if something better comes along, 
something that accounts more completely for the facts, that it will replace 
evolutionary theory.

    God is the uncaused cause of the universe.  Cause is what produces an
    effect. The idea that everything needs a cause leads to an infinite 
    regression of causes...that is, to nowhere.

This goes back to 1094. Please revisit that note.

Steve

    I think the human mind subconciously looks for order.
    
    Richard
    

    I believe in evolutionary theories.
    
    I believe in Goddess/God.
    
    I find no inconsistencies in holding both beliefs.
    
    
                                 Patricia

Re .72. .73

>>A completely unordered universe might be possible, but, not one with
>>intelligent life (;-)).

What's "ordered" and what's not?  The Casmir effect is evidence to the 
'proposed' fact that matter/anti-matter pairs pop in and out of existence,
randomly, everywhere, all the time, with no apparent cause. Is that ordered
behavior?  It all depends on how "YOU" want to catagorize it.  "Order" makes 
no sense unless you can compare it AGAINST it's opposite.  Again, if you have
order, you MUST have disorder and visa-versa.  One implies the other.

Comparing the "orderliness" of one thing agains another is done all the time,
as in... "this system is MORE ordered than that one".  In that sense,
everything is ordered, just in varying degrees, all relative to each other.
And an equally valid way to look at this is to say that everything is
"DISORDERED", in varying degrees, relative to each other, etc... .

>>I'm curious what you mean by this.  As a follower of developments in this

Revising logic to explain quantum efects is one of (I believe) 7 prominent 
approaches to the problem of understanding quantum effects (this from a 
book I've read called "Quantum Reality.. I'll try to remember to get the author
and site the scientist who's proposing this).  When science's "best guess" is
the Coopenhagen Interpretation, one "really" has to look for better
alternatives.  We've been running with the cause/effect relationship from time
zero.  MAybe it's not always right.  We used to run with the notion that the
speed of light was a variable.  We had to change that premise when the need
arose.  Maybe the need has arisen where we have to revise logic to fit the
facts (maybe not).


Re .74

>>    You'll have to ask Uncle Al about that one.  (;^)

Absolutely (but we're a little late I think!)  The notion of "GOD" can be a
very, very subjective thing.  When someone asks me if I believe in God, I ask
them if they've got a few hours to talk about it.  If not, then I won;t answer
the question.

Re .75

>>    Let's get this clear, Dave.  The "proof", *IF* it existed, would NOT be
>>    denied!

By definition of logic, right?  It's like "proving" a mathematical theorem.
But when we talk about the real, physical world, we're dealing with
physical observations restricted to what our senses can detect, looking at the
universe "as a participant" and "from the inside".  It's prone to be, shall 
we say, "inaccurate" which always leaves room for doubt.  One can "prove" all
sorts of things in nature, but the presuppositions will always be in doubt.

Logic is a tool.  By itself, with out presuppositions, it yields nothing. 
Logical proofs are no closer to an objective truth than the method one used to
develop the presuppositions.  In and of itself, logic is useless in the
endevour to learn truths about physical and spiritual reality.  (IMO :-) )

With regard to the evolution thing, I think I see your explanation for
presupposition = conclusion, but I disagree with most of the content of your
understanding of the theory or of how science works.

>>However, my
>>    statement is still true, at least in the official sense.

Prove it!   :-)

I see science as a dicipline rooted in doubt.  It starts with nothing and
builds up from there using the questionable presupposition that observations
of the universe are a reflection of truth.   You see, even the presupposition
is suspect.  Gather more facts (suspect) use logic (suspect) derive theories
(suspect given it's foundation) and then, test the theories for validity.  It's
imperfect and it's conclusions (theories) are far from what a logician might
catagorize as a pure truth.  But then again, science is only the "search" for 
truth and not a means of establishing truth.  No truths have ever come out of
science, just "guesses" with different levels of credibility.

>>    Well, that's nice.
"God Theory" taken as a mockery I guess.  Miscommunicationa and
misinterpretation have plagued debates in this area for centuries.

>>    I think you will find mostly scorn from the larger, official scientific
>>    community concerning the paranormal and the folks that research it.  It

Science lends less credibility to the paranormal in areas where it (science)
has good theories supported by evidence.  In situations where this is not the
case, theories based on less fact are given more credence (however 
reluctantly).  If evidence indicates that a psychic can communicate with the 
dead, and there are no physics/chemistry/biology based theories to explain  the
observed phenomena, then the paranormal theories are (by default) the most
credible (not = likely, just the MOST credible HOWEVER much lacking of
evidence).  It's a game of being able to come up with a better explanation
given the facts and  logic/reason.  The same holds true for considering
theological explanations of the universe. The "creationist" theory is given
little credibility when it claims that the universe is only a few thousand
years old.  But it's given much more consideration when it's proposed as a
"cause" to something like the "Big Bang" because of the lack of observable
evidence in that area.  

>>    A natural explanation disallows a supernatural explanation.

Perhaps you're making a distinction between "natural" and "supernatural"  which
I do not make.  I feel that you're equating "natural" with physically
observable phenonenon and nothing more. I'm afraid definitions between these
two terms need to be developed and agreed upon before discussoin can continue.

>>No.  The realm of logic is reality. Is this a presupposition of formal logic? 
I view formal logic as being as real as the number "FIVE".  It's a very useful
notion in modeling reality and, if Plato was right, may exist in some fashion
as a real thing.  But as a proposed "component" of reality, logic need not have
the scope to address all of reality.  And, if logic is "real".  our perception
of it may be flawed.

>>Reality governs thought.  Thought
>>    does not govern reality.  Logic is a tool for discerning reality.

You're making a lot of absolute statements here.  Are these artificial
definitions or are they reflections of some objective truth?  If the latter,
please support these claims with... well, with... SOMETHING!

>>    No.  Reality demonstrates the rule of logic.
Just as celestial objects rising and falling from horizon to horizon 
demonstrates that they revolve around the earth?  The word "demonstrates" 
implies "oobservation" and that is a very limited and unreliable thing.

>>    Well, I have no reason to assume or presuppose that there is life anywhere
>>    else in the universe.  Do you?

I have no reason to assume that there CANNOT be, so I admit that and maintain
that "there might be".  I certainly wouldn't be so presumptuous as to state
that man "IS" the only form of live that can reason.  I may state that man can
reason and that I can't prove other forms can.  It's like an ancient astronomer
stating that there are no other terestrial planets, basing the statement on the
fact that he hasn't seen any other planets.

>>    Don't equivocate on the definition of "reason".  I've used it and
>>    defined it repeatedly as formal, valid argumentation.

Until we can understand the mental activities of other animals, we have no 
basis to assume that they CANNOT reason.  You may state that we CANNOT
determine if they reason or not but no ferther.  Using your own logic, you have
to PROVE that ALL other things cannot reason before stating that man alone can
reason.

>>    It would be impossible to mistake the sun for a heat lamp and a
>>    projector screen.

Couldn't disagree more.  Allusions work.  The sensory input we get is corect
but we sometimes pattern recognize and pigeonhole the information incorrectly.
It would be easy to mistake a high quality image or a reflection of the sun 
for the genuine article.

>>God is the uncaused cause of the universe.
a theory.

>>Cause is what produces an effect.
an axiom based on patterns of observed phenomenon.

>>The idea that everything needs a cause leads to an infinite
>>    regression of causes...that is, to nowhere
Which puts the notion of cause/effect as an absolute truth in question,
including the notion that the earth needs a cause.



Re .76.

Ditto!


Re .77
>>    I think the human mind subconciously looks for order.

Also, "order" would never be apparent unless and until you see it against a
background of disorder.  It's all a question of how we catagorize things
and play them against each other.  But all of this doesn't change reality,
whatever that is.

Re .78
>>    I believe in evolutionary theories.
>>    I believe in Goddess/God.
>>    I find no inconsistencies in holding both beliefs.

I respect your views.  Depending on the definition of God, I may even agree
with them.  I'm tired of playing the Science-vs-God game because I do not see
them as being in conflict.


-dave

    
    Re.79
    
    I agree completely with your last statement, Dave, and also yours,
    Patricia.  I guess that's why I've felt no overwhelming desire to
    actively participate in this discussion.
    
    >>>A completely unordered universe might be possible, but, not one with
    >>intelligent life (;-))
    
    Oh, I don't know about that.  Have you ever seen the office spaces of
    some of the more brilliant engineers in this company?  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    Re .80
    
    Where I DO see conflict is where we, as a society, have to decide on
    direction and action.  The prescribed or inferred courses can vary
    greatly depending on which point of view you look at the problem(s) 
    with.  When we debate cosmology and logic and other esoteric concepts,
    it's OK to leave everything in an unresolved, indefinite state.  But
    when it comes to taking action, you can't afford to leave things so
    unresolved.
    
    I see conflict in the areas of...
    
     Population Control
     Abortion
     War
     The Environment
     Prayer in School
     
     etc...
    
    
    -dave
    
    (My God, I reviewed .79 and my spelling is terrible)

                                                
    Re.81
    
    I agree, Dave.  But for those who wish for the mental stimulation and
    expansion, it can get quite interesting nonetheless.  Maybe it is a
    positive thing that there can be some topics that are left in the
    unresolved, indefinite state anyway...and that is just fine.  Leaves
    some room for God to work some magic.  (;^) 
    
    And I wasn't going to say anything about the spelling...(;^)  (Just
    teasing!!!)
    
    Yer resident tech. writer,
    
    Cindy

Re .73 (Micheal)
    
>> ... theorists are proposing developing different logic
>> schemes to explain yet unexplained quantum phenomenon.  Cause/Effect doesn't
>> "appear" to apply in that realm and logic as we know it is falling into
>> disfavor as a tool for understanding that realm of existence.
>
>I'm curious what you mean by this.  As a follower of developments in this

The book I got that from is "Quantum Reality" by Nick Herbert (Frank Herbert's
son BTW).  He sites 8 prominent approaches to explaining quantum observations.

 1) Copenhagen #1 (there is no deep reality)
 2) Copenhagen #2 (reality is created by observation)
 3) Quantum Reality #3 (reality = undivided wholeness)
 4) Multiple Worlds (infiinte number of universes)
 5) Quantum Logic (the world obeys a non-human type of logic)
 6) Neorealism (world is made up of real objects)
 7) Quantum Reality #7 (Consciousness creates Reality)
 8) Duplex World of Heisenberg (world = potentials + actualities)

I was referring to #5.  In a nutshell, the "inventors" of this theory define a 
logic system that reflect quantum effects.  To us, every day, sensible people,
it's nonsensical.  But it works (it has to, it was designed to).  The dubious
part of the approach is whether this logic system reflect reality or whether
"common sense" logic would work given a missing piece to the puzzle (like
maybe another spacial dimension or some other yet onbserved phenomenon or
something like that).  

Point is that the way we use logic, using "common sense", may not necessarily
reflect reality at the quantum level.  An analogy to this would be changing
one's mindset from thinking that masses are attracted to each other by some
invisible force vs thinking of gravity as a warp in space.  All you need is
that missing piece to the puzzle (the 4th spacial dimension) to make "common
sense" work again.  

Also, I bought "Genesis and the Big Bang" last night.  I'll reserve comment
until I'm finished but it looks good!

-dave

Re: .83 (Dave)

Thanks for the book reference.


> 5) Quantum Logic (the world obeys a non-human type of logic)

> I was referring to #5.  In a nutshell, the "inventors" of this theory define a
> logic system that reflect quantum effects.  To us, every day, sensible people,
> it's nonsensical.  But it works (it has to, it was designed to).  The dubious
> part of the approach is whether this logic system reflect reality or whether
> "common sense" logic would work given a missing piece to the puzzle (like
> maybe another spacial dimension or some other yet onbserved phenomenon or
> something like that).

I would tend to favor your last sentence.  Unless this view of Quantum Logic
is SHOWN to invalidate our "common sense" logic, I don't see sufficient
reason, at this point, to label it as "supect" or "esoteric".  Without the
axiom of propositional logic as a basis for discussion, we are simply wasting
time here.

BTW did you miss reply .63?  You never commented on any part of it.

- Michael

Re .84

I too am skeptical of the quantum logic approach.  But it may very well be
that BOTH systems are valid in the same sense that Newtonian physics still
works (on average) as does Quantum.  Personally, I think there neds to be
another major discovery to resolve our logic with the observerd effects.

>>Without the
>>axiom of propositional logic as a basis for discussion, we are simply wasting
>>time here.

Agreed.  But it's still good to remember that other logic schemes may be more
valid, even if they're not evident to us right now.  Some of our logical
"mainstays" are inherintly uncomfortable and I'm a little less confident of
them.  The "every effect has a cause" concept which leads to "if God created
the universe, who created God" follow up makes me wonder how valid
"cause/effect" ~really~ is.  But it works for everything in our universe, so 
we accept and work with it (for now ;-) ).

>BTW did you miss reply .63?  You never commented on any part of it.

Nope, missed that one.  A "quick" response (if I may...)

>>Some of the energy is released as electromagnetic, ...

Some of this is counter intuitive.  The idea that the entropy is increasing as
the hole takes on mass suggests that it's becoming more and more "random" as
the thing is "growing".  One would think the opposite and (off hand) I might
suspect that entropy is being used as a sort of fudge factor to account for the
missing matter/energy.  The idea of a massive black hole with zero size
would make you think of extreme order.  As you said in an earlier note,
extreme order was indicated for the universe at T=0 (Big Bang) and, at that
time, the universe was supposedly like a very massive black hole.  On the one
hand, we have the universe at T=0 as having extremely low entropy, and then on
the other, we have black holes with entropy which grows while it takes on more
mass.  Something's fishy here.


>>From the standpoint of the effects of the black hole on the rest of the
>>universe it doesn't really matter what goes on inside.  ...

With regard to it's effect on "us" on the outside, I agree.  But it still
matters from the standpoint of understanding the universe, even the parts we
can't sense.

>>We don't know what goes on inside. We can only speculate
>>aboutly likely conditions. 

For now ;-)  We're stil relying on reflected or generated light and 
particles and the like for information about everything.  But, if another
mechanism which was immune to gravity existed, it would be useful in taking a
look inside.  I know, I know... science fiction.

>>Large black holes are simply bigger.  The energy content of two or more
>>combining is cumulative.

No "bigger" in 3-D size (not using event horizon as defining "size")

>Mathematical models can fail but not mathethematics....

Math fails as a model when you do things like divide by zero.  For example, 
what's the density of a black hole with mass > 0?  (again, not using the event
horizon to calculate a spurious volume).

>I'm not aware of any physicists that believe that under
>conditions where the laws of physics break down, the laws of mathematics
>do also. 

Practically all of the laws of physics are described in terms of mathematics.
When the math beaks, so do the models (laws)

>>Anyway it is still possible to model conditions as T approaches 0.  We

"approaches", yes, but what happens AT T=0 (where the math breaks)?  The
special theory of relitivity tells us that a hydrogen atom would take on near
infinite mass as it approaches the speed of light.  Clearly, it would not have
near infinite mass, but that's what the math tells us.  So, you take it  in
the context that it's given and say that it "behaves" as if it had near
infinite mass while avoiding the deluge of discrediting counterpoints.

>it can be determined which
>initial entropy states out of all possible states are capable of producing
>a universe even close to what we observe.  It turns out that the odds against
>out universe having the entropy state it does to be AT LEAST (these estimates
>were conservitive) one to 10^(10^123).  

In effect, you're saying that the universe has (had) a specific entropy at
each point in time from T=0 to the reversal toward the crunch and that the
odds against it being one very specific entropy out of the set is extremely
low.  But that would be true no matter what the entropy was at T=0, right?
The probability that it was one of the SET is "1". Let me state it this way, 
the probability that the universe had the entropy that it had at T=0 was 
"1"... cuz that's what it had.  I question Penrose' method of "backward 
quantification". 

How about this... John and Mary had a baby girl.  

                                                 vvvvvv vv vvv vvvvvvvvv
What "was" the probability of them having a girl before it was conceived?  
Answer "1/2" (one state: "girl" out of two possible states:  "boy or girl").  

What "was" the probability that their child was a girl at the moment of
conception?
Answer: "1", because it was a girl, even if we look back and say that the 
odds "WERE" 1/2 before conception.  You can't say that the odds were 1/2
after conception.  Te baby had to be one or the other.  The probability of it
being a boy OR a girl was "1".  

The universe had the entropy that it had.  Knowing all the "after the fact" 
possibilities, we look back and say that the probability of it being what it 
was was very low.  But it only makes sense to say that BEFORE T=0 when all 
the proposed possibilities were equally likely, not after.  Even more, there
were no other possibile entropies to choose from because there were no other
universes.. having entropies.. building the list of all possibilities to
choose from, right?

At T=0, the  universe had one fixed entropy.  For purposed of normalization
let's call that entropy "0.0", and it was increasing ever since. ...OR... The
universe had an ORDER coefficient... 0.0, decreasing ever since. (Same thing
stated differently)  It appears less confusing when you think of the ORDER
(not disorder) of the universe and you normalize to "0" at T=0.  You see, not
knowing any of the other entropies, the universe was created (if it was
created) with some entropy.  And there was no other entropy state to compare 
to so we mormalize to "0.0" for purposes of quantification.

Looking at what the entropy was using the Gibbs equation, from a perspective 
"out here" where T>>0, you get wild entropy values at T=0 and conclude that
there was great order at T near 0.  We shoved  a stake in the ground out here
at T>0 by concocting the Gibbs equiation and then attempt to use it where it
doesn't belong, at T=0.  We can expect it to work for all T>0, but NOT at T=0.
If you want something to work at T=0, normalize entropy = 0.0 at T=0, and
entropy = infinity at the time when the universe is expected to
reverse toward the Crunch, and then model everything between using the time
function curve that makes sense.   Entropy(t) = K*t ...or K*(t^2) ...or
whatever curve describes the increase of entropy with time.

(see what I'm driving at?)


(I'm taking a lot more time than I wanted here, but i'm enjoying it)

>>The shifts in our understanding of the law of physics have been more along
>>the lines of refinement rather than replacement.  Gravity is still gravity
>>even though our understanding of it changed greatly with the advent of
>>general relitivity.  The planetary orbital caclulations were refined not
>>thrown out altogether.

Absolutely.  And it's an ongoing process.  Sometimes, we have to consider 
scrapping a theory all together (light is a traditional Newtonian wave 
traveling in a medium... the "ether")  That can be viewed as either a
gross refinement of our understanding of light or scrapping an old theory and
replacing it with a new one.  It's just semantics.  But the process is
ongoing, no theory is ever "safe" because we can't speak to what might be
discovered in the future to discount it.  Absolutely!

>As far as boundary conditions go and our ability to predict conditions at
>them, just because there are many unknowns at boundry conditions and just
>because we have no mathematical models to explain everything going on,
>doesn't mean that nothing can be determined about boundry conditions.  

The math can still work "near" the boundary condition but knowlege of what's
on the "other side" is often key in characterizing the boundary condition 
itself.  Consider the graph of y=(1/|x|)  (read Y = 1 over the absolute value
of X). Approaching the Y axis from the  right (1st quad, decreasing vals for
X) you see Y approaching infinity asymptotically (sp) But what happens in the
2nd quadrant?  Just plot the  graph for x<0 and you can "see" another
asymptotic approach and you can conclude that Y=infinity at X=0. Try the same
thing with Y=(1/X) and you see a gross discontinuity as Y = both positive and
minus infinity at X=0.

If we knew what went on "before" the Big Bang, THEN we'd have a much better 
chance and understanding what the math means at the boundary condition itself.
What if entropy was HUGH at T=0- ? Would entropy at T=0 be large or small? 
(does it even make sense to talk about negative time?)

>There
>are many things that can be determined based on well kwown principles.  There
>have also been several discoveries by the Hubble telescope (:-)) in the
>1990's which all but confirm our understanding of the initial Big Bang
>conditions at T very close to 0.

I'd replace "confirm" with "support"  :-)))

>To claim that what science seems to tell us about the origins of the universe
>is suspect simply because we MIGHT have a large "paradigm" shift in our
>understanding sounds like hedging because of undesirable conclusions.

It's always suspect.  And our record thus far for making paradigm shifts 
hasn't been anything to brag about...

 - World is flat, ... uhhhh no, I mean round
 - Sun and planets revolve around us,... uhhhhh no, I mean the other way
 - Electrons are solid billiard balls... uhhhh... wait a minute.

As you said, we're constantly "fine tuning".  And I say that we should never 
be afraid to make a paradigm shift when it makes sense.

>>>If there is anything outside the universe, 

What about defining the universe as "all that there is".  Nothing can be
"outside" (by definition), even God.  It's a much simpler way of looking at
the problem.

>> Given a time frame outside of our finite one the
>>concept of "always existed" is not a problem.

I agree, but outside the realm of time, "existing infinitely" and "not
existing at all" are the same because the word "exist" implies "a time when
the something was and a time when it wasn't". It makes no sense to use the
word "exist" outside the realm of time.  And it  makes no sense to use the
word "create" outside the realm of time.  I have no problem with the notion of
an "infinite" God.  But I have equally little problem with an "infinite"
universe.  In that sense, God is not "needed" because creation itself is  
moot outside the realm of time. 

Another interesting scenario is the "closed loop" approach where God created
the universe which created God which created the universe, etc... . The
"cyclical" approach is a very eastern way of looking at things.  In fact, the
ancient eastern religions explained the unverse in terms of "it existed, then
not, then existed again, then not, etc... back into infinity and forward into
infinity where even time waxes and wanes in and out of existence (if you
will).  When the cycling Bang<->Crunch theory was proposed, eastern scholars
pulled out ancient writtings which are much older than the Bible, citing a
clear description of a cycling universe.  (Hmmmmm....)

>It appears that either the universe was created or it is an inconceivable
>fluke.  I could cite more than 2 dozen evidence for design "coincidences",

You know, again, we have nothing else to compare the universe "against".  We
live in a universe filled with systems having various shades of order and
disorder.   But these quantifications only make sense relative to each other.
It's impossible... "IMPOSSIBLE" to say that this universe is greatly ordered
without something else much less ordered to compare it against.  We marvel at
the order of some systems in our universe but the only reason they stand out
is because they're viewed AGAINST equally disordered systems ALSO existing in
our universe.  It's all relative and you've got to remember that we're looking
at the universe "from the inside".  We can't compare the universe to anything
else to claim that it's ordered.  The universe is ordered... Relative to what?
Relative to some specific unordered parts of the universe?  

>It is reasonable to assume that such a creator would attempt to
>communicate.  Such a communication would be expected to be unique.  Probably
>written down so that we could have access to it throughout history.

If this creator wanted to communnicate via written language, why didn't he
create the would be listeners such that there'd be no confussion about the
communication.  I mean he created us, right?  Why not personally feed the
information to us on a 1-on-1 basis where there'd be no room for error?  Why
rely on an ancient document, written once, revised never, entrusted to mere,
flaw ridden humans to pass the word on through the generations?

>It
>is completely accurate to any provable degree in all of its references to
>science, geography, and history.

As in what I think Schroeder's will be doing with "Genesis and the Big Bang"?
As I said, I'll reserve comment until I'm finished with the book.  But I will
be skeptical of complicated and elaborate "bridges" being built between the
written word of the Bible and observed evidence.  For Example...

"The Earth is roughly spherical"  - Best Guess of Science to date.

  being bridged into 

"The Earth is a Circle" - Bible

IF you take a 2 dimensional slice through the Earth cuz that was what the
ancients percieved their world to be, flat, and God wanted to relate to them
on their own terms without lying... sort of, then the earth is a circle.

...just won't cut it.  I mean you can bridge the mythology of the ancient
Greeks into modern science if you push and pull and twist and translate hard
enough.

-dave

Re .85.

Woops, I take that part about the discrepency between entropy of a black hole
and the universe at T=0 back.  I see from your equation that S(0)=0.  Also,
the model complies with what I said later with regard to modeling entropy 
with S(0)=0 and S(~)=~.  But I still hold that an entropy value of 0 at T=0
is meaningless (infinite order at Big Bang).  I still maintain that it's all
relative.  And I still question what's happening to matter when it plunges
into a black hole.  It takes on mass, sure.  It takes on energy in the form of
order, sure.  All that mass and energy "exists" in zero volume, Ummmm...
material "things" exist in our 3-D world, right?

-dave

    Hi Steve,
    
jb>The existence of God has been proven via formal, valid logical 
jb>argumentation. Somewhere in here you will find a topic, "Argument for 
jb>Theism".  

SB>>Jeff, 

SB>>That is note 1094. If you look you'll see several challenges to your chain 
sb>>of reasoning pointing out breaks in the chain and a multitude of 
sb>>unsupported assertions. I've always kind of wondered why you let that topic 
sb>>drop...

    I haven't looked...however, I don't recall any formal challenge only
    one kind, simple assertion.  I let it drop for several reasons; one
    being that I simply don't have the time for a quality discussion. 
    Secondly, I'm not so interested in pursuing a topic in which the
    knowledge of the subject is so lopsided.


>    Okay.  The evolutionist explanation for the universe presupposes that
>    1. there is no God, and 2., only a natural explanation of the universe
>    is a valid scientific explanation.  

>>Jeff,

>>The theory of evolution says *NOTHING* whatsoever about a God. 
    
    First of all, the theory of evolution is one thing.  The people who
    propose it is another thing altogether.  Secondly, the implications of
    the theory say a great deal about God.  It seems so disingenious to
    suggest that the theory of evolution has had no impact on theism.
    
    >>You could 
>>argue in favor of evolution and say that God set it up, it wouldn't 
>>discredit the original argument one bit. It also says nothing whatsoever 
>>around any explanation of the universe. All it does is propose a theoy that 
>>accounts for certain observed facts. 
    
    Go check the religious status of Popper, Kuhn, Gould, et al.
    
    >>Scientists will tend to look for 
>>natural explanations before supernatural ones, but if you could provide 
>>evidence for a supernatural explanation it too would be examined against 
>>whatever facts are known about the case. 
    
    You are simply wrong.  The modern Philosophy of Science is naturalism. 
    There is no such thing as supernatural evidence.

>    In both cases you have a tautology, a circular argument in which the
>    presupposition is the proof for the premise.  This is not allowed in
>    valid argument.

>>The presupposition in this case is the theory itself. You suppose that the 
>>theory is true and then test it by applying it to known facts, by *trying* 
>>to disprove it. Rest assured that if something better comes along, 
>>something that accounts more completely for the facts, that it will replace 
>>evolutionary theory.

    Like I said earlier, it is an invalid form of argument.
    
    jeff

Hi Jeff:

I read 1094.0 and found much to argue about.  In a nutshell, I found that 
you were presupposing the existence of absolute time and a universal abolute 
with regard to cause/effect.  I side with Steve in saying that there is much to
argue about in 1094.0.  I did not read all the replies (I can't afford the
time).  But again, I propose that we can't be absolutely sure of the validity 
of either our facts or logic systems.  Here we humans sit, inside an
almost impercievable film of gas over a planet which is less than a speck of
dust, near a star that's one of billions, in a galaxy that's one of at least
millions... sitting here in 3-D space, bathed in statically progressing time,
having a mere 5 senses to sense the universe in, over a mere few thousand
years.  And we think we're in a position to prove things about the universe?  

Our puny science and logic systems seem to work OK in our very limited scope of
reality... until we see need to change/tune them... again!  But I claim that 
our logic is invalid for "proving" anything outside our forementioed limited 
perception. It's good enough to use as a basis for a "practical" theory, but 
anything beyond that is suspect for being in error.

>>I'm not so interested in pursuing a topic in which the
>>    knowledge of the subject is so lopsided.  

meaning????  

>>Secondly, the implications of
>>    the theory say a great deal about God. 

The theory says nothing about God.  It merely proposes an explanation for
the development and diversity of life here on Earth based upon the physical
evidence currently at hand.   If there are any implications with regard to 
God, they're inferred and not stated or implied by the theory propoer.

>>The modern Philosophy of Science is naturalism.

Referencing my dictionary in an effort to minimize misunderstanding, 
Naturalism is defined as "The view that all phenomenon can be explained in 
terms of natural causes and effects".  Since the mere notion of "cause/effect" 
is itself being questioned as an absolute, "naturalism" clearly is NOT an
all encompassing definition for science.  I agree that 99% of science uses
cause/effect as a logical presuposition in the development of it's theories, 
but there are theorists, especially in the area of cosmology, who question
this premise as an absolute.

I don't believe inthe existence of pure logic, untainted by human biases or 
unaffected by our prejudices or experiences.  I believe our logic systems
are generalized models of what "appear" to be absolutes in our limited 
perception of reality (e.g cause/effect).  And where the physical evidence of
nature seems to contradict our laws of logic, we simply state that we have yet
to explain the phenomenon (while not violating our logic).  A perfect example
of that is God.  We cannot concieve of anything without a cause, the universe
included.  And so we say that God exists because logic dictates that he must.
But we cannot escape our own logic in requiring God to have a cause.  1094.0
failed to circumvent that problem.  Point (3) of 1094.0 stated that everthing
that could possibly exist needs to have a cause.  Points (4) and (5) argued 
the existence of an exception to that rule.  IMO, there's a serious flaw in 
the logic.

-dave

    
    Hi Dave,
    
    You really cannot argue anything with your ideas that time and
    cause/effect are not reality.
    
    Concerning 1094, the argument is based upon undeniability rather than
    rationalism.  In a nutshell, undeniability translates to: whatever is 
    undeniable is true and whatever is unaffirmable is false.
    
    By the way, if time is not absolute then what is it?  And if it is
    relative then to what is it relative?
    
    In any case, we exist in absolute time.
    
    jeff
    

                                                             
    Re.85
    
    Dave,
    
    You can read some more interesting things on the cycling universe (and
    even white holes) in Itzhak Bentov's book, "Stalking The Wild Pendulum".
    
    He also began to write a sequel called "The Cosmic Book", and his wife
    finished and published after he was killed (that DC-10 accident in 
    Chicago).
    
    There's a note on him in the HYDRA::DEJAVU conference - #1465.
    
    Cindy

Re .89

>    You really cannot argue anything with your ideas that time and
>    cause/effect are not reality.

I'm not arguing that they don't exist, I'm arguing that they MIGHT NOT be
obsolutes in all of reality.  Time/cause/effect "might" not be necessary in
all systems.  Since we only know about out little existence, we cannot claim
that time/cause/effect are absolutes in other systems.

>    Concerning 1094, the argument is based upon undeniability rather than
>    rationalism.  In a nutshell, undeniability translates to: whatever is
>    undeniable is true and whatever is unaffirmable is false.

I see a vast difference between that which cannot YET be disproven to that which
is UNDENIABLE. There was a time when people thought the Earth was flat, because
it looked flat. Now, since no one was able to disprove a flat earth at the 
time (flat earth is "undeniable"), is this "proof" that the earth is flat?  
If it is, then a "proof" does not establish a truth.


>    By the way, if time is not absolute then what is it?  


Well, using your own logic...  If everything that exists was created 
(cause/effect), and if time exists, then time had to have been created.  Think
about it.... Time was "CREATED".  It's an oxymoron.  Does this mean that there
is no such thing as time?  Absolutely not.  All it means is that there's a flaw
in the logical premise that everything was "CREATED".  The premise only works 
in the restricted realm of our existence, as we understand it.  It "NEED" not
apply to grander schemes, like the origin of the universe, God, spirits, etc...
.

>And if it is relative then to what is it relative?

Since all we know is existence in time, then we cannot describe time relative
to "something else".  Whatever the opposite to "time" is might suffice but I 
don't think the English language hasa word for that.  

Finally, I'm not trying to disprove your logic in 1094.  Do "disprove" it I'd
have to "prove" some other explanation.  What I hope I did was shed some doubt 
on it's validity by challenging the notions of time/cause/effect.  If those
premises are in some doubt, then so is your proof.  I can live with the the
fact that I cannot exaplain everything and that I cannot prove the existence 
of God.



-dave

    Dave,
    
    You simply don't understand the existential argument.  And I don't have 
    the time to teach right now.
    
    jeff

    Jeff:
    
    As far as I can see, your existential argument leaves a lot of room 
    for dispute.    And I too don't really have the time to teach you my
    side of it either.  I doubt whether you or anyone else could argue this 
    to the point where it would "prove" the existence of a God insofar as
    "proof" is establishing truth.
    
    And I've been spending too much time in this note as well.  I'll keep
    responding though (between compiles, during long DB querries, etc...)
    as I think this material is very important.
                                
    -dave

    
    Okay, Dave.
    
    But remember, if one doesn't believe truth/reality is knowable, one can't 
    argue at all for anything, in the formal sense of the word.
    
    jeff

.87 BENSON

    I haven't looked...however, I don't recall any formal challenge only

Maybe you should look. Please address the multiple breaks in the chain and 
assertions you made that I pointed out.

    Secondly, I'm not so interested in pursuing a topic in which the
    knowledge of the subject is so lopsided.

I know, but I tried to keep it within your bounds :^)

    propose it is another thing altogether.  Secondly, the implications of
    the theory say a great deal about God.  It seems so disingenious to

Where? All I can see is that creationists might feel threatened since the 
theory does go a long way toward explaining certain observed facts, such as 
the fossil record, that the Bible does not even acknowledge. Is this what you 
mean?

    Go check the religious status of Popper, Kuhn, Gould, et al.

I'm not interested in the personal beliefs of people that argue either side of 
the equation, I'm interested in what the theory says.

    You are simply wrong.  The modern Philosophy of Science is naturalism. 
    There is no such thing as supernatural evidence.

I was using the term supernatural probably differently than you. In the 
context I think you are using, I would agree with you. I also completely agree 
that there is (to date) 'no such thing as supernatural evidence'.

    Like I said earlier, it is an invalid form of argument.

And why is this, because you don't agree and it makes sense?

Steve

    knowable.
    
    Hmmmmmm..... perhaps not knowable in the sense of being absolutely
    certain.  At least not while we're human mortals.  But I've always
    believed that the search for the truth, however unatainable, is what 
    really matters.  Be that studying the Bible or gazing at the stars.
    
    A quote from a guy name Nikita Ivanavich Panin....
    
     "Two men please God,
     he who knows Him and serves Him with all his heart
     he who searches for Him with all his heart for he knows Him not"
    
    (I've always liked that one)
                                                              
    -dave

    
>    But I've always
>    believed that the search for the truth, however unatainable, is what 
>    really matters.  Be that studying the Bible or gazing at the stars.
   
    This makes no sense, Dave.  Truth means reality.  Reality means what
    exists in actuality.  If the truth does not exist it is foolish to
    pursue it.  Searching for something which is unattainable is a waste of
    time and energy.
     
    jeff
    	

Hi Steve,
    
>    I haven't looked...however, I don't recall any formal challenge only

>>Maybe you should look. Please address the multiple breaks in the chain and 
>>assertions you made that I pointed out.

    Okay.  I'll revisit it one day.
    
>        propose it is another thing altogether.  Secondly, the implications of
>    the theory say a great deal about God.  It seems so disingenious to

>>Where? All I can see is that creationists might feel threatened since the 
>>theory does go a long way toward explaining certain observed facts, such as 
>>the fossil record, that the Bible does not even acknowledge. Is this what you 
>>mean?

    If you don't acknowledge the phenomenal impact modern science,
    especially evolution theory, has had on theism, then our understanding
    is too disparate to have a good discussion.
    
>    Go check the religious status of Popper, Kuhn, Gould, et al.

>>I'm not interested in the personal beliefs of people that argue either side of 
>>the equation, I'm interested in what the theory says.

    But the theories are the language of people arguing a personal belief.
    
    
>    Like I said earlier, it is an invalid form of argument.

>>And why is this, because you don't agree and it makes sense?

    No.  Because formal argumentation has rules and the evidential
    argument breaks at least one of them.
    
    jeff

    
Re .97

>>    This makes no sense, Dave.  Truth means reality.  

I never said it didn't.  I DID say that we may have a poor understanding of
reality. Certainly we have no level of understanding which could be used as 
a basis to prove anything as grand as the origini of the universe.

>> Reality means what exists in actuality.  

Again, I never said it didn't.  Our ability to grasp and understand it is 
(at best) in question.

You can state that TRUTH = REALITY = ACTUALITY as a matter of definition.  I
won't dispute your definitions, they're just definitions.  I'm arguing about our
ability to get at the truth.


>>If the truth does not exist it is foolish to
>>    pursue it.  

Have you ever heard of pursuing a dream?  They don't exist either.  But I'm not
saying that the truth doesn't exist.  Again, it's a matter of definition.  
Sure, truth exists... independent of us or our ability to grasp it.


>>Searching for something which is unattainable is a waste of
>>    time and energy.

Couldn't disagree more.


OK, a few simple questions to see which basics we disagree on...

 - Where did the concepts of logic come from?  Are they artifacts or are we 
   tapping into something outside of humanity?

 - Do you believe that it's possible to prove something using logic based on
   premises (presuppositions) which are NOT representative of reality? 

 - Who makes premises?  Are the makers of premises perfect or imperfect? 

 - Is the scope of a premise restricted to the scope of it's creator?

 - If the veracity of a logical premise is questionable, should not any
   conclusion drawn from that premise also be questionable?


With regard to the evolution thing, I agree that it's had a huge impact in the
religious community.  But that was NOT by design.  An independent theory was 
proposed which explained certain natural phenomenon in terms of the physical 
evidence at hand.  If a 3rd party (religion) wants to step in and interpret 
that as an attack, they're welcome to make that misinterpretation.  


-dave

    
    And suddenly, the refrain from "Man of LaMancha" comes to mind.
    
    	"To dream the impossible dream..."
    
    Cindy

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 10-NOV-1995 18:38:31.02
To:	[email protected]
CC:	
Subj:	The Wild Heart

[parts deleted to here...(;^)]

 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

	    WE CAN ALL SAFELY IGNORE THE GlobalPsych LIST

 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

From: [email protected] (Charles E McElwain)
To: [email protected]
 
   Date:         Sun, 22 Oct 1995 16:58:53 CDT
   From: Ian Pitchford <[email protected]>
   Subject:      NEW: CHARTER - Organizing GlobalPsych
   To: Multiple recipients of list NEW-LIST <[email protected]>

   CHARTER on [email protected] Virtual Human Nature

      CHARTER is a closed unmoderated discussion list for volunteers
      wishing to help to contruct GlobalPsych.

      The GlobalPsych Institute was formed to employ the high-speed,
      multimedia, global communications network known as the Internet to
      address the perennial questions of supreme importance to all human
      beings and societies, and to address those new questions that are
      posed by the advent of the information age and of the Internet
      itself.

      Questions (in no particular order) such as:

      * What is Human Nature?

That which produces both the Sistine Chapel and K-mart, the "Art of
the Fugue" and the Alka-seltzer jingle.

      * What is the nature of psychophysical health?

Getting off.

      * What is the nature of psychosocial health?

Knowing that you got off.

      * What is the nature of the interaction between the psychophysical
	and psychosocial?

The n-body problem of human bodies interacting on the MBTA has not yet
been solved.

      * Why should a multidisciplinary approach enhance our
	understanding?

Two wrongs don't make a right, but Sum(wrongs) n=Republican to
n=infinity may make a right, by a principle analogous to Buffon,
needles and the calculation of pi.

      * What is culture?

Los Angeles.

      * What can linguistics tell us about the nature of the human mind?

Wittgenstein: "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence."

      * What is the language of thought?

Set theory.

      * Is philosophy the handmaiden of the sciences, or a redundant
	talking shop?

Speaking as a university-trained philosopher, definitely the former:
I'll go out with anyone who can pay.

      * Can creativity be taught?

Charles Mingus: "Creativity is more than just being different...
                Anyone can play weird -- that's easy.
                What's hard is to be so simple as Bach,
                Making the simple complicated is commonplace...
                Making the complicated simple,
                          -- awesomely simple,
               That's creativity."

      * Do we need to understand the nature of self-organizing systems?

Does a program need to understand itself?

      * Does quantum mechanics have anything to say about the nature of
	consciousness?

Yes:  dx * dp >= h / 2p.

      * What can psychopathology tell us about human nature?

It is more profitable to collect the rent on a castle in the sky than
to live in it.

      * Is psychoanalysis a crypto-religious orthodoxy or a discipline
	with valid insights?

Is modern Protestantism a crypto-psychoanalytic orthodoxy or an
unmusical arhythmic travesty of the religious experience?

      * How can an understanding of the scientific method help in the
	organization of education?

One can determine which type of pencil to use to insure that the mark
sense forms are reliably read.

      * What is the human condition in the Information Age?

T.S. Eliot, "Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"

      * Can science really answer the perennial questions about human
	nature and human society?

Science is concerned with meter readings, and so yes, it can tell you
that it's time to put another quarter in to park legally.

      * Is it possible to combine high technology and a life in harmony
	with the natural world?

I asked the feline Zen master Jacey who I live with this question
before I fed him this morning, and he laid my cheek open with his
claws.

      * Is the Internet a sophisticated contribution to shared culture
	and transindividual intelligence, or a over-hyped system for
	gathering irrelevant information?

A quick survey of the state of the news groups indicates the answer is
yes.

      * Is the postmodern disenchantment with metanarratives a realistic
	evaluation of our fin-de-siecle scientific hubris or is it simple
	cynicism?

I need a working copy on my system of the recently announced
paradigm-shift utility to produce an apropopomo response to this
question.

 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

		 MEANWHILE, AT THE MILLION MAN MARCH

 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

[rest of parts deleted...(;^)]

				 xxx

 Digital technology is the universal solvent of intellectual property rights
                  Forward  with  daring  and  whimsy
		    Copyright 1995, Tom Parmenter

				[\|/]
				[/|\]