Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by steve99


901. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79393 by steve99 on October 17, 2007 at 6:48 am

No evidence from a man who claims reason.


In our reality Hitchens provided considerable and powerful evidence. The killer for me was the length of time humanity was in existence, and supposedly unredeemed and immoral. 98,000 years! Personally, I think that would look great on a badge or T-shirt: the length of time a supposedly loving God ignored us.

902. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #79362 by steve99 on October 17, 2007 at 4:05 am

Not exactly. The point is that religion, in the Archbishop's version, is a matter of worship, contemplation and love of God and that that wouldn't seem to promote earthly survival and prosperity.


Indeed, but the question is ... earthly survival of what? Darwinism is about the survival of replicators. The replicator here is religion. Religions need only be good at propogating themselves; there need be no benefit for their hosts: people.

903. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #79358 by steve99 on October 17, 2007 at 3:52 am

As for Christians and homosexuality -- and I note Dawkins did not use this example – many Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin do not believe in gay-bashing or denying gays protection against discrimination.


That is probably true, however the leaders of all mainstream religions have actively promoted discrimination.

They just don't accept gay marriage (some simply balk at using the word). If this is "evil" in the sense that Dawkins uses it, it's on a lesser scale than blowing up airplanes.


Of course it is. But it is still unpleasant and problematic. And it is validated by religion. Religion is holding people back from realising that prejudice is wrong.

904. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #79349 by steve99 on October 17, 2007 at 2:46 am

Dawkins is wrong to discuss Religion in Darwinian terms. Religion is not a survival strategy because religious people are not self-centered, but put their relationship with God above personal concerns.


The classic 'Darwinism' = 'selfishness' fallacy.

It is a misunderstanding to consider that Religion is offering an explanation for the universe.


Well that is quite a revolutionary step. God is no longer a first cause or creator.

905. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79336 by steve99 on October 17, 2007 at 1:35 am

In the meantime many people who call themselves Christians, indeed sometimes in the name of Christianity, have done the opposite of what Jesus taught. So? Surely you are not saying that the historical fact that many people did bad things by disobeying Christianity implies that Christianity is bad, do you? Isn't it rather the other way around?


Religions should be judged by the effect they have in reality, not the effect they are supposed to have. In reality, people use often use religion to support hatred and prejudice. The real poison of religion is that people can feel hatred and prejudice and be told that this is good and holy.

906. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79328 by steve99 on October 17, 2007 at 1:00 am

To my judgment an atheist gay man living in Britain today decrying the Aglican Church's discrimination against gays when that Church is one of the most advanced in this issue and when in atheist regimes homosexuals fared much worse – displays a classical case of cry-babyhood.


You really are being incredibly dumb here. It is irrelevant how gays were treated under past atheist regimes. What matters is that in modern societies gay people are accquiring rights in the face of opposition from mainstream religions. Gay people have been treated badly in both atheist and religious societies. The difference is that no-one has said 'homosexuality is wrong because there is no God', whereas they HAVE said 'homosexuality is wrong because God says so'.

Your stupid God idea is used by vast numbers of believers to back up their prejudices. They objectively feel that homosexuality is wrong, and they believe God supports them in this feeling. You can deny this all you like, but doing so only makes you look even more naive than you aready do.

And I am afraid I think you have some nerve posting comments like this. You are safe and fine in your cosy world, free from discrimination and hatred. You are free to travel to certain countries without being jailed and punished for expressing your love. You really are coming across as deeply offensive.

907. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79262 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 3:36 pm

The first step is to believe that there is right and wrong - that we don't just make it up.


We don't just make it up. Our morality is based on hundreds of millions of years of what works. If you want to see the result of that, just watch elephants interact and care for their young. Watch dolphins and whales interact with each other socially. They do what we do. There is no objective morality. There is only evolved morality.

908. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79199 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 12:38 pm

"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them" T Jefferson


Of course, this was ridicule of ideas, not people.

909. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79187 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Way I look at it, on the other hand, I've already given McGrath enough seriousness, so I though I'd have a little fun. But this is a public forum and we are respectable people (Well you are anyway). I'll be good.


I don't want to encourage people to be good :) I am only after effective techniques for attacking religion and irrationality.

910. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79180 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 11:51 am

This was just an observation I picked up on


Sorry, but to me, it seems to be mocking the person rather than the ideas.

911. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79178 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 11:46 am

There's something very comical about the way that this McGrath person moves about as he talks. Don't you find?


I really wish discussions on this site would not descend to this level. We should be discussing ideas, not making irrelevant ad-hominem attacks based on mannerisms.

912. God Hates the World

Comment #79170 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 11:32 am

I'm on to the Selfish Gene & The Blind Watchmaker and happy to have found this forum.


Can I be the first to welcome you here.

913. Dan Dennett award and speech at AAI 07

Comment #79162 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 11:06 am

This has to be one of the best videos posted on this site. Dennett's wisdom and clarity of thinking are so impressive. I may not always agree with many of his philosophical positions, but he is such an impressive speaker.

914. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79136 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 9:04 am

good answer steve, so jesus will serve me my block of cheese in the shop. :)


"Blessed are the cheesemakers" (Life of Brian)

You realise that you can't have cheese without God. Cheese is too complex to have formed any other way. My definition of cheesiness approximates the objective standard of cheese-nature which can only have come from God. Quantum mechanics proves that cheese is not there if you don't look at it, so cheese must be spiritual. It is well known that cheese haters are more evil. I am right about this as Dawkins can't contradict me as he is not an expert on dairy products.

I think that has covered everything.

915. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79133 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 8:56 am

can you or somebody else explain just what this means in laymans terms and how could it apply to me say buying a block of cheese at the store...


Easy.

We don't understand objective reality and how it works. Therefore there is a God, and Jesus rose from the dead.

916. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79130 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 8:44 am

Agreed... but some species did survive didn't they? And hey presto! Billions of years later here we are.

So it's ok. It will all work out.

:-)


Hey! Tell that to the trilobites :)

917. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79123 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 8:19 am

I expected this too. 'Disastrous' for whom? Humans you mean?


Initially yes, but it could be a lot worse. As I said, a possible mechanism for the Permian extinction was an initial 5C rise in temperature. Things went wild after that, and very few species survived.

So it could be disastrous for more than just people.

I don't like theists who think there's a god who loves them and I don't think much of AGW nuts who have the arrogance to suggest we are so damn special and important and powerful that anything we do matters on the scale of a planetary climate that rollercoaster's up and down over billions of years.


You are not going to like this, but I think we ARE special. If Fermi's Paradox is right, we could possibly be the only species that has a civilization for millions of light years. The only species that creates art, that writes poetry, that does science. I think mind is precious. I think it should be preserved.

918. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79102 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 5:59 am

And no one got back to me on my other point, probably because it was considered moronic but it is actually central to the debate. If the Earth is warming why is this a problem?


Civilization has arisen during a period of unusual stability of climate. We rely on current patterns of rainfall to feed a major proportion of the population. Also, hundreds of millions live in coastal areas. So, even a slight change in climate could cause major worldwide problems.

Another problem is that climate change may be non-linear. One possible mechanism for the permian mass extinction was non-linear global warming... volcanic eruptions may have produced enough CO2 to raise temperatures by 5C, and that may have then resulted in methane release from frozen deposite, raising the temperature by 10C. Such changes would have had disastrous effects on the biosphere. It is worth remembering that a 5C change in temperature is within the range of predictions of climate models.

919. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79099 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 5:42 am

I think we really a 'standard response' resource somewhere....

(1) Dawkins thinks that all faith is blind: faith necessarily involves
ignoring evidence. Lennox distinguishes between blind faith
and evidence-baised faith. More generally, Dawkins likes to lump
all religions together and assume that by criticising one of them
he is criticising all religion. Lennox wants Dawkins to distinguish
between religions.


The term 'evidence-based faith' is meaningless. There is either faith, or evidence.

(2) Lennox criticises Dawkins' reductionism: if his thoughts
are merely the random movement of molecules in the brain,
then there is no reason why they should be believed.


Thoughts certainly aren't random.

(3) The fine-tuning of physical constants points to a designer. The only response Dawkins could come up with was to propose
a multiverse of billions of universes, each with different physical
constants, and then invoke the Anthropic Principle to explain
why we happen to be living in this one. But there is absolutely
no evidence for any of these other universes, and no mechanism
for how they could come into existance. So Dawkins' belief
in the multiverse is an example of "faith" (using Dawkins' own
definition of faith as a belief for which there is no evidence).


There is plenty of good reason to think that such multiverses do exist, and a range of mechanisms by which they come into existence are known, such as quantum fluctuations or continual inflation. There is the possibility of such universes being detected (at least indirectly) using future observations of the cosmic microwave background. Dawkins' arguments here are sound.

If the universe is eternal, then indeed there is no need to invoke
a creator to explain where the universe came from.
If the universe had a beginning, then it must have a creator:


False dichotomy. Modern physics tells us that it is possible that the Universe may not be eternal, but still need not have a 'beginning' as we understand the term. Time is more complex than we thought.


But there is a definite link between atheism and amorality in practice as well as theory.


I agree. In countries with a higher proportion of atheism, there tends to be less amorality.

Without an absolute basis for good and evil, Dawkins cannot
even condemn the "evils" of religion, or evil atheists.


Not true. This is just word games. To paraphrase one of Dawkins' arguments, we don't need an absolute basis of scent to know that something is smelly.

920. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79094 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 5:15 am

You're all behaving as though YOU ARE the experts; there are experts on both sides still working this out; you're disregarding these ideas and you're engaging in a belief system which seeks to negate other scientific viewpoints.


This simply isn't true. It is not true that there are two sides to this and experts are still working this out. Sure, there are some interesting rebels, which is always healthy, but the vast majority of researchers believe that global warming is happening, and mankind is responsible for a significant part of it. To claim otherwise is to seriously misrepresent things.

921. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79083 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 4:31 am

Come on, this is what science is all about.


Science is not about listening to a vocal but tiny minority, who give the impression that there is a controvery where there is none.

Where then was all the railing in society back in the 70's, when I was a kid in school, about global cooling and the upcoming ice age? We never heard of the issue then as today. Do we not ask ourselves why?


The railing about global cooling was not the scientific consensus. It was largely media hype. Just like current global warming denial.

922. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79082 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 4:29 am

Who is to decide?


Scientific peer review.

The sky is falling language only endorses a religious viewpoint of the subject.


Only if the sky is not falling, and the current rate of melting of the Arctic seems sort of sky-falling-ish to me.

If there are so many who are researching and finding other data that DOESN'T support man-made global warming - are we to not listen to them because we've made up our minds?


No. The fact is that there simply aren't that many who are researching and finding other data that doesn't support man-made global warming. All that is happening is that certain interest groups wishing to deny man-made global warming are ensuring that anyone who disagrees with the consensus is given a platform.

Why not test their data? Is that NOT what the M&M project did? Why are we just ignoring those scientists? Are we? I don't know.


Their data is being tested. They are not being ignored. Their data and experimental methods are subject to peer review (presumably).

923. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79069 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 3:33 am

Are we discrediting this scientist? If so, by what criteria?


Of course not. But science does not work by waiting until everyone agrees. Scientists have honest disagreements and put forward competing hypotheses. Science is about testing hypotheses, not discrediting those who are proved wrong.

The problem with this subject is it is not academic. We can't just wait around until there is total agreement.

And anyway who should we believe? In order to pick a particular scientist to agree with, one must have sufficient knowledge of their science to be able to read their papers and those of scientists who agree with them, and make a judgment. Effectively, you need to be qualified enough to write a review of the subject.

Without that expertise, the only honest approach is to go with the consensus.

924. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79065 by steve99 on October 16, 2007 at 3:05 am

Yeah, steve99 is such a cry baby. Along with Ayan Hirsi Ali. And that Salman Rushdie guy. And those gynecologists working at Planned Parenthood. And... oh, but who cares about all that.


I am hardly in the same position as those great people; but it does get me rather annoyed when even the supposedly mild Anglican church tries to use political influence to restrict my rights. Or when it battles over whether or not to allow gay men to be bishops. There was the sad story of Jeffrey Johns, a gay priest who was going to become a bishop, until opposition was expressed. The poor chap admitted that he and his partner were not actually having sex. I mean, how sad - not just that his sex life was over, but that he felt that what he did or did not do in the bedroom was of any consequence at all. I think it is naive to consider mainstream religion relatively harmless. It supports some very unpleasant attitudes.

If Dianelos' God exists, let's hope he isn't democratic, and based on a majority vote from the religious on what objective morals are.

925. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78944 by steve99 on October 15, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Anyone disputing climate change, who doesn't have a Phd in climatology and several well received peer reviewed studies on the subject is in exactly the SAME position as a fundamentalist christian imagining they have anything relevant to say on the subject of evolution.)


Excellent! You have summarised the rational position so well!

It is really strange how some are prepared to believe that members of the public are qualified to discuss climate change. Let's try this for other subjects:

Anyone disputing general relativity, who doesn't have a Phd in general relativity and several well received peer reviewed studies on the subject is in exactly the SAME position as a fundamentalist christian imagining they have anything relevant to say on the subject of evolution.)


Does that sound an extreme position?

...the party line.


No... the scientific line. And unless you have qualifications, your personal view really does not count.

926. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78928 by steve99 on October 15, 2007 at 12:40 pm

agreed.


The global warming debate has many parallels with other debates. 'Teach the controversy', say the Intelligent Designers. 'Lets have a debate' say the global warming deniers. It seems the same kind of approach to me - try and convince the scientifically ignorant public that there is disagreement amongst experts where there really is none.

927. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78920 by steve99 on October 15, 2007 at 11:56 am

Hey Brian , (world citizen), why not just point everyone to here:


That was a first-rate video Brian. I have rarely seen so much explained so quickly. I only hope you are right about only moderate measures being required at this time.

928. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78918 by steve99 on October 15, 2007 at 11:46 am

We are on the same wavelength here at least:-)


Me too!

929. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78913 by steve99 on October 15, 2007 at 11:16 am

I see you rationalist types are happy to rave on without having seen what the Archbishop actually said.


I have plenty to rave about, even without the precise wording of his current speech. Only a matter of months ago the Archbishop campaigned to fight against my rights as a gay man. He called prejudice against homosexuals to be a matter of "freedom of conscience".

And, honestly, what do you think he said? "I say, Dawkins and Hitchens have a point - I am going to have to rethink things"?

I am afraid he makes me want to rant simply because of his position - because of his political power, all based purely on religion.

930. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78901 by steve99 on October 15, 2007 at 10:22 am

Brian I really don't go with the Gore is correct on the essence, we can ignore the details line.... That just doesn't work for me. The devil IS in the detial.


Sorry, but I just don't get this; my impression is that this is a way to deny the problem: Gore can't be right unless he has all the details. I have seen this before - attempts to deny global warming happens at all because the models run by researchers showed some disagreement. It is an attempt to distract from the main problem.

I think the debate is important; too many people are trying to shut it down.


In scientific circles, it is already largely shut down, simply because of overwhelming evidence. If you have some evidence that counteracts mainstream opinion, then let's see it. But picking the odd scientist or blogger who agrees with you is no way to debate honestly.

931. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78896 by steve99 on October 15, 2007 at 9:58 am

Here's one example of a Physics PHD blogger, Francis Sedgemore...


There you go again; cherry-picking experts!

Gore's film does contain some errors but they are minor, and the main message is sound, and agrees with the consensus.

What Gore is doing is vital. He has battled against those who claimed no warming has happened. That battle is fortunately over. The new campaign is against those who claim it is not man-made, or due to CO2 production. Progress is being made there.

Look - if an asteroid was going to hit the Earth, would you complain about a report that was slightly off about its size, or the precise hour when it would hit?

And as for the measures Gore is talking about, they are very mild. For example, in his film he suggest that USA car manufacturers might want to get fuel consumption down to that of European manufacturers. No-one can possibly call that drastic.

Measures that counteract global warming also improve energy efficiency and help reduce dependency on imported oil. They should be done anyway.

932. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78887 by steve99 on October 15, 2007 at 9:03 am

So on scientific matters of import, your view is that arguments made by non specialist non experts are to be disregard, unless they concur with what you believe to be the consensus.


Yes, that is my view.

I can assure you that there is nothing approaching a "consensus" amongst specialists on a goodly number of claims made in Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' film. Gore does not limit his brief to global warming and it's causes and effects.


Ah... so now you change your tune. Having conceded the scientific points, you move onto politics...

Gore advocates specific policy proposals to address anthropomorphic global warming. I can assure you that there is zip scientific consensus about what policy to follow vis a vis climate change, how to prioritize, allocate resources and address conflicting imperatives and interests.


Of course not. That is politics, not science. Gore is a politician.

Overlay on this the Michael Mooresque innuendo, the technique, the overlays, the juxtaposition and it is clear that AIT is a partial, political polemic.


I have read much of what Michael Moore has written, and I have heard Gore talk. Sorry, but I think the comparison has no foundation.

You may disagree with some of the strategies that Gore suggests, but his achievement is to have publicised this vital issue, against a background of global-warming-deniers with considerable resources.

Anyway here's the judgment handed down by a British court on the Challenge bought by a parent in a British school where the film was distributed to be shown in state schools. The father objected to AIT's tendentious approach, I thought it very measured...
http://downloads.heartland.org/22161.pdf


Do you realise that there were scientific mistakes in that judgement? Letting judges determine scientific facts is always dodgy.

933. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78862 by steve99 on October 15, 2007 at 5:56 am

Presumably that also includes non climatologist
Al Gore?


No, as Al Gore states views which are, to a large degree, mainstream on the subject. It is not his views he presents. He is not cherry-picking experts who agree with what he wants to believe.

934. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78855 by steve99 on October 15, 2007 at 5:10 am

Just a brief comment, as I found this most amusing:

Dianelos:

The way God objectively is, is our model of what is objectively good.


Steve:


1. Dianelos has a model of what is objectively good. (premise)
2. This model defines an objective God. (premise)


Dianelos:

Actually models are not used do not define what is objective, they are used to approximate what is objective.


I was nearly deafened by the sound of screeching brakes and skidding during this abrubt U-turn. Anyway, I assume that this now makes everything so very clear to everyone?

I wonder how many other of Dianelos' proclamations are missing a 'not' somewhere....

935. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78848 by steve99 on October 15, 2007 at 4:30 am

As for the Nobel Peace Prize, Wiki says that "According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded 'to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses'."
I don't think the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could be described as a person! And I don't see how Al Gores work, however praiseworthy it may be, meets the brief. It seems to me that the Nobel Committee have moved the goalposts quite a bit!


I don't believe so. One of the predicted outcomes of global warming is increased conflict, partly due to changing distribution of resources (such as rainfall) and due to mass migration.

Also, it is well-established that Nobel prices can be awarded to groups as well as individuals: The International Committee of the Red Cross has won several times.

936. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78820 by steve99 on October 15, 2007 at 2:32 am

What I find funny is that he actually thinks he can define some kind of belief which can't be destroyed by exactly the same arguments.


I have a suspicion that he probably doesn't think that - he is an intelligent fellow after all. I suspect he is one of those people who 'believe in belief'.

937. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78805 by steve99 on October 15, 2007 at 1:24 am

marcdesm:

Unless you are personally an expert in climate change, the only intellectually honest approach is to go with the (overwhelming) consensus in the subject.

It is not appropriate to pick the expert who's views you like and simply declare them to be correct. It is as bad as when the religious cherry-pick the bible for passages to support their views.

938. Stretching the Search for Signs of Life

Comment #78798 by steve99 on October 15, 2007 at 12:50 am

Granted, life requires energy, but how does it follow that it must be visible?


The results of harvesting energy would be obvious. For example, Dyson Spheres would show up due to their high emission of infra-red, resulting from waste heat.

"Interstellar travel is not that hard."

I'm glad you know so much about interstellar space, a region that has never been entered or experienced by anyone from this planet.


Firstly, it is not that I know so much about interstellar space, it is that I read the writings of those who do. One of my favourites is the late Robert Forward - who came up with a combination laser/sail system that would do the trick. Also, have you heard of project Orion? It was a way to get to the stars using nuclear power (the 1963 test ban treaty ended the project).

Secondly, are you claiming that interstellar space is full of some hidden danger that we have not detected with all of our observations?

To me this sounds like a lot of wishful thinking: intelligent aliens must be out there, and interstellar must be too hard, which is why we haven't seen them... this does seem to be a common view, but I can't see any sense in it.

939. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78781 by steve99 on October 14, 2007 at 11:19 pm

Congratulations. (Bruno has long been a hero of mine)

940. Stretching the Search for Signs of Life

Comment #78780 by steve99 on October 14, 2007 at 11:15 pm

Therefore, attempts to anthropomorphise alien intelligence (to assign to it the motives and drivers of our own) are fundamentally flawed.


The only assumptions being made are that life requires energy, and replicates. That alone implies that extraterrestrial life should be visible.

Also, maybe the lack of contact with other intelligences is an indicator of the impossibility of interstellar travel.


Interstellar travel is not that hard. If our solar system were threatened we could build a colony ship using current technology.

Few people seem to realise how time overcomes space in the Fermi Paradox argument. All it would take is for a civilization to send out a couple of colony ships at far below light speed, and then those colonies, after they had arrived, to wait for a few millenia, and then each send out more ships, and the entire galaxy could still have been colonised many, many times over since its origin.

941. Stretching the Search for Signs of Life

Comment #78776 by steve99 on October 14, 2007 at 10:43 pm

I love these armchair philosophers here, who, by their briiliant analysis, have already decided that there is no intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy. The only honest answer is that we simply do not know.


The honest answer is we don't know, but it certainly looks like there isn't. We see not the slightest sign of any harvesting of stars for energy, and every astronomical phenomenon we see can be purely explained by physics and chemistry. Not just our galaxy, but everything we see all the way back to the cosmic microwave background seems untouched. It really just does not seem feasible that possibly millions of civilizations could have arisen over billions of years and every one has been timid, stay-at-home and basically invisible.

And as for the 'zoo hypothesis', that does not work either, for the above reason - we see no evidence of either a keeper, or a cage!

942. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78712 by steve99 on October 14, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Steve99 (post 354, or #78466):


There is no point me discussing things with you further. Your mind is closed. All you are interested in is buffing up and polishing your own somewhat bizzare version of idealist theism + Christianity. You are immune to debate. When you have seen that science or philosophy that is wrong you have simply ignored this, kept quiet for a while, and posted it again as if no-one had ever questioned you. You also have this bizarre belief that attacking Dawkins, Harris and other somehow makes what you think true. Honest debaters try and defend their own views.

In spite of all the wrapping up in philosophy and science, your beliefs are painfully simple:

There is a Magic Man that does what Dianelos wants. He keeps reality as nothing more than Dianelos' mind can handle. "And Dianelos saw that it was good."

Well, good luck in your personal Matrix. I hope you enjoy it. Some of us have the emotional and intellectual courage to realise that reality and the universe may not be about us - we don't have egos the size of yours.

943. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78705 by steve99 on October 14, 2007 at 11:58 am

Another screw has come loose. To restate the above:

Dianelos: X does Y.
Steve: Yes, but why do you also do Y?
Dianelos: I am not X.
Steve (presumably): WTF?


Yes, Dr Benway, you have it almost right. I now think I understand things:

The unwritten subtext:

Dianelos: I am not X, as I am Neo. I have direct knowledge of the Matrix, unlike X, as the Matrix is what God does, as God is based on my model of reality, not that of X. I am the chosen one.

(background noise: the sound of further screws coming loose)

944. Stretching the Search for Signs of Life

Comment #78678 by steve99 on October 14, 2007 at 9:05 am

They went virtual too! And the circle is complete!


OK, so all you really need is really good firewall software on your alien version of 'Second Life'....

OK, I'm sold! :)

945. Stretching the Search for Signs of Life

Comment #78660 by steve99 on October 14, 2007 at 6:26 am

I don't know, but I would think that "Don't get eaten," is probably a Universal value.


In that case, there must surely be some 'eaters'. So why aren't they here, eating us?

Anything that might even want to eat us (or anything else) could easily and economically have launched self-replicating probes, that could have spread through the whole galaxy perhaps a thousand times over....

946. Stretching the Search for Signs of Life

Comment #78655 by steve99 on October 14, 2007 at 5:53 am

Seems the obvious choice to me. You don't know what's out there. Or maybe you do, which makes it an even better choice.


Ah.. but that is what I am saying. It is obvious to you. But you are human. Something else may be obvious to a hypothetical Klingon, or Borg :)

And big hot stars are less stable and tend to burn out fast and blow up. That's no good if you want a virtual eternity.


Actually, stars in general are not that good. What you want is really big spinning black holes - they give you lots of energy. So, if I was a civilization planning for the long term, I would be using up the energy of those big hot stars to make black holes...

947. Stretching the Search for Signs of Life

Comment #78653 by steve99 on October 14, 2007 at 5:31 am

Yes, of course. So to get your eggs out of one basket, spread out around several hundred or thousand brown dwarf stars. They are very stable and last for for many billions of years.


Sure, but seems a bit of a waste to ignore those big hot starts first...

You will remain small and unseen, and there will be little or no need to communicate with other groups around other stars.


Why bother to remain small and unseen?

Sorry - I am being deliberately contrary here, just to illustrate that answers to Fermi's Paradox usually involve special assumptions.

948. Stretching the Search for Signs of Life

Comment #78649 by steve99 on October 14, 2007 at 4:16 am

Would it? With present technology?


Yes, or at least that is my understanding.

I suppose, but then I wonder if AI mechs, once intelligent enough, wouldn't rather hang around their own virtual world creations rather than overcome the physical one.
As an semi-intelligent being myself, I know what I would rather do.


But that that virtual life still requires energy. And unless they impose population control, that energy requirement will grow. Of course, any intelligent life will have to impose population control at some point. But even so, even virtual life would be wise to spread to more than one star, just to ensure long-term survival. This should be pretty easy for virtual life, as it can just be suspended until the journey is over.

949. Stretching the Search for Signs of Life

Comment #78644 by steve99 on October 14, 2007 at 3:17 am

I read a whole book of proposed explanations for the Fermi Paradox, and they all had a theological ring to them. The only explanation for the Fermi Paradox that makes sense is, we are alone in our light cone.


I totally agree. There was an excellent summary of this situation by Stephen Baxter in his book Deep Future.

All kinds of excuses seem to be made about why ETs can't be seen, but they seem to be to be special pleading.

For them to be out there and for us not to see them...

All other civilizations would have to decide to stay at home and not travel.

All other civilizations would have not to send out robotic probes.

All other civilizations would have to restrict their energy use, and not start building Dyson spheres or harvesting the energy of stars in other ways (we could detect the signatures of such processes even for relatively distant stars in out galaxy)

and so on.

The search of ET is beginning to sound to be like the search for God... "He is out there, but he is invisible". I would love to be proved wrong.


Agreed. But you are going on the assumption that robots need planets just as present-day humans do. (You said that robots would have overrun Earth by now.) But what in the world would they need worlds for? There is plenty of matter around without having to deal with planetary gravity wells and atmospheres.


Not really, at least not in interstellar space. Robots would need to get close to stars for energy. I agree it would make more sense to harvest asteroids than planets, but that harvesting would be easily detectable.

950. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78596 by steve99 on October 13, 2007 at 5:41 pm

5. Failing to consider the real possibility that you might be missing a screw is bad.


Bingo!

Dianelos:
The way God objectively is, is our model of what is objectively good.


If you will excuse the copied style (I think it is appropriate):

1. Dianelos has a model of what is objectively good. (premise)
2. This model defines an objective God. (premise)
3. Dianelos' idea of what is objectively good is not the same as large number of religious believers (fact).
4. Dianelos believes in only one God (premise)
5. God defines what is good (premise)

This leads to some troubling conclusions:

Given 1,2,3 and 4:

6. Dianelos believes he can personally define the nature of the one true God (as his definition of goodness does not match that of 90% of believers).

From 5 and 7:

7. Dianelos believes he can personally define the nature of goodness (as his definition of goodness does not match that of 90% of believers).

Sounds like a bit of a messianic complex, doesn't it?

Add the following:

8. There is nothing physical, God defines objective reality, and can fiddle with our experiences.

Then given 6 and 8, one can only conclude Dianelos thinks we are living in a supernatural Matrix, and he really, really wants to be Neo. Anything that interferes with this belief is hand-waved away as 'absurd', or simply ignored.

He is an intellectual fraud, and my patience has run out.

More Pages: Previous | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 | Next